New Type98/99 MBT thread

[polati]

Modern top down attack munitions like HJ12 go through the roof and kill everyone inside the tank, while even older stuff like HJ8 have absurd penetration and will cook the crew the moment it enters. The only way to stop them is thicker armor and aps. There is no scenario where a heavy weapon will penetrate and not wreck the tank.

...the two tanks simply don't have comparable service histories at all?

How many Type 59Gs cooked off and how many Leopard 2A4s cooked off? That would not be a fair question because the Leopard 2A4 has seen way more difficult conditions.

The couple of times when Abrams went up against anything better than RPG-7, results ranged from terrible if it was hit anywhere except the front, to okay, if the hits were frontal. Look at the massacre of Iraqi tanks vs ISIS.

The way the new PLA tank looks, it doesn't look like the turret has room for an autoloader, unless all the images were taken from very deceptive angles.

Future ammo is also just hypotheticals, clearly the design of the new tank shows that the carousel design is continued to be favored for heavy tanks for a good reason.

1. yeah we have APS for a reason, that's to prevent stuff like HJ12s from destroying the tank. What's the downsides of having the ammo seperated from the rest of the tank?

2. They don't. But look at the ratio of catastrophic kills, the T-72 / leopard is clearly higher than that of the abrams, due to the blowout panels in the turret bustle.

3. any inexperienced tank crew using terrible tactics without combined arms would do just as bad against anything better than an rpg-7. What's more striking is how the T-72s fared even worse against anything better than an rpg-7.

4. Well, if they continue to use the carousel style autoloaders, they're gonna be limited in the types of munitions they can use and their rounds will always be weaker than those used in turret bustles due to length restrictions of the kinetic penetrator.
And turrets will continue to go pop, rendering tanks catastrophically destroyed just as easily as t-72s. The reload will also be longer, as the shell has to be lifted and rotated, instead of simply pushed in. Space is also sacrificed. By making the turret longer you can obviously fit more in the chassis.

 

[Biscuits]

1. yeah we have APS for a reason, that's to prevent stuff like HJ12s from destroying the tank. What's the downsides of having the ammo seperated from the rest of the tank?

2. They don't. But look at the ratio of catastrophic kills, the T-72 / leopard is clearly higher than that of the abrams, due to the blowout panels in the turret bustle.

3. any inexperienced tank crew using terrible tactics without combined arms would do just as bad against anything better than an rpg-7. What's more striking is how the T-72s fared even worse against anything better than an rpg-7.

4. Well, if they continue to use the carousel style autoloaders, they're gonna be limited in the types of munitions they can use and their rounds will always be weaker than those used in turret bustles due to length restrictions of the kinetic penetrator.
And turrets will continue to go pop, rendering tanks catastrophically destroyed just as easily as t-72s. The reload will also be longer, as the shell has to be lifted and rotated, instead of simply pushed in. Space is also sacrificed. By making the turret longer you can obviously fit more in the chassis.

There has simply not been many Abrams that have been fired at in anger by well armed and competent forces.

Wdym by "even worse", it's basically just equally worse. The crew and the tank became irrecoverable.

A T72 would shrug off a RPG7 to the turret cheek as well, except it wouldn't activate the blowout panels and destroy it's ammo, because the ammo is stored lower in the hull where it is more armored.

Catastrophic hull penetration would kill the crew in all cases except those where there's an armored capsule.

Not having the tank become incapacitated by glancing damage to the turret sides is a pretty huge advantage, and a good reason why Chinese designers chose this type of design.

There are indeed offensive advantages such as increased loading speed and that the hull can be made smaller without the constraint of having to fit sufficiently long shells inside. But I feel like the Type 15 is an exception to the rule because it's smaller and not designed for tank vs tank battles.

With an internal armored capsule, the crew will survive even if the autoloader is directly destroyed, as long as the projectile doesn't go through the capsule as well. Keep in mind, it takes very high penetration to get through the hull as opposed to the turret back/sides.

 

[gelgoog]

Bustle autoloaders provide an easy way to implement blowout panels, which allow the tank to survive an ammo hit with minimal damage.

Minimal damage my foot. If the ammo is detonated it is basically a mission kill of the vehicle and quite likely the tank will have to be written off. It does mean increased crew survivability though, which is what matters.

