There's a 99A on the 3rd pic though.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
I found a recent article with a lot of surprising news：
The performance of the 99A tank has been exaggerated by military enthusiasts.
Limited by my English level, I cannot provide more detailed translation.But I chose some interesting details.
——During the review troops, a command tank led the phalanx，and other tanks did not use camouflage antennas as a distinction.
——The 99A's artillery-launched missiles has just begun to be equipped in 2021，and only 99A uses artillery-launched missiles.
——The power of phase III ammunition can not cause effective damage to tanks of leopard 2a5, m1a2sepv3, t-80bvm and t-90m.The reason is that the automatic loader severely limits the power of the projectile.But it can destroy tanks such as leopard 2a4, M1A2, Challenger 2, t-72b and t-80bv.It has probability to threaten tanks such as m1a2sepv2, K2, t-80u, T-90A and t-72b3.
——The reason for the unsatisfactory performance of tanks is due to the old design and immature technology，the war with the main enemy will be naval and air war, and there will be no large-scale tank war.
——The 99A is equipped with additional armor on the top, but its defense is not so exaggerated.
Because my ability and time are limited, I can not provide more translations.Only the first half of this article has been written so far，the deficiency of 99A in power and protection has not been mentioned.
The performance of the 99A tank has been exaggerated by military enthusiasts.
Limited by my English level, I cannot provide more detailed translation.But I chose some interesting details.
——During the review troops, a command tank led the phalanx，and other tanks did not use camouflage antennas as a distinction.
——The 99A's artillery-launched missiles has just begun to be equipped in 2021，and only 99A uses artillery-launched missiles.
——The power of phase III ammunition can not cause effective damage to tanks of leopard 2a5, m1a2sepv3, t-80bvm and t-90m.The reason is that the automatic loader severely limits the power of the projectile.But it can destroy tanks such as leopard 2a4, M1A2, Challenger 2, t-72b and t-80bv.It has probability to threaten tanks such as m1a2sepv2, K2, t-80u, T-90A and t-72b3.
——The reason for the unsatisfactory performance of tanks is due to the old design and immature technology，the war with the main enemy will be naval and air war, and there will be no large-scale tank war.
——The 99A is equipped with additional armor on the top, but its defense is not so exaggerated.
Because my ability and time are limited, I can not provide more translations.Only the first half of this article has been written so far，the deficiency of 99A in power and protection has not been mentioned.
Try using .
Very weird article because T-72, T-80, and T-90 regardless of what variants (except T-90M types) are nowhere close to M1A2, Challenger 2 or even Leopard 2A4 levels of protection and yet they consider several 40 to 50 tonne range T-72 variants and T-80 variants as superior in protection to M1A2 and Challenger 2. Um... no.
What it gets right in my opinion is that PLA hasn't been spending funds on tanks except for the usual stuff like numbers, training etc. They haven't been investing in tanks for decades and 98, 99, 99A are all patches and electronic upgrades along with mechanical upgrades but not really comparable to western MBTs (or Eastern MBTs like Type 10 and K2) in firepower or protection. Okay 99A gets frontal protection well by pure brute forcing it with extremely thick (for Soviet/Chinese tank doctrine) armour then adding further layer of wedge modular armour and a layer of modern ERA on top. This is like twice T-90M's frontal but all those nearly 10 tonnes of extra weight emphasized just for that frontal engagement, sparing close to no additional armour for sides... just like 96, 96A, 98, 99. Well I guess PLA doesn't plan on using tanks where they'd get flanked like that and I'm inclined to think they are mostly correct. It's simply not worth the weight and cost. Indeed naval and air are priorities for PLA... space, cyber, electromagnetic etc of course also but firepower and targeting from those domains all fall under air and naval I suppose.
What else it gets right is the weak firepower of Soviet, Russian, and Chinese tanks that make use of this particular type of autoloader design. It is quite limiting. When PLA commissioned the Type 15 light tank (its most modern tank) notice how they stood well clear of this old carousel autoloader design. I have doubts the 99A can defeat M1A2 and Challenger 2 in pure frontal at longer distances. I have stronger doubts any cuurent NATO MBT can destroy 99A in pure frontal at longer distances. But these days, pure tank vs tank is a bit of a silly and unlikely scenario. Let's just say NATO MBTs balance their 60T of weight with some attempt at providing side protection. 99A puts all 55+ tonnes of weight with only focus on frontal protection. 99A also makes use of ERA and actually pretty decent hull down type engagement geometry (not considering side concerns of course lol). If the armour technology is even comparably decent on 99A, then pure frontal protection may be superior to NATO MBTs because it has many, many tonnes more armour up front... and a modular layer... and then an ERA layer that NATO MBTs don't typically employ. Firepower though is just lacking because of that ammo + propellant limitation due to carousel autoloader. PLA hasn't bothered to replace 99 series MBTs partly because of funding going to other services and partly because, like the article claims, isn't necessary or where the domain of future wars will require resources and technological investment and competence.
