New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Biscuits]

Wasn't there also rumours they are moving to a bustle loader based on the one in the ZTQ-15?

It's just speculation that it will be a bigger Type 15 with some new tech tacked on it. To me, that does seem as a good route, as the Type 15 has amazing specs in its role.

Other speculation says it will be unmanned turret like Armata. Which could also be good, because the new type tank will almost certainly be available in large numbers, unlike Armata.

There are several heavy armor brigades with ZTZ-99 in the northern theater countering K2.
Just look at all these destroyed Ukrainian Leopard 2, is it necessary for all these fancy designs to exist? Air superiority is way more important than comparing ZTZ-99 and K2.
And if it becomes a total war, then tanks are consumables. Tanks like Leopard 2 or K2 are too fancy and expensive, they are not practical at all when it comes to mass production. I perfer 10 brigades of ZTZ-96/ZBD-08/ZTL-11 than one brigade of Leopard 2 or K2.

There's nothing wrong with tanks similar to the Leopard 2. It's just that Germany doesn't have the best industrial capacity. China also produces high hundreds to thousands of similar vehicles, despite armored conflict not being the top priority. Would it be China that had to build Leopard 2s, they could make enough 2A6+s to fill the force too. And if Germany had the 99As, they would still struggle with building enough.

By the way, I don't see how revolutionary the K2 is compared to ZTZ-99.

99As are still early 90s design, despite having APS nowadays. In terms of generation, they are roughly comparable, but the K2 can incorporate more recent tech due to its newer status.

Overall, the 99A will fail out in the long term due to lack of planned upgrades. But presumably the new force using Type 15s and new heavy tanks will completely replace them, with a new ground combat system that is purpose built for network warfare.

 

[Inque]

By the way, I don't see how revolutionary the K2 is compared to ZTZ-99.

Its Wikipedia article claims it has a lot of features the 99A's article isn't said to have, such as the ability for the turret to automatically rotate and lock onto a target and fire automatically as the calculator takes the distance of the target into account.

99As are still early 90s design, despite having APS nowadays. In terms of generation, they are roughly comparable, but the K2 can incorporate more recent tech due to its newer status.

The 99A is from 2007.

 

[Biscuits]

The 99A is from 2007.

It's based on a design from the 1990s. 99A is just a signficant upgrade.

I wouldn't count M1A2s as being from 2010s either. The basic chassis is legacy, like the 99As.

 

[DDG181]

99As are still early 90s design, despite having APS nowadays. In terms of generation, they are roughly comparable, but the K2 can incorporate more recent tech due to its newer status.

Overall, the 99A will fail out in the long term due to lack of planned upgrades. But presumably the new force using Type 15s and new heavy tanks will completely replace them, with a new ground combat system that is purpose built for network warfare.

M1A2 and Leopard 2 are even 80s designs, do you see a significant difference from K2 or ZTZ-99?

Tanks are not like fighters, 5 Gen jets have stealth ability compared to the previous models, so it changes the turning tide.
But for tanks, what recent tech can you find that is comparable to stealth in the 5 Gen fighters?

Let's not say ZTZ-99, do you think can K2 even survive after being hit by the 125mm tank gun on ZTZ-96A?
Military equipment shall serve for military doctrines. So what doctrines are Germany and South Korea thinking when they design Leopard 2 or K2? Can these countries support a full-scale war by themselves? I highly doubt that.

 

[Hitomi]

Overall, the 99A will fail out in the long term due to lack of planned upgrades. But presumably the new force using Type 15s and new heavy tanks will completely replace them, with a new ground combat system that is purpose built for network warfare.

What was the last noticeable upgrade that the ZTZ-99A received? Not counting the VT4.

 

[DDG181]

What was the last noticeable upgrade that the ZTZ-99A received? Not counting the VT4.

Algorithms

 

[Hitomi]

Algorithms

You mean an FCS upgrade?

 

[TK3600]

It's based on a design from the 1990s. 99A is just a signficant upgrade.

I wouldn't count M1A2s as being from 2010s either. The basic chassis is legacy, like the 99As.

99A is totally rebuilt from previous versions. You cannot upgrade old 99 to 99A. Many things like electronics and drive train are 2010s standard. It has much better compatibility with future network centric upgrades and much easier to drive. The loading system reportedly also reworked.

 

[Builder]

Hoe did they rework the loading system?
Can it hold longer apfsds?

 

[yeetmyboi]

Probably a new processor, data indexing, updated electric drives tbh. Not sure about the dart lenght, but reviewing 99's and 99A's loading footage I'd say that's the farthest they got with the new turret.

Looking at some of the earlier discussion, people here seems to have a wrong idea on how the PLA should be building its new MBT. Either an incremental upgrade in the form of VT-4A1, or at least reusing some of the existing techs on that demonstrator, with PLZ-05B-derived chassis or an extensive cross-force modernization that would resemble FCS. Because 90 ton is pushing limits, and I'm not sure about the strength of mainland's infrastructure tbh. But not airlift, but rather "lighter is better" because it put less strain on logistics, provides upgrade capacity and encourage creativity ( otherwise NORINCO would be building modernized Maus). The US Army got FCS and Force XXI right, it was just not the right time back then. Simply because Obama was bad at mil-stuff.

The PLA shouldn't be worried about "falling behind the curve" because tankineering kinda fell flat after M1A1HA and Leopard 2A5. Armour composition, material design, armanent, propulsion etc are all rehash of late 1980s techs. T-14 is literally a rebuilt T-95 but with cooler sheet metal and T-90M components. Plus a reused chassis. aka austere T-95. AbramsX is a new turret with a rather average APS, expensive but near-useless PASEO sights, a C-UAS weapon that lacks the range to counter them, put onto a reworked 2013 Dieselized Abrams hull with crew-in-hull, forward capsule. XM360 is 1980s tech, as is FTMA, 2A82, and the PLA's experimental 140mm.

The most optimal, near-term solution would be pushing ZTZ-99s and 99As out to under-equipped brigades while the important ones get a VT-4A1 turret on a PLZ-05B chassis like I've talked about above. But give it modular armour, new hull-mounted SLERA, a 140mm gun with GP and sabots, mmW targeting radar, tethered UAS, upgraded comms, and done. It should be risk-averse, familiar to PLA tank crew, reuse existing vehicle support.

A long-term solution would be to UGV everything. Offboard 152mm gun, drone carrier, artillery, smoke, EW, recon, everything. Controllers would be in dedicated armoured chassis, GCV-style. Distributed battle groups, DEW/CRAM, UAS carriers, hypervelocity UGVs (PenDivs), battle engineer UGVs, OMFV serving as decoy-killer with cheap TUAS, forward area low-cost interceptors and EW. Frontline would be stretching thousands of kilometers, neccesitating Distributed Ops pointing toward "manuerver support fires".

Fuck 2-man tank btw. Kharkov + TACOM agreed so gg no re in advance. Wait for 2050 or when AI stop generating 6 fingers per hand.