New Type98/99 MBT thread

[polati]

Just thought of an idea.. Let's say a 4th gen MBT with an unmanned turret. Theoretically there is a bunch of space both in the hull and in the bustle ammo rack.

Keep propellant charges in a bustle ammo rack with a blowout panel.
Keep inert rounds, like APFSDS, and perhaps just a few in a rotary ammo rack in the hull. This has a very low percentage of being hit, say if there were just a few HEAT/HE rounds, and the rest is APFSDS.

Now obviously the autoloader would need a whole new design, to take the warhead from the rotary ammo rack and the propellant from the blowout panel at the same time.

Advantages.
>Storing more ammo, as the turret is unmanned more propellant and more rounds can be stored in total.
>Keeps the safety of the bustle ammo rack, as there is a blowout panel.
>APFSDS penetrator length can be extended, there are basically no restrictions, as the propellant is gone from the hull.

Thoughts on the idea? just a random thing I thought about, haven't really considered it fully

 

[BoraTas]

Just thought of an idea.. Let's say a 4th gen MBT with an unmanned turret. Theoretically there is a bunch of space both in the hull and in the bustle ammo rack.

Keep propellant charges in a bustle ammo rack with a blowout panel.
Keep inert rounds, like APFSDS, and perhaps just a few in a rotary ammo rack in the hull. This has a very low percentage of being hit, say if there were just a few HEAT/HE rounds, and the rest is APFSDS.

Now obviously the autoloader would need a whole new design, to take the warhead from the rotary ammo rack and the propellant from the blowout panel at the same time.

Advantages.
>Storing more ammo, as the turret is unmanned more propellant and more rounds can be stored in total.
>Keeps the safety of the bustle ammo rack, as there is a blowout panel.
>APFSDS penetrator length can be extended, there are basically no restrictions, as the propellant is gone from the hull.

Thoughts on the idea? just a random thing I thought about, haven't really considered it fully

The Russian Black Eagle project was like that. It had both a bustle autoloader and a new carousel autoloader despite having a manned turret. In the hull, there would be penetrators. In the bustle, there would be charges and HE ammo. I think that would still limit the penetrator length (because no rod extends into the propellant) and having 2 autoloaders in a tank is a technical risk.

 

[polati]

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.

View attachment 120823

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.

View attachment 120824

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.



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.

How effective is the DM-73 propellant? The PLA should seriously consider investing in a propellant completely insensitive to shaped charges. That might actually be vastly more cost efficient and much more convenient than designing a new autoloader and blowout panels for the next few years.

 

[BoraTas]

How effective is the DM-73 propellant? The PLA should seriously consider investing in a propellant completely insensitive to shaped charges. That might actually be vastly more cost efficient and much more convenient than designing a new autoloader and blowout panels for the next few years.

Germans claim a 20% performance increase with the DM-73 compared to the DM-63. But that's with a new penetrator and a new gun breech that is rated for a significantly higher pressure. There is no public data about the propellant itself. Nevertheless, you can apparently have a very effective APFSDS round with insensitive propellants.

 

[Staedler]

The Russian Black Eagle project was like that. It had both a bustle autoloader and a new carousel autoloader despite having a manned turret. In the hull, there would be penetrators. In the bustle, there would be charges and HE ammo. I think that would still limit the penetrator length (because no rod extends into the propellant) and having 2 autoloaders in a tank is a technical risk.

Weren't some armies talking about potentially switching to telescoped darts a while back?

If that becomes technically feasible that would be another mark against a dual autoloader system.

 

[MwRYum]

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.

That'd require new autoloader to retain munition compatibility, else it'd mean to introduce a whole new logistics for such tank to be deployed.

 

[Biscuits]

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.

It's nowhere close to that time. Theyre still one of the best when it comes to their intended role of anti-vehicle action, especially at range. As long as they keep receiving sensor updates, the combo of incredible frontal protection, low profile and powerful AP will still have it's job.

Sure, they might not be the best for urban combat/lopsided proxy wars where enemies mostly have leg infantry. Yet most other modern tanks also struggle with these scenarios.

China is working on a 4th gen tank that will attempt to solve the new threats, and may include doctrine adaptions to China's current needs that aren't met by the 99A. But the 99As themselves would be relevant for decades to come.

The ones that need to go is all the cold war era tanks based on incremental/evolutionary Type 59 updates, of which the most prominent and modern being the Type 96. These should ideally all be turned into IFVs.

 

[ficker22]

Germans claim a 20% performance increase with the DM-73 compared to the DM-63. But that's with a new penetrator and a new gun breech that is rated for a significantly higher pressure. There is no public data about the propellant itself. Nevertheless, you can apparently have a very effective APFSDS round with insensitive propellants.

There is sources claiming 8% from new propellant alone.
First source in german.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tankphobia]

I wonder if this obession with longer kinetic penetrators is really worth it. Since tank on tank battle is so exceedingly rare in comparison to atgm/UAV kills. Having a tank that's 'good enough' for general purpose via HE shells and also being able to fire NLOS missiles against other tanks seems to be a better approach, with sensor suite being such a focus now why bother risking the tank in a direct cannon on cannon battle?

 

[Inque]

The PLA still has time to work on its tanks (and everything else, too). They aren't at war and will not be for the foreseeable future. I'm confident they'll take the lessons learned in Ukraine into account when designing new tanks. The 99A is probably good enough for most purposes as it is, but there's always room for improvement.