Perhaps with this kind of technology can be applied to autoloaders too? But then again, carousals are in the hull. If something explodes in the hull crews are dead anyways.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
The current Western APFSDS rounds can be considered semi-telescoped ammo. All of them have the projectile expand into the propellant case.
French wanted to go full telescopic to accommodate 140 mm ammo. I don't think anyone will adopt their solution though. German semi-telescopic 130 mm will likely become the global standard. It is just common sense as it is an upgrade to the current paradigm.
French 140 mm
I have a similar opinion too. Even on this forum, I advocated for cheaper tanks that are optimized for infantry support and that have measures against UAV. Tank vs tank is rare and can be left to the ATGM units. If APFSDS capability is still wanted, it can be kept in a missile form. Such missiles were being researched 25 years ago.
C-KEM kinetic penetrating missile.
All do.
It's almost* impossible to fit enough 120-130mm ammo for exploitation in just a bustle alone. Ammo requirement is typically calculated at the expected number of rounds/engagements(adjusted for round effect), to have enough separate engagements.
What is possible is to not load anything other than ready-use ammunition (meaