New Type98/99 MBT thread

[gelgoog]

Carousel autoloaders absolutely suck. There's virtually no benefit to using them over a bustle autoloader. They're also responsible for the jack in the box effect while it's possible to install blowout panels with a bustle. It's unfortunate that the 99 uses carousel.

The Soviets did not have good experiences with storing ammo in the back of the turret in WW2. The BT series of tanks and the T-26 used to store ammo in the back of the turret.



It was found during Barbarrossa that the Germans would easily disable those tanks with infantry using satchel charges on the bustle ammo rack. Once you blow up the ammo, the tank is pretty much disabled. And the tank crew become targets for the opposing enemy infantry. Tanks which stored ammo in the armored hull were not nearly as vulnerable to satchel charges.

Since then the Soviets and the Russians have basically eschewed using bustle ammo racks.

The last Russian tank design which stored ammo in a bustle ammo rack was the Black Eagle. But the design was rejected by the Army brass precisely because of that. More recently the T-90M does have ammo storage in the back of the turret but the ammo is outside the turret.

 

[Biscuits]

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

Autoloader on the 99A doesn't fire that fast. The Abrams has better fire rate with a competent human loader.

99A has the highest weight to crew ratio out of any tank. That's also mostly focused on frontal arc, instead of evenly distributed across the whole tank.

Unlike the Abrams, the 99A hasn't ever been seen with countermeasures like sandbags, tires and cope cages fitted on it. But it could probably field it if needed.

Both tanks have really different philosophies. The 99A isn't gonna be very good in urban combat, but you'd much rather be in it than an Abrams if you're fighting at range against enemy AFVs, where fire rate doesn't matter that much and the armor is going to keep you extremely safe. Plus they have an unique laser APS which blinds anyone aiming at it, which is more devastating at long to medium ranges, when people need more time to aim.

99A was developed post Chechnya and Iraq war. It's strengths are tailored towards taking on a hypothetical US/Korean "thunder run" in the peninsula. It would have a role in defeating US/Russian style mass tank charges by hitting enemy tanks and IFVs at distances they cannot reliably hurt the 99A, while reversing. To get these advantages, it gives up most of its urban combat potential.

 

[Biscuits]

Right. Carousel autoloaders absolutely suck. There's virtually no benefit to using them over a bustle autoloader. They're also responsible for the jack in the box effect while it's possible to install blowout panels with a bustle. It's unfortunate that the 99 uses carousel.

If your tank is supposed to take hits from heavier weapons, it's better if the ammo isn't stored in lightly armored compartments. There's a reason both the 99A and T14 use carousel, survivability alone is a huge benefit, even if it comes at the cost of fire rate and risk of jamming.

You can install downward blowout panels when you have the ammo stored in an armored box inside the hull, I'm fairly sure the T90M and 99A have this.

 

[Builder]

Biscuits said: “Plus they have an unique laser APS which blinds anyone aiming at it, which is more devastating at long to medium ranges, when people need more time to aim.”

But what if I were a tankgunner? Should my eyes be safe when attacked by such a laser aps? Can I still reliably aim through my tank gunners sight?

 

[Broccoli]

If your tank is supposed to take hits from heavier weapons, it's better if the ammo isn't stored in lightly armored compartments. There's a reason both the 99A and T14 use carousel, survivability alone is a huge benefit, even if it comes at the cost of fire rate and risk of jamming.

You can install downward blowout panels when you have the ammo stored in an armored box inside the hull, I'm fairly sure the T90M and 99A have this.

Both T-90M and 99A use similar carousel found on T-72. T-90M has armor added around carousel but it doesn't seem to do much against ATGM strike.

 

[Biscuits]

Both T-90M and 99A use similar carousel found on T-72. T-90M has armor added around carousel but it doesn't seem to do much against ATGM strike.

That depends on which angles and how much explosives are in the hit. Leopard 2 uses a traditional manual loader and is prone to the same.

99A loader has the same mechanism as T90's, but they're not really related. Like the Type 15 and Leclerc both have same mechanism, but they're not related per se.

The design philosophy behind 99A is that if its close enough to be point blanked in the rear by a heavy atgm, it's way too close.

 

[Broccoli]

That depends on which angles and how much explosives are in the hit. Leopard 2 uses a traditional manual loader and is prone to the same.

99A loader has the same mechanism as T90's, but they're not really related. Like the Type 15 and Leclerc both have same mechanism, but they're not related per se.

The design philosophy behind 99A is that if its close enough to be point blanked in the rear by a heavy atgm, it's way too close.

Only older Leopard 2 models have ammo in the hull, near the driver, but in newer variants everything is inside the bustle as it's much safer for the crew. 99A's design philosophy comes straight from T-72 and so does it's autloader even if slightly improved.

As far we know Type-15 is only tank in PLA what has any side armor added and it also has bustle loader with(?) blowout panels. Probably giving crew better chanches of surviving than 99A.

 

[TK3600]

Only older Leopard 2 models have ammo in the hull, near the driver, but in newer variants everything is inside the bustle as it's much safer for the crew. 99A's design philosophy comes straight from T-72 and so does it's autloader even if slightly improved.

As far we know Type-15 is only tank in PLA what has any side armor added and it also has bustle loader with(?) blowout panels. Probably giving crew better chanches of surviving than 99A.

Leopard 2 has the worst of both worlds. Ammo in the turret = easy to hit. No blow out panels. As a result it is easily destroyed by drone in Ukraine following catastrophic explosion.

Anything detonating in the hull will kill Abrams crew too. It is not as if Iraqi Abrams was very survivable.

ZTQ-15 has more side armor? Very unlikely and you gotta prove that.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Both T-90M and 99A use similar carousel found on T-72. T-90M has armor added around carousel but it doesn't seem to do much against ATGM strike.

A major problem of Russian carousel loader tanks, is that they don't actually keep all their ammo in the bottom carousel.

But spreads it all over.

So no shit it's not safe.

 

[Broccoli]

Leopard 2 has the worst of both worlds. Ammo in the turret = easy to hit. No blow out panels. As a result it is easily destroyed by drone in Ukraine following catastrophic explosion.

Anything detonating in the hull will kill Abrams crew too. It is not as if Iraqi Abrams was very survivable.

ZTQ-15 has more side armor? Very unlikely and you gotta prove that.

15 has some kinda ERA on it's side while we've never been seen 99A with such protection.