TLDR: I doubt 99A can destroy some of the tanks they listed as "can be defeated by 99a" and very much doubt that 99A can't destroy some of the tanks listed as "can't be defeated by 99A"... like T-80BVM?? really? okay sure. T-72xyz? now you're taking the piss... meanwhile 99A can destroy Challenger 2? Is this like engaging the Russian types at 3km only frontal and mission kills don't count whereas it's engaging M1A2s and Leopard 2A4s from the side only? Confounding.
Article seems to be full of shit but I only read the summary posted. The 99A's pure frontal angles have superior protection but sides are considerably weaker to the point any shot to the side in fact 30 degrees at most would easily penetrate. 99A's firepower is weaker and the gun is inferior as it is so limited by the autoloader and two piece ammo.
What it gets right in my opinion is that PLA hasn't been spending funds on tanks except for the usual stuff like numbers, training etc. They haven't been investing in tanks for decades and 98, 99, 99A are all patches and electronic upgrades along with mechanical upgrades but not really comparable to western MBTs (or Eastern MBTs like Type 10 and K2) in firepower or protection. Okay 99A gets frontal protection well by pure brute forcing it with extremely thick (for Soviet/Chinese tank doctrine) armour then adding further layer of wedge modular armour and a layer of modern ERA on top. This is like twice T-90M's frontal but all those nearly 10 tonnes of extra weight emphasized just for that frontal engagement, sparing close to no additional armour for sides... just like 96, 96A, 98, 99. Well I guess PLA doesn't plan on using tanks where they'd get flanked like that and I'm inclined to think they are mostly correct. It's simply not worth the weight and cost. Indeed naval and air are priorities for PLA... space, cyber, electromagnetic etc of course also but firepower and targeting from those domains all fall under air and naval I suppose.
What else it gets right is the weak firepower of Soviet, Russian, and Chinese tanks that make use of this particular type of autoloader design. It is quite limiting. When PLA commissioned the Type 15 light tank (its most modern tank) notice how they stood well clear of this old carousel autoloader design. I have doubts the 99A can defeat M1A2 and Challenger 2 in pure frontal at longer distances. I have stronger doubts any cuurent NATO MBT can destroy 99A in pure frontal at longer distances. But these days, pure tank vs tank is a bit of a silly and unlikely scenario. Let's just say NATO MBTs balance their 60T of weight with some attempt at providing side protection. 99A puts all 55+ tonnes of weight with only focus on frontal protection. 99A also makes use of ERA and actually pretty decent hull down type engagement geometry (not considering side concerns of course lol). If the armour technology is even comparably decent on 99A, then pure frontal protection may be superior to NATO MBTs because it has many, many tonnes more armour up front... and a modular layer... and then an ERA layer that NATO MBTs don't typically employ. Firepower though is just lacking because of that ammo + propellant limitation due to carousel autoloader. PLA hasn't bothered to replace 99 series MBTs partly because of funding going to other services and partly because, like the article claims, isn't necessary or where the domain of future wars will require resources and technological investment and competence.
TLDR: I doubt 99A can destroy some of the tanks they listed as "can be defeated by 99a" and very much doubt that 99A can't destroy some of the tanks listed as "can't be defeated by 99A"... like T-80BVM?? really? okay sure. T-72xyz? now you're taking the piss... meanwhile 99A can destroy Challenger 2? Is this like engaging the Russian types at 3km only frontal and mission kills don't count whereas it's engaging M1A2s and Leopard 2A4s from the side only? Confounding.
Article seems to be full of shit but I only read the summary posted. The 99A's pure frontal angles have superior protection but sides are considerably weaker to the point any shot to the side in fact 30 degrees at most would easily penetrate. 99A's firepower is weaker and the gun is inferior as it is so limited by the autoloader and two piece ammo.
Last edited:
Original author's classification criteria: Reactive armour classification based on Soviet/Russian product development, default strikes main turret armour, no weak zones considered. Also the author considers contact-5 to be very effective.
China has advanced fire control, thermal sensor, and engine technology. It is a matter of making a new tank platform and developing the gun for it.
China has the engines they use in the Type 99 and Type 15. The Type 99 has a 1500 hp engine. And the Type 15 engine if upgraded from a V8 to a V12 would have 1350 hp.
A heavy tank platform as is would only make sense in a confrontation against South Korea or India. Even against India such an offensive would be hard to pull off. Most of the terrain is too mountainous for tank warfare. I think China would be better served with a tank similar to the Japanese Type 10 than the South Korean K2.
China has the engines they use in the Type 99 and Type 15. The Type 99 has a 1500 hp engine. And the Type 15 engine if upgraded from a V8 to a V12 would have 1350 hp.
A heavy tank platform as is would only make sense in a confrontation against South Korea or India. Even against India such an offensive would be hard to pull off. Most of the terrain is too mountainous for tank warfare. I think China would be better served with a tank similar to the Japanese Type 10 than the South Korean K2.
Last edited:
China has advanced thermal sensor, but not on 99A. 1500hp engine is good, but the weight of 99A is limited by other factors.
The author of this article had posted and forwarded many documents about the armor and ammunition test of these tanks.
