New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Atomicfrog]

With bustle it's only the turret that got busted, the chassis is salvageable. A cookoff of the hull with a carroussel is clearly the end of the whole thing. But a bustle make a bigger silhouette.

With an uncrewed turrets and shielded crew compartments carroussel or bustle don't change the crew survivability but still change the tank survivability after a hit. A direct hit is probably a mission kill in both situation anyway.

Autoloader and uncrewed turret is probably the future anyway and it's way easier to transform the tank into an uncrewed system.

 

[Biscuits]

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.

There aren't even that many videos of Abrams being hit, because they are largely speaking not tanks that have entered into high intensity conflict. An old rocket like rpg7 or 29 is what causes those cook offs where the crew survives, which has also been seen to happen against even older Russian tanks, let alone T90 series.

T14, T99A uses carousel and most likely this new tank as well. So it's incorrect that they're not on cutting edge designs.

T72 derivatives are smaller than Chinese tanks and the Armata. They also have shorter guns. Even so, insufficient penetration was never a signficant issue for them. Rather, their biggest issue is that they are nearly not capable of reversing (4km/hr), which becomes crippling in many situations.

The bigger (55-65ton class) size should allow any munition the tank is planned to have to be comfortably fitted in the autoloader. Obviously Chinese designers look at the enemy approximate protection values, figure out how long the shell needs to be and only after that designs the gun.

Your argument about penetrator length only really makes sense with the Type 15, but that thing is even 1 size below T72.

 

[CrazyHorse]

There aren't even that many videos of Abrams being hit, because they are largely speaking not tanks that have entered into high intensity conflict. An old rocket like rpg7 or 29 is what causes those cook offs where the crew survives, which has also been seen to happen against even older Russian tanks, let alone T90 series.

T14, T99A uses carousel and most likely this new tank as well. So it's incorrect that they're not on cutting edge designs.

T72 derivatives are smaller than Chinese tanks and the Armata. They also have shorter guns. Even so, insufficient penetration was never a signficant issue for them. Rather, their biggest issue is that they are nearly not capable of reversing (4km/hr), which becomes crippling in many situations.

The bigger (55-65ton class) size should allow any munition the tank is planned to have to be comfortably fitted in the autoloader. Obviously Chinese designers look at the enemy approximate protection values, figure out how long the shell needs to be and only after that designs the gun.

Your argument about penetrator length only really makes sense with the Type 15, but that thing is even 1 size below T72.

Is it not common knowledge that the Soviet design limits the length of the penetrator? Russian tanks need completely new auto loading systems to deal with 3bm22 and 3bm23.

 

[Biscuits]

Is it not common knowledge that the Soviet design limits the length of the penetrator? Russian tanks need completely new auto loading systems to deal with 3bm22 and 3bm23.

I don't recall insufficient pen has ever been a issue with T90 series. And the basic T72 is bad in the same way the basic Leopard 2 is bad. It's just way too dated. But what makes it even worse is that it can't reverse. Well, neither can the T90, but it's way better protected and has the gun firepower to stay on range.

Non soviet designs like Type 99A and T14 are a fair bit bigger than T90M, so it's fair to assume whatever doesn't limit the T90 even more doesn't limit them.

However, penetrator length might have been a real concern for light tanks, hence why China (and Japan) implemented the bustle autoloader.

 

[gelgoog]

The issue with the reverse speed in the T-72 is the transmission. It only has one reverse gear and they went for higher traction and lower speed. Supposedly so the tank can pull other vehicles more easily and conscripts cannot just smash the tank into things blindly.
I have heard conflicting reports that the tanks with the V92S2 engine and automated transmission, like the T-72B3 and T-90, can travel faster on reverse than the 4 km/h in a plain T-72. But I have also heard the reverse speed is the same. So who knows.

 

[DeXM]

The only video ov T-90M's reversing and it looks like a bit faster than 4 kp/h, judging at engine revs which sound is low, so it probably may go even faster

 

[HighGround]

From what I've heard, it's not the ammo carousel that blows up. It's actually the ammo that's inside the tank.



You see how the bustle is low to the ground? It's very hard to hit it actually. In the T-90M it's even protected with Aramid. The reason why Russian tanks blow up is because the extra ammo is often kept inside the tank, and outside of the carousel bustle. In the T-90M, this ammo is stored in a new bustle that's outside of the tank.



So it all comes down to poor organization and discipline. Well-trained crews are unlikely to experience a catastrophic explosion.

The issue with the reverse speed in the T-72 is the transmission. It only has one reverse gear and they went for higher traction and lower speed. Supposedly so the tank can pull other vehicles more easily and conscripts cannot just smash the tank into things blindly.
I have heard conflicting reports that the tanks with the V92S2 engine and automated transmission, like the T-72B3 and T-90, can travel faster on reverse than the 4 km/h in a plain T-72. But I have also heard the reverse speed is the same. So who knows.

All Russian T-72 tanks have shit reverse speed. They also can neutral steer.

This is a design choice, there are T-72 variants that can do both, but Russia has decided not to invest into this capability. Aside from the reverse speed, the Russian MoD has been vindicated by a lot of these decisions. Not APS, crap transmission, but lots of tanks.

IMO, even if Russia had the best tanks in the world like the Leopard A7 or the M1A2 Sep v3, they still would've suffered horrendous losses just from the way they treated this operation in the first month. The problem wasn't the tank. It was the way Russia approached this op.

 

[HighGround]

Just as an addendum, above I said, "They also can neutral steer."

That's a typo. I meant to say that T-72 variants cannot neutral steer.

 

[sheogorath]

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.

Smaller size also allows equal level of protection for the given volume compared to western tanks.

 

[Biscuits]

From what I've heard, it's not the ammo carousel that blows up. It's actually the ammo that's inside the tank.

View attachment 112972

You see how the bustle is low to the ground? It's very hard to hit it actually. In the T-90M it's even protected with Aramid. The reason why Russian tanks blow up is because the extra ammo is often kept inside the tank, and outside of the carousel bustle. In the T-90M, this ammo is stored in a new bustle that's outside of the tank.

View attachment 112973

So it all comes down to poor organization and discipline. Well-trained crews are unlikely to experience a catastrophic explosion.


All Russian T-72 tanks have shit reverse speed. They also can neutral steer.

This is a design choice, there are T-72 variants that can do both, but Russia has decided not to invest into this capability. Aside from the reverse speed, the Russian MoD has been vindicated by a lot of these decisions. Not APS, crap transmission, but lots of tanks.

IMO, even if Russia had the best tanks in the world like the Leopard A7 or the M1A2 Sep v3, they still would've suffered horrendous losses just from the way they treated this operation in the first month. The problem wasn't the tank. It was the way Russia approached this op.

Until you've seen the leopard A7 or the M1A2 in high intensity conflict, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about how they would perform, but given that what limited previews we have been shown in the middle east, they're fairly prone to explode even vs infantry.

To be fair, there's also no evidence the T99A would fare better, it's also a tank that has never been in high intensity conflict.