New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Shadow_Whomel]

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.

The Chinese chose the T72 because there was no choice, not because the T72 was good.

The Chinese needed a new gun for their next generation of main battle tanks in the first place, but the options were limited: either import the 120mm main gun from Rheinmetall, use their own developed 120mm gun, or use the 125mm Soviet-made gun from the T72;

Of course the outcome was clear, Rheinmetall was unwilling to transfer the technology and the 120mm gun system and auto-loader developed by China itself was too large (The same as Type 89), then only the remain option is imitation of the Soviet artillery.

At the same time, the Chinese manufacturing technology level was very low, and when the world powers were producing their third generation MBT, the Chinese could only make the second generation MBT. In fact, the ideal tank of the Type99 design chief (i.e. 99A) did not solve the mass production problem until 2010.

Secondly, there is no way to prove in this recent Ukrainian war scenario that the Russian tanks you claim have better sighting and communication systems. Ukraine ran into the classic barrel problem, and it was the other planks being too short that caused the Leopard tanks to struggle:

• lack of long-range demining systems, with only a few donated by the Americans
• lack of air power to assist with demining
• lack of means to counter enemy air power

In this scenario even if Russian T14s were given to the Ukrainians, they would also have to line up in tight two-way columns, open up pathways with minesweeping shovels, and then collapsed under helicopter strikes.

 

[Biscuits]

T

The Chinese chose the T72 because there was no choice, not because the T72 was good.

The Chinese needed a new gun for their next generation of main battle tanks in the first place, but the options were limited: either import the 120mm main gun from Rheinmetall, use their own developed 120mm gun, or use the 125mm Soviet-made gun from the T72;

Of course the outcome was clear, Rheinmetall was unwilling to transfer the technology and the 120mm gun system and auto-loader developed by China itself was too large (The same as Type 89), then only the remain option is imitation of the Soviet artillery.

At the same time, the Chinese manufacturing technology level was very low, and when the world powers were producing their third generation MBT, the Chinese could only make the second generation MBT. In fact, the ideal tank of the Type99 design chief (i.e. 99A) did not solve the mass production problem until 2010.

Secondly, there is no way to prove in this recent Ukrainian war scenario that the Russian tanks you claim have better sighting and communication systems. Ukraine ran into the classic barrel problem, and it was the other planks being too short that caused the Leopard tanks to struggle:

• lack of long-range demining systems, with only a few donated by the Americans
• lack of air power to assist with demining
• lack of means to counter enemy air power

In this scenario even if Russian T14s were given to the Ukrainians, they would also have to line up in tight two-way columns, open up pathways with minesweeping shovels, and then collapsed under helicopter strikes.

China has never bought any type of T72 or had experience working with their variants. In the last decade, data sharing with Russia became almost limitless, but by then, China already had finished it's designs.

Neither did China have access to soviet 125mm tank guns. It had it's own 120mm gun which was up sized for increased power and to fit unified ATGM from Russia.

 

[Shadow_Whomel]

T

China has never bought any type of T72 or had experience working with their variants. In the last decade, data sharing with Russia became almost limitless, but by then, China already had finished it's designs.

Neither did China have access to soviet 125mm tank guns. It had it's own 120mm gun which was up sized for increased power and to fit unified ATGM from Russia.

1984年，我国通过特殊渠道从罗马尼亚交换得到了一辆T72 ural(172m)主战坦克，并命名为“六四式坦克”。虽然我国坦克工业情报人员早在1976年就通过特殊途径了解到了T72 ural坦克的部分情报，但得到一辆实车的意义相对于情报部门的寥寥几语描述还是有不小的区别。相关科研工作者通过测绘、拆解、复装的过程，对T72 ural坦克的具体结构和大致性能有了一定的了解。同年，国防科工委任命祝榆生为三代坦克总设计师，根据国内技术情况、工业基础及想定的技战术指标，在6月份的远望楼会议中，国防科工委和装甲兵在听取总师组汇报后，正式决定采用仿苏制125火力系统作为国产三代坦克的火力系统；9月18日在坦克所（201所）召开的研制单位会议中，总师办正式确定了“两步走”规划；当年10月召开的火力系统工作会议明确了第一步的各项指标。1985年，对六四式坦克炮及装弹机的测绘工作基本完成，在此基础上，开展了125火力系统的具体研发工作。

