Despite the clear ammo issue creating the firepower disadvantage even when both lifted to 125mm and longer than L44 calibre, both Chinese and Russian tanks still have a gap in penetrative capability at longer ranges compared to those other modern MBTs, even in their higher end tanks - Type 99A and T-90M.
PLA didn't bother with a new tank. What they have with 96A and 99A along with the older versions of those tanks can do the desired job more than well enough. Resources are finite and there are dozens of more important military platforms to put resources into than MBTs... especially in this day and age. This isn't to say tanks are obsolete platforms but certainly the requirement has changed with shifting technology and how wars are waged. Russia for some reason invested into the next gen instead of their airforce and navy. Perhaps that was the correct call for them - strategic weapons and land war systems since land war is far more likely for Russia (considering Russia's military concerns between 1989 and 2022). China DOMINATES over every land neighbour. PLA is a major major force^major force. A Taiwan scenario also makes MBTs and even armoured vehicle systems far further down the important list than strategic weapons, navy, airforce and so on. Armoured vehicles need to be enough to fire their main weapons, move, and resist small arms fire to 30mm and maybe once in a while also larger guns. Far more likely to be facing ATGMs than anything else which makes any potential Taiwan scenario an infantry intensive question.
I don't see PLA hurrying a next gen tank. With Type 15, they have urban and extreme high altitude mobility issues covered, something they apparently wanted with the whole "what can come can't penetrate me and what can penetrate me can't come" sort of strategy behind that program. Overall, Type 99A represents to me something that can take the highest tank or missile dished punishment in pure frontal attacks (India doesn't use Javelin and Javelins actually can be defeated relatively easily by spaced armour, ERA, jamming/electronic means, and there's APS as well) that 96A and 99 against the latest and most capable threats may not be able to. The only reason to bother with a change to the 99 is really this, to improve the protection of 99 series basically with small modernisations and improvements in other areas but mainly to keep up to date with improving anti-tanking over the years. This shows me they are confident in 99A's protection improvement as that can be the only real purpose of developing that platform. More protection is allowable because the propulsion has been improved from <1000hp to 1200hp and then 1500hp for the 98 -> 99A.
Out of Russian tanks, T-90M and Proryv series are really the only ones that can be considered protected... not even well protected. If we consider frontal only, 99A certainly has superior protection unless whatever armour plates the Russians use is just that much better. So very much doubt this. Taking a look at the top of 99A and compare it with 90M. There's nearly 500mm of length difference (remember the 99A is a much larger than than 90M so you're not comparing proportions). Then remember that the forward wedge section of 90M is an empty frame mount like ztz-99 and Leo2A5+ whereas the 99A supposedly has (according to its designers) a modular armour section itself on top of the base armour. ERA on top of this is almost similar in overall performance - FY4 vs Relikt with the Russian one a generation ahead. But no ERA is going to compare with more than 5 tonnes and 500mm of modern armour.
Side armour is a bit of a difficult one. Most side shots angles = easy penetration to the point the rod could penetrate the other side and exit. Really a bit pointless but once you consider slightly angled frontal shots, T-90M has vastly superior protection compared to 99A. Even slight flanks expose the 99A to easy "side" kills even though they're really only slightly angled. It's a choice the PLA made consciously though. This way at least, the 99A can have a good chance withstanding the latest anti-tank rounds from pure frontal when the T-90M hasn't got a chance. And no I really don't think the T-90M has got a chance against latest and greatest anti-tank rounds... not much more than a 96A would... similar weights, similar base armour tech and thickness (actually 96A is thicker since again it places all its armour for pure frontal) and despite 96A having a much inferior ERA, it sort of balances out the fact that 96A has thicker and more armour for frontal shots than 90M.