 

[Builder]

I thought Type 99A tank has newer munitions with insensitive propellants?

 

[polati]

The single improvement of a carousel autoloader I could find is just the location, which is further down the tank. But in this day and age top attack munitions and improved precision really make this an insignificant improvement. Just like how the T-72 was designed to be less vulnerable due to its smaller size, yet still does poorly on the battlefield because it has sacrificed numerous other aspects to achieve that small size. Yes you are 3% less vulnerable to being ammo racked.
But you are also risking catastrophic destruction, a lack of ability to upgrade newer ammunition, longer reload times, and less overall space.

There has simply not been many Abrams that have been fired at in anger by well armed and competent forces.

Wdym by "even worse", it's basically just equally worse. The crew and the tank became irrecoverable.

A T72 would shrug off a RPG7 to the turret cheek as well, except it wouldn't activate the blowout panels and destroy it's ammo, because the ammo is stored lower in the hull where it is more armored.

Catastrophic hull penetration would kill the crew in all cases except those where there's an armored capsule.

Not having the tank become incapacitated by glancing damage to the turret sides is a pretty huge advantage, and a good reason why Chinese designers chose this type of design.

There are indeed offensive advantages such as increased loading speed and that the hull can be made smaller without the constraint of having to fit sufficiently long shells inside. But I feel like the Type 15 is an exception to the rule because it's smaller and not designed for tank vs tank battles.

With an internal armored capsule, the crew will survive even if the autoloader is directly destroyed, as long as the projectile doesn't go through the capsule as well. Keep in mind, it takes very high penetration to get through the hull as opposed to the turret back/sides.

I really don't understand the logic that you guys are trying to make. How is a glancing blow going to be any different with a bustle autoloader? It's not like you're only going to put 10mm of RHA there, that would be stupid. A glancing blow to the turret is likely better than a glancing blow to the chassis as the turret sides should be better protected.

And of course it's even worse. Would you rather have a DEAD crew or an alive crew huh? And would you want a MISSION kill or a CATASTROPHIC kill? Obviously the turret bustle autoloader wins here. Crew is alive, mission killed, instead of crew is dead, catastrophically vaporized.

I also don't think you understand how HEAT projectiles work. Going through the turret cheek and through 1m of air isn't going to cause the ammo to ignite. The blowout panel also isn't made of thin aluminium. It simply needs a small opening and the rest can be made of composite armor as thick as you need it to be.

And yes with an armored capsule the crew survives either way. But your turret still goes POP instead of simply having the ammo rack be burnt out. It's still a K kill and not a mission kill. You're not going to recover that tank when the whole chassis is blown out and just the armored capsule remains, but you WILL recover that tank if just the ammo rack is burnt out.

Your argument with the Type 15 is irrelevant, because with newer and newer high performance ammunition you are going to need a turret bustle autoloader anyways. Tanks simply can't be made substantially wider.

Turret Bustle explosion?
You can drive back with your crew intact, your gun/sensitive electronics intact, obviously your turret rear is burnt out but it can be replaced.

Carousel autoloader explosion?
Your crew is left in a wrangled armored capsule with the rest of the tank in smithereens, unable to do anything, the tank is completely written off.

 

[TK3600]

The single improvement of a carousel autoloader I could find is just the location, which is further down the tank. But in this day and age top attack munitions and improved precision really make this an insignificant improvement. Just like how the T-72 was designed to be less vulnerable due to its smaller size, yet still does poorly on the battlefield because it has sacrificed numerous other aspects to achieve that small size. Yes you are 3% less vulnerable to being ammo racked.
But you are also risking catastrophic destruction, a lack of ability to upgrade newer ammunition, longer reload times, and less overall space.


I really don't understand the logic that you guys are trying to make. How is a glancing blow going to be any different with a bustle autoloader? It's not like you're only going to put 10mm of RHA there, that would be stupid. A glancing blow to the turret is likely better than a glancing blow to the chassis as the turret sides should be better protected.

And of course it's even worse. Would you rather have a DEAD crew or an alive crew huh? And would you want a MISSION kill or a CATASTROPHIC kill? Obviously the turret bustle autoloader wins here. Crew is alive, mission killed, instead of crew is dead, catastrophically vaporized.

