New Type98/99 MBT thread

[TK3600]

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.

They usually do. Iraqi did not follow the protocol and found out the hard way.

 

[Biscuits]

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.

Theyre not similar at all, aside from same gun caliber and general autoloader category. It's like saying Leclerc and K2 are the same.

By that philosophy, T14 and T90 is the "same". 99A is in a different weight class, looks completely different and even the internals fundamentally differ: 99A was designed from the onset to have a fast reverse speed, whereas no Russian tank before the Armata was capable of this, due to the doctrine differences between China and Russia.

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.

99A is meant to be highly durable against frontal anti tank hits. Within it's intended doctrine use, there's few if any tank that gives crew as good chances of surviving combat.

 

[ficker22]

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.

Wrong

 

[Builder]

Only one more question about 99A’s laser aps. Doesn’t smoke from guns on the battlefield effect the performance of the laser aps?

 

[Inque]

The Abrams has difficulty penetrating its own armour with its own gun, which says quite a bit about its performance against other tanks whose guns are not superior to the Abrams'. Unless the 99A has significantly improved engineering in its gun, it likely won't perform very well against the Abrams. But again, these tanks are unlikely to ever face each other due to geographical constraints.

 

[plawolf]

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?

One of the main contentious issues with the laser APS is that it will fry eyeballs better than electronics. So if you are a gunner and you use a laser rangefinder on a 99, best to not look out of any periscopes or non-digital sights.

 

[Biscuits]

The Abrams has difficulty penetrating its own armour with its own gun, which says quite a bit about its performance against other tanks whose guns are not superior to the Abrams'. Unless the 99A has significantly improved engineering in its gun, it likely won't perform very well against the Abrams.

Why do you think the PLA upgunned and rengineered the 120mm from the Type 89? By the time of 99A design, the specs of the Abrams as well as the T90A were well known.

But again, these tanks are unlikely to ever face each other due to geographical constraints.

They were at least designed with such scenarios in mind. Like Korea, or maybe proxy wars.

 

[Laviduce]

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.

The Leopard 2 does have a blowout panel for its ammunition in the turret bustle.

 

[hkvaryag]

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.

According to open source, no change.

 

[BoraTas]

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.

Most of the ammo is still in the hull for NATO tanks except for the M1 Abrams. This is partially why Germans are investing a lot in insensitive propellants and explosives. The DM-73's propellant is seriously impressive with its total insensitivity to even shaped charge jets for example. The biggest problem for Russian tanks is that they store ammo all over the place. Which makes it hard to not hit them.



This is really bad. The only worse one is likely the Challenger 2. With the recent T-90s, they tidied it up a bit, even moving some to a blow-off compartment in the bustle.



But it is still not optimal. I would not want any ammo in the fighting compartment if possible. Only the Abrams and the Type-15 can fit that requirement as of 2023. I think the time to replace the Type-99A has come.

The Abrams has difficulty penetrating its own armour with its own gun, which says quite a bit about its performance against other tanks whose guns are not superior to the Abrams'. Unless the 99A has significantly improved engineering in its gun, it likely won't perform very well against the Abrams. But again, these tanks are unlikely to ever face each other due to geographical constraints.

IMO Abrams is a very good tank with the exceptions of its weight and fuel consumption. However I still find it funny how Americans on the internet were defending its every design feature like a religion and then we learned it will become a tank with an unmanned turret, autoloader, and a diesel engine. Most religiously defended features were discarded by the US Army.