New Type98/99 MBT thread

[tankphobia]

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.

The ceiling of protected firepower should be Merkava, it has proven itself pretty much impervious to infantry based firepower due to the trophy APS system, even during high intensity urban operations.

 

[polati]

APS is important, however a good level of composite is still needed in the case of kinetic projectiles, we do not need to trade a small size for a poor level of composite protection in this day and age, like the T-72. Of course, something like the KF51s turret size is just absurd, however. I'm just hoping the turret will be adequately sized and shaped to provide both good composite and leave room for advanced ERA. APS --> ERA --> Composite seems like a good plan.

If it's definitely going to be a carousel autoloader I hope to god they redesign it adequately for a longer kinetic penetrator.
Perhaps, even it could be in the style of a bustle autoloader, where each round is laid parallel instead of a circular layout.
And also, add a blowout panel for it too.

 

[by78]

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.

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.

This is true. I have an acquitance who was a tank driver during the First Gulf War, and he confirms this. The carousel loaders are extremely difficult to hit, and he couldn't remember any cook-off event that was not attributable to poor ammo handling (i.e. rounds stored outside the carousel. This was apparently well known within the U.S. army at the time (from various after action reports) as well as word of mouth.

Although, I forgot to ask him where in T-72's tiny fighting compartment was extra space to store rounds outside the carousel.

 

[gongolongo]

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.

I think what people here are saying is that:
-US has not deployed the Abrams against a competent force with modern AT like what we see in Ukraine. It's easy to laugh at Russian tanks when no other tank has had to worry about all of these modern threats.
-Potentially, the bustle makes it easier to mission kill the tank because the ammo is in a much more exposed position.
-Potentially, autoloader bustles in modern tanks (like T-90M) are not as bad as we think. Seeing a bunch of videos is confirmation bias because Russia has lost over a thousand tanks and largely older ones. Look at T-90M losses in Ukraine, it only looks like maybe 1 had actuality cooked off after being penetrated out of the 15 they lost.

Basically, there is an argument for the modernized autoloader in that it is trading off slight crew safety for less chance of mission kill compared to the bustle. The argument that APS could just nullify all threats is not really concrete since it doesn't actually counter top attack IIRC and everyone has it. At the end of the day crew training is going to be more important than any of this.

 

[HighGround]

This is true. I have an acquitance who was a tank driver during the First Gulf War, and he confirms this. The carousel loaders are extremely difficult to hit, and he couldn't remember any cook-off event that was not attributable to poor ammo handling (i.e. rounds stored outside the carousel. This was apparently well known within the U.S. army at the time (from various after action reports) as well as word of mouth.

Although, I forgot to ask him where in T-72's tiny fighting compartment was extra space to store rounds outside the carousel.

I searched around to get a good image, and this reddit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

seems to provide some.




I don't know if you can tell, but according to the diagram, they are strewn literally all around the hull. It would actually be more difficult to not hit one of these extra rounds.

It's not wonder that the T-90M, has almost no blown up tanks in comparison.



This is much more sensible.

 

[BoraTas]

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.

Just losses related to the RPG stocks of Ukraine would be lower. Tank-vs-tank has been very rare anyway. All the side and rear hits we saw would still take out these tanks. So are munitions dropped by drones (all the way from small ones to the TB-2) and mines. To the Javelin there would be no differences between a T-72 and L2A7. The Abrams would fare much better compared to the Leopard because of the Trophy.

 

[gongolongo]

Just losses related to the RPG stocks of Ukraine would be lower. Tank-vs-tank has been very rare anyway. All the side and rear hits we saw would still take out these tanks. So are munitions dropped by drones (all the way from small ones to the TB-2) and mines. To the Javelin there would be no differences between a T-72 and L2A7. The Abrams would fare much better compared to the Leopard because of the Trophy.

I don't think Trophy counters top attack right?

 

[BoraTas]

I don't think Trophy counters top attack right?

According to Rafael it counters. Sensor and launcher configuration induces doubt though.

 

[gelgoog]

The Leopard 2 is still a 1970s era tank. It gets blown up by mines and artillery just as easily as any other. In fact, because it is so huge, it is much easier to hit than a T-72 derived tank. The M1 isn't any better, and has gotten regularly destroyed in Iraq, by insurgents using Soviet era ATGMs.
A lot of it is propaganda. These Western tanks might have had better sights and communications at one point but that ceased to be the case a long time ago.

I think it is quite telling that China copied the T-72 series and used it as a base for the Type 99 family. They could have designed any tank they wanted.

 

[Biscuits]

The Leopard 2 is still a 1970s era tank. It gets blown up by mines and artillery just as easily as any other. In fact, because it is so huge, it is much easier to hit than a T-72 derived tank. The M1 isn't any better, and has gotten regularly destroyed in Iraq, by insurgents using Soviet era ATGMs.
A lot of it is propaganda. These Western tanks might have had better sights and communications at one point but that ceased to be the case a long time ago.

I think it is quite telling that China copied the T-72 series and used it as a base for the Type 99 family. They could have designed any tank they wanted.

Similarities between the Type 99 and T72/90 ends pretty much in that they both have atgm capable autoloaders?

The 99 is a lot bigger and heavier. It lacks the drivetrain issue that restricts it to 4km in reverse which is one of the major weaknesses of the T72 platforms, which persist even up to the T90M. Supposedly, the 99's gun is heavily depressable as well unlike the Russian tanks. Obviously the drawback of Chinese tanks is also that they're heavier and a bigger target, although not as poorly armored and big as 80s western tanks.

Imo the Russian and Chinese tanks are only as superficially resembling as the Abrams or Leopard 2 is to the Japanese Type 90 or Korean K2. That is, some subsystems and compatibilities are shared, but the interior as well as exterior differs in major ways.