I also don't think you understand how HEAT projectiles work. Going through the turret cheek and through 1m of air isn't going to cause the ammo to ignite. The blowout panel also isn't made of thin aluminium. It simply needs a small opening and the rest can be made of composite armor as thick as you need it to be.

And yes with an armored capsule the crew survives either way. But your turret still goes POP instead of simply having the ammo rack be burnt out. It's still a K kill and not a mission kill. You're not going to recover that tank when the whole chassis is blown out and just the armored capsule remains, but you WILL recover that tank if just the ammo rack is burnt out.

Your argument with the Type 15 is irrelevant, because with newer and newer high performance ammunition you are going to need a turret bustle autoloader anyways. Tanks simply can't be made substantially wider.

Turret Bustle explosion?
You can drive back with your crew intact, your gun/sensitive electronics intact, obviously your turret rear is burnt out but it can be replaced.

Carousel autoloader explosion?
Your crew is left in a wrangled armored capsule with the rest of the tank in smithereens, unable to do anything, the tank is completely written off.

You talk as if Abrams survive a hull shot better. Any tank getting hull penetration is scrapped regardless of reload design.

 

[polati]

You talk as if Abrams survive a hull shot better. Any tank getting hull penetration is scrapped regardless of reload design.

By an APFSDS? yeah. Not by an rpg or any lighter HEAT rounds. Doesn't invalidate my argument in any way. The point of the turret bustle autoloader is to both enable faster reloads, longer shell designs, whilst keeping damage to a minimum and crew safety to a maximum in the event of an ammo detonation. It does not in any way reduce hull penetration damage. But in what ways is a carousel autoloader better? I don't see any points being made as to a single characteristic of why it is better.

 

[TK3600]

By an APFSDS? yeah. Not by an rpg or any lighter HEAT rounds. Doesn't invalidate my argument in any way. The point of the turret bustle autoloader is to both enable faster reloads, longer shell designs, whilst keeping damage to a minimum and crew safety to a maximum in the event of an ammo detonation. It does not in any way reduce hull penetration damage. But in what ways is a carousel autoloader better? I don't see any points being made as to a single characteristic of why it is better.

It avoids ammo detonation in first place. If a shot go through hull of any tank it is done for, therefore putting it in hull makes sense. Bustle loader improves rate of fire and length of shell allowed, but sacrifices protection by making tanks ammo rack exposed. It will also hold much less ammo. I reject the claim putting ammo in turret is actually safer. It makes turret penetration riskier, and no difference in case of hull penetration.

 

[CrazyHorse]

It avoids ammo detonation in first place. If a shot go through hull of any tank it is done for, therefore putting it in hull makes sense. Bustle loader improves rate of fire and length of shell allowed, but sacrifices protection by making tanks ammo rack exposed. It will also hold much less ammo. I reject the claim putting ammo in turret is actually safer. It makes turret penetration riskier, and no difference in case of hull penetration.

Well I’m seen a shit ton of videos showing tank turrets going to space, while most videos of the abrams getting hit results in a cook off that the crew survives. Carousel auto loaders are worse than bustle, which is why no new design using that design. Its only benefit is how compact it is. The worst part is the ammo length issue, which so why all modern Russian rounds can’t compete with the newest American APFSDS projectiles using publicly available info. Also, a hull impact doesn’t mean that the entire crew is dead. It wasn’t true in WW2 (when most AP shells were massive full size projectiles) and it isn’t true today.

 

[TK3600]

Well I’m seen a shit ton of videos showing tank turrets going to space, while most videos of the abrams getting hit results in a cook off that the crew survives. Carousel auto loaders are worse than bustle, which is why no new design using that design. Its only benefit is how compact it is. The worst part is the ammo length issue, which so why all modern Russian rounds can’t compete with the newest American APFSDS projectiles using publicly available info. Also, a hull impact doesn’t mean that the entire crew is dead. It wasn’t true in WW2 (when most AP shells were massive full size projectiles) and it isn’t true today.

Then prove it with statistics. Proves Abrams survives hull shot better than T-72. Ammo rack explosion after the crew bail do not count. If anything Iraq showed their Abrams blows up all the same.