It's also easier making new single piece 125mm ammunition for a scaled up Type 15 bustle autoloader than making an entirely new gun of an entirely different caliber with new ammunition from scratch to boot.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
That's an oversimplification that could actually be construed wrongly.
Higher power:weight ratio is misleading here.
Tactical mobility in highly inclined terrain is more about the gearing ratio than the power:weight available. You can have all the power in the world but if your lowest gear is too tall, your engines will be screaming at max revs just to climb a few degrees of slope. Likewise if you have low p:w but low ratio gears, you won't hit high speeds but you'll chug up those slopes all day long (at your own pace). A good driver will know the limits of his vehicle and nurse that engine by driving within specs.
A good set of lower ratios will mean the AFV accelerates well on level ground as well. The challenge then is to pack enough gears within the limited space of a compact AFV to have not only good low ratios (for acceleration/climbing) but also enough tall ratios for top end speed and cruising efficiency. Not forgetting enough gears for reverse speed (cough T-72 cough). Hard to do it all within the tight packaging required in an MBT.
Bottom line, if you want a AFV suitability for that terrain, look at the gearing ratios being set up for low ratios. All else being equal, then your higher p:w ratio will result in a more sprightly, nimble tactical platform.
Re: PSI and nominal ground pressure - this is a very poor indicator of soft ground mobility. Even MMP/VCI doesn't quite begin to get there but at least it differentiates the nuances in running gear design better.
Last edited:
Laser UAV jammer, or anti drone RW + Hard Kill APS is probably sufficient, IDK why put slat armor everywhere when you already have hard kill APS. That won't improve the situation. Perhaps some TUSK packages on the side would do much better against anything that the APS fails to intercept.
MwRYum
Major
But look, nobody laughs at "cope cage" anymore.
some things I learned recently:
the Abrams can't fire ATGM, has no autoloader, and has a smaller gun than the 99A. although it probably better protected. the 99A has all of these things, plus being more mobile because it is lighter.
dare I say that the 99A compares favorably to the Abrams? hahaha
the Abrams can't fire ATGM, has no autoloader, and has a smaller gun than the 99A. although it probably better protected. the 99A has all of these things, plus being more mobile because it is lighter.
dare I say that the 99A compares favorably to the Abrams? hahaha
Smaller gun by like 5mm doesn’t mean anything. It should also be noted that a good abrams loader can load faster than a Soviet auto loader for a period of time.some things I learned recently:
the Abrams can't fire ATGM, has no autoloader, and has a smaller gun than the 99A. although it probably better protected. the 99A has all of these things, plus being more mobile because it is lighter.
dare I say that the 99A compares favorably to the Abrams? hahaha
yea true, I think all modern tank guns are pretty much equal. however without an autoloader you need one additional crew member, increasing liability should one becomes incapacitated. another issue is loading while traversing uneven terrain, an autoloader would still function at the same speed. the autoloader in the 99A is a newer one, not from soviet era. the gun is also newer.