Translation:
In 1984, China received a T72 ural (172m) main battle tank from Romania through a special exchange and named it "Type 64 Tank". Although the intelligence personnel of China's tank industry learned part of the intelligence of the T72 ural tank through special channels as early as 1976, the significance of getting a real vehicle is still quite different from the few words of the intelligence department's description. Through the process of mapping, disassembling and reassembling, the relevant scientific workers got a certain understanding of the specific structure and general performance of the T72 ural tank.
In the same year, the National Defense Science and Industry Commission appointed Zhu Yusheng as the chief designer of the third-generation tank. According to the domestic technical situation, industrial base and the technical and tactical indexes thought to be set, in the meeting of the Yuanwang Building in June, the National Defense Science and Industry Commission and the Armored Corps officially decided to adopt the imitation Soviet 125 fire system as the fire system of the domestic third-generation tank after listening to the report of the chief division group;
In the meeting of development units held in the Tank Institute (201) on September 18, the General Division Office formally determined the "two-step" plan; In October of that year, the firepower system working meeting was held to clarify the indicators of the first step.In 1985, the surveying and mapping of the Type 64 tank gun and loading machine was basically completed, and on this basis, the specific development work of the 125 fire system was carried out.



They do receive one, and main gun is base on 2A46(Д81ТМ).

 

[Chavez]

The Chinese chose the T72 because there was no choice, not because the T72 was good.

The Chinese needed a new gun for their next generation of main battle tanks in the first place, but the options were limited: either import the 120mm main gun from Rheinmetall, use their own developed 120mm gun, or use the 125mm Soviet-made gun from the T72;

Of course the outcome was clear, Rheinmetall was unwilling to transfer the technology and the 120mm gun system and auto-loader developed by China itself was too large (The same as Type 89), then only the remain option is imitation of the Soviet artillery.

At the same time, the Chinese manufacturing technology level was very low, and when the world powers were producing their third generation MBT, the Chinese could only make the second generation MBT. In fact, the ideal tank of the Type99 design chief (i.e. 99A) did not solve the mass production problem until 2010.

Secondly, there is no way to prove in this recent Ukrainian war scenario that the Russian tanks you claim have better sighting and communication systems. Ukraine ran into the classic barrel problem, and it was the other planks being too short that caused the Leopard tanks to struggle:

• lack of long-range demining systems, with only a few donated by the Americans
• lack of air power to assist with demining
• lack of means to counter enemy air power

In this scenario even if Russian T14s were given to the Ukrainians, they would also have to line up in tight two-way columns, open up pathways with minesweeping shovels, and then collapsed under helicopter strikes.

After the desert storm,there were widely debate within pla about the vulneraility of t72 to internal explosion,they point finger at carousel loading..
But in the end they decided to copy it cuz back then chinese engineering is not good as of today.

 

[Biscuits]

1984年，我国通过特殊渠道从罗马尼亚交换得到了一辆T72 ural(172m)主战坦克，并命名为“六四式坦克”。虽然我国坦克工业情报人员早在1976年就通过特殊途径了解到了T72 ural坦克的部分情报，但得到一辆实车的意义相对于情报部门的寥寥几语描述还是有不小的区别。相关科研工作者通过测绘、拆解、复装的过程，对T72 ural坦克的具体结构和大致性能有了一定的了解。同年，国防科工委任命祝榆生为三代坦克总设计师，根据国内技术情况、工业基础及想定的技战术指标，在6月份的远望楼会议中，国防科工委和装甲兵在听取总师组汇报后，正式决定采用仿苏制125火力系统作为国产三代坦克的火力系统；9月18日在坦克所（201所）召开的研制单位会议中，总师办正式确定了“两步走”规划；当年10月召开的火力系统工作会议明确了第一步的各项指标。1985年，对六四式坦克炮及装弹机的测绘工作基本完成，在此基础上，开展了125火力系统的具体研发工作。

