Yes, I can see the depth difference. If those tiles/boxes are ERA, then it's got poor coverage. The hatches are not protected. What's even more confusing is that they give up ERA coverage that would make the top look cleaner and more protected for a hammer???
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Yes, I can see the depth difference. If those tiles/boxes are ERA, then it's got poor coverage. The hatches are not protected. What's even more confusing is that they give up ERA coverage that would make the top look cleaner and more protected for a hammer???
Not top attack missiles, but top attack cluster munitions. Those parachuted munitions that can easily take out a company of tanks with a single air drop or something?
Those can be countered easily by era. It doesnt have tandem warhead.
Yes, that is what I am trying to verify. Is it almost certain that the tiles on top of 99A are ERA, and, if so, why the hell would they carve out an area and put a hammer in it, can't they put it inside the tank???
I don’t think it’s ERA on top of the tank.
That said. Are you sure that the presentation you watched said that 99A can resist a top attack missile, as in resisting the hit with its armor? Or defeat it through other means, such as with smoke and laser jamming?
I doubt that any tank can survive a top attack missile if it lands…
That hammer might have been left there by the tank crew for whatever reason.
In the video of post #3533 above, I do not see the 99A tank (at 4:09 and 8:10) having a hammer at the same place. By the way, that 99A's torret top looks slightly different:
by78
General
Please re-read InfamousMeow's comment. He said top attack cluster munitions, as in bomblets, not ATGMs.
by78
General
It might not be reactive armor modules. The designer of Type-99 indicated that the add-on modules for Type-99 are neither active nor passive reactive armor; they are something else entirely.
by78
General
The hatches are protected with add-on modules. Although in that particular screenshot, it appears the commander's hatch is missing the added protection. This is strange, because previous images clearly show that it's also covered with a thick armor module. For some reason this particular tank doesn't have it.
by78
General
I posted a summary and translation of the lecture/presentation given by Mr. Mao Ming (毛明), who is the chief designer of the Type-99. User @jobjed made some very useful corrections, clarifications, and additional comments to my translation, which you should also read.
My original post:
Take this with a grain of salt.
This is an account of an alleged lecture given by the chief designer of Type-99a, Mr. Mao Ming (毛明). The context of the lecture (where, when, and to whom) is not known. It's not entirely clear that the lecturer in the photos is Mr. Mao Ming himself, given the poor lighting.
Certain claims made are suspect and surprising to me, and most specifications have been redacted by the poster.
The original link to the post is . The CJDBY thread on the lecture is .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original summary of the lecture in Chinese:
1、替代ZBD05的新一代两栖战车基本搞定，水上速度50KM/H。
2、99A配备弹种里有攻坚弹，考虑的是对台军事斗争准备。
3、装备的炮射导弹对武装直升机有较大威胁。
4、顶部防御XXX毫米RHA，免疫所有现役末敏弹。正面抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA，能在正常交战距离上防御所有现役坦克和反坦克导弹。
5、火控观瞄方面，猎歼、车长周视热像、稳像、自动校炮、毫米波雷达、自动选弹等等，总之该有的全有。
6、发动机各项指标全面超越MTU同类产品，发动机寿命500小时VSMTU的近千小时略有不足，但完全满足我军实际使用需要。
7、99A产量已超过99。
8、99B在研，作为特化地域攻坚和城市战的型号，主要考虑的是一带一路铺开之后的军事需求。
9、T-14阿玛塔和日本的TK10式是什么垃圾！
10、没有考虑过升级口径，130/140/152都没有考虑过，因为对火力有绝对自信，目前炮口动能能达到1XMJ，很快能达到接近20MJ，对近期可能升级的对手毫无压力。
——————更新的分割线——————
看了大家的回复，补充一些内容吧。
1、关于T-14和10式是垃圾：
毛明总师的原话:
“T-14说是要提升人员生存，把乘员全部塞到车身里搞了个无人炮塔，但全车高达2.8米，搞得高高大大的，反而极大影响了生存能力。” “我们正常的坦克发动机是V型的，T-14的坦克发动机是X型的，就导致了车高根本控制不住。” “我们的99A、美国M1A2SEP和日本的TK10式都声称能够接入数字化机步师体系作战，但是现在世界上只有美国和我们搞了数字化机步师，美国最先，我们是第二家……” “日本的TK10式啊，你们可能很少看到，因为可靠性太差了，动不动就掉履带。” “T-14说是用了很多创新设计，但是无论是火力防护还是机动都不怎么样，不足为虑。”
2、关于防御，用词是这样的，大家自己琢磨：
“防御能力，抗穿7XX毫米RHA、抗破1XXX毫米RHA以上”
“我们拿能打穿一米二钢板的反坦克导弹做过试验，根本打不穿。”
“抗破肯定远超一米二，不过还达不到两米。我们今年最新定型的反坦克导弹，破甲深度就有两米，这个99A还是防不住的。”
3、不用等原版了。现场不知道哪个臭小子拍了视频上网流传，现在有人满世界在找他去喝茶。我也拍了照片但想了想还是不发了。
另外，本内容为删减版，如果你觉得这样就算红裤衩那就太年轻了。
关于装甲防御机理/新弹芯材质/火炮精度等内容，因为可能会被喝茶，就不放了，比现在放出来的内容更刺激。
再有就是，我以前对附加装甲是NERA的猜测是错的，实际情况比我猜的刺激一百倍，在这里跟大家道歉
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My translation (with my annotations and comments enclosed in parentheses):
Began translation:
1. The replacement of the ZBD05 amphibious IFV will have a waterborne speed of 50km/hour (31.07mph).
2. Type-99A is equipped with 攻坚弹 (anti-reinforced-concrete/bunker busting round?), specifically for the invasion of Taiwan.