Translation:
In 1984, China received a T72 ural (172m) main battle tank from Romania through a special exchange and named it "Type 64 Tank". Although the intelligence personnel of China's tank industry learned part of the intelligence of the T72 ural tank through special channels as early as 1976, the significance of getting a real vehicle is still quite different from the few words of the intelligence department's description. Through the process of mapping, disassembling and reassembling, the relevant scientific workers got a certain understanding of the specific structure and general performance of the T72 ural tank.
In the same year, the National Defense Science and Industry Commission appointed Zhu Yusheng as the chief designer of the third-generation tank. According to the domestic technical situation, industrial base and the technical and tactical indexes thought to be set, in the meeting of the Yuanwang Building in June, the National Defense Science and Industry Commission and the Armored Corps officially decided to adopt the imitation Soviet 125 fire system as the fire system of the domestic third-generation tank after listening to the report of the chief division group;
In the meeting of development units held in the Tank Institute (201) on September 18, the General Division Office formally determined the "two-step" plan; In October of that year, the firepower system working meeting was held to clarify the indicators of the first step.In 1985, the surveying and mapping of the Type 64 tank gun and loading machine was basically completed, and on this basis, the specific development work of the 125 fire system was carried out.

View attachment 114356

They do receive one, and main gun is base on 2A46(Д81ТМ).

What is the actual source for this claim? It's not the first time I've seen it, and it still does not invalidate the fact a T72 series has about as much in common with a Type 99 as a M1 series has with K2.

Different drivetrains, engines and even wholly different weight class. Even the T90M, Russia's own version of modernizing the T72 to modern standards, is nowhere close to the size or overall configuration of the 99.

Until some sort of tank hull schematic and/or gun license proves it, the only major unifying factor is that both tanks can use Refleks.

 

[Biscuits]

After the desert storm,there were widely debate within pla about the vulneraility of t72 to internal explosion,they point finger at carousel loading..
But in the end they decided to copy it cuz back then chinese engineering is not good as of today.

Non combustible ammo is the way to avoid what happened in Iraq and what's happening in Zaporozhia now (and this is also the type of ammo ZPT-98 uses). However, one could argue that a disabled tank from a direct hit will kill the crew almost always as well, making it moot if the ammo can violently explode or not.

There continues to be no actual proof of relation aside from being able to use the same atgms, which afaik just comes down to having the right software upgrades and same caliber.

Making tanks is hardly that difficult even without as good supply chains and industry as today's China. Korea and Japan also designed okayish tanks and were at a similar development level as China during that time.

To copy the T72 at the time of its inception would not be easy at all. It had very good armor due to the high spec metallurgy and usage of composites, all without compromising it's low profile and size. If China had issues with engineering, it's absolutely unlikely that they could fix issues such as slow reverse which even Russia itself can't fix.

On the other hand, the 99 does not have advantages unique to T72 series such as being smaller/lower profile.

When China had engineering problems, it used mainly Type 59 variants. By the time Type 99 came around, China could build according to whatever needs it had in the Asian war theatre.

 

[dingyibvs]

With the specialization of military equipment happening, I wonder if it's time to rethink the whole tank concept. I think trying to cram more and more things into tanks is a hopeless endeavor as it attempts to defend against an ever increasing array of threats from ATGMs, to drones, to RPGs, to artillery, to mines, etc.

Maybe it's better to just have a heavily armored command vehicle with a myriad of UGCVs around it providing anti-air, anti-ground, and direct/indirect fire support.

 

[Hanna YJ Chen]

With the specialization of military equipment happening, I wonder if it's time to rethink the whole tank concept. I think trying to cram more and more things into tanks is a hopeless endeavor as it attempts to defend against an ever increasing array of threats from ATGMs, to drones, to RPGs, to artillery, to mines, etc.

Maybe it's better to just have a heavily armored command vehicle with a myriad of UGCVs around it providing anti-air, anti-ground, and direct/indirect fire support.

In that case, next: sensor, computing capability, electromagnetic battle & control, things that can infiltrate each other sides' UGCV density - e.g. even smaller UCV, infantry that can cloak themselves from optic/electronic/infra detection, etc...