3. Type-99a is equipped with gun-launched anti-air missiles against helicopters.
4. Type-99a's protection against top-attack munitions is xxx mm (triple-digit mm) RHA, which is immune to all existing top-attack bomblets. Frontal protection against "穿" (penetration?) is 7xx mm (700+ mm) RHA, and against "破" (broken/shatter?) is 1xxx mm (1000+ mm) RHA, good enough to defeat all existing anti-tank rounds and anti-tank missiles at combat distance. (I'm not entirely sure about the technical difference between "抗穿" and "抗破". Could please someone help me with this?).
5. Type-99a is quipped with all the usual features: advanced fire-control, hunter-killer capability, commander's stabilized sights with thermal imaging, automatic/integrated bore-sighting device, milli-wave ballistic radar, automatic ammo-selection, etc.
6. Performance parameters of Type-99a's powerpack surpasses German MTU and equivalents, however the lifespan of the engine is 500 hours (?!) vs 1000 hours (?!) of the MTU, but still good enough to meet our practical needs. (Are those typos? 500 and 1000 hours are way too short.)
7. Type-99a has been produced in greater numbers than its predecessor, the Type-99.
8. Work has begun on the Type-99B, which is tailored toward assaulting 'special fortified terrains/areas and urban warfare. The main consideration here is the possible future needs that might arise once China's One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR) project is finished. (Interesting...)
9. The Russian T-14 Armata and the Japanese Type-10 are "garbage" (Unsure if the word "garbage" was actually used by the lecturer or merely represents the poster's sentiment.)
10. We have not considered larger caliber guns, whether they be 130mm, 140mm, or 152mm in diameter. The reason is that we are confident of the firepower of our guns. We have already achieved muzzle energy of 1x mega-joules (10+ mega-joules) with our existing tank guns, and soon we will achieve close to 20 mega-joules.
Supplementary material (provided by the original poster) for clarification purposes:
1. On why T-14 and Type-10 tanks are "garbage":
According to Mr. Mao Ping, "the Russians claim that T-14 has improved crew protection due to its unmanned turret and a separate armored crew compartment, but they ended up with a very large hull, with a height of 2.8 meters. This very large hull size has compromised its survivability." "T-14's engine cylinders are arranged in an X-pattern, as opposed to the V-pattern of our own tank engines. This X-pattern has resulted in a higher center of gravity and compromised T-14's controllability (mobility and maneuverability?)." "Our Type-99a, the American M1A2SEP, and the Japanese Type-10 are all claimed to feature a digital battlefield management system that integrates armor elements with mechanized infantry, but only America and China have actually fielded fully-digitized infantry divisions. America is the first to have done it, and China is the second." (I think what is implied here is that Type-10's digital battlefield management system lacks the ability to communicate with the infantry because Japanese infantries have not been digitized. Only America and China have achieved an all-emcompassing digital battlefield management system that integrates all participants, including individual soldiers, into the system). "The Japanese Type-10 is rarely seen. This is because it has very poor reliability; the threads easily come off during maneuver." "As for T-14, despite its claimed innovations, its firepower, protection, and maneuverability are unimpressive; it's no worry for us."
2. Regarding the armor protection level (of Type-99a):
"We tested an anti-tank missile that can penetrate 1200mm RHA on the Type-99a, the armor held up." (The poster didn't specify the tested armored area. Was it the frontal turret armor? Glacis armor? Side armor? I think the area in question is likely the frontal turret armor.)
"Therefore, the protection level far exceeds 1200mm RHA, but is less than 2000mm RHA. Our newest anti-tank missile, whose design was frozen (certified?) this year, can penetrate 2000mm RHA. Type-99a cannot defend against this new missile."
3. Don't hold your breath on a full account of this lecture or any official confirmation (meaning the lecture was top-secret). Somebody else at the lecture took some pictures (I have shared them above) and posted them on the internet. The authorities are now looking for him. I took some photos as well, but after careful consideration, I will not share them.
Also, this summary is an abridged version of the lecture.
The lecture also covered other areas such as the mechanics (methods and laws?) of armor protection, a new penetrator material, and gun accuracy. These areas are more exciting than what I have shared with you here, but I won't reveal them because I don't want to be invited to tea (hauled in by the authorities).
One last thing, I thought the add-on armor modules of (Type-99a?) were NERA (non-energetic reactive armor). I was mistaken. The actual composition of the add-on modules is far more exciting, and I apologize for not revealing it here.
End translation