 

[TK3600]

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.

The excuses on reverse speed is just cope and no basis on reality. It is time to accept it is a design flaw because it obviously is.

Excuse 1: The transmission for reverse is bad is for saving space for more armor!

1. China's ZTZ-99 series showed you can have excellent reverse speed in the same compact design.
2. Russia's own tank program showed T-90M and Armata acquired improved reverse speed. This also shows Russians themselves think poor reverse speed is a poor design and is ratifying it.
3. Soviet T-80 series did not have same horrendous reverse speed either. Protection is equal level and as compact.

Excuse 2: The transmission for reverse is bad to make it cheap to produce!

1. Once again China's ZTZ-96 series do not have this bad of reverse speed either. Unlike ZTZ-99 the 96 series are cheap and made in an era when China's technological level is not above Russia.
2. Even the earlier T-55 and T-62 series did not have reverse speed this poor. Those two tanks are also really compact and much cheaper.

The true reason T-72 series in particular had poor reverse speed is likely poor doctrine planning. Those tanks are made with the assumption of a nuclear war which the tanks should not survive more than couple hours. All the tanks should have massive superiority over enemy seen in Eastern bloc. If you follow that line of thinking, cutting corner on the transmission would make sense. Of course that assumption is very much incorrect for several reasons.

1. Not all warfare are nuclear, and it was poor decision to penny pinch on this considering the small benefit of cost and maintenance advantage would not outweigh the crippling weakness outside nuclear scenario.
2. The tanks need to be exported. It was a mistake to overspecialize for Russia's niche needs when the tank needs to be exported to third world and the fact it was one of the most popular tank to export.

 

[HighGround]

The excuses on reverse speed is just cope and no basis on reality. It is time to accept it is a design flaw because it obviously is.

Excuse 1: The transmission for reverse is bad is for saving space for more armor!

1. China's ZTZ-99 series showed you can have excellent reverse speed in the same compact design.
2. Russia's own tank program showed T-90M and Armata acquired improved reverse speed. This also shows Russians themselves think poor reverse speed is a poor design and is ratifying it.
3. Soviet T-80 series did not have same horrendous reverse speed either. Protection is equal level and as compact.

T-90M still has poor reverse speed just fyi. There is a video that discusses that aspect

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at 0:50.

But in general, it's not so much a "flaw" as it is a cost-saving on T-72 tanks. If Russia wanted to, they could fix it and IMO they should. But it would be a significant expenditure for them. They would have to get an entirely new transmission, which is what some other T-72 variants in Eastern Europe have done.

The true reason T-72 series in particular had poor reverse speed is likely poor doctrine planning. Those tanks are made with the assumption of a nuclear war which the tanks should not survive more than couple hours. All the tanks should have massive superiority over enemy seen in Eastern bloc. If you follow that line of thinking, cutting corner on the transmission would make sense. Of course that assumption is very much incorrect for several reasons.

1. Not all warfare are nuclear, and it was poor decision to penny pinch on this considering the small benefit of cost and maintenance advantage would not outweigh the crippling weakness outside nuclear scenario.
2. The tanks need to be exported. It was a mistake to overspecialize for Russia's niche needs when the tank needs to be exported to third world and the fact it was one of the most popular tank to export.

You might have a point, but I just want to emphasize that while what you say may have been true for the T-72B and earlier, it is certainly not true for T-72B3 obr. 2014 or later. These are essentially new and redesigned tanks that have been significantly overhauled. There really is no excuse for why Russia chose to keep the same crap transmission, other than cost-savings. And T-72B3 is full of cost savings regardless of which model we look at.

And in hindsight, Russia probably did the right thing. I don't think better reverse speed would've saved a lot of those tanks they lost in the first three months of the war. That was just unavoidable due to the way Russia conceptualized their initial operation.

But yes, I agree that it's a real shame that the T-90M, which is a very good tank in most respects, still insists on keeping that awful transmission. Hopefully, after the war, Russia comes to the conclusion that the transmission cannot be kept any longer, and that an overhaul is in order.

Or hell, ask China to design one and produce it. Might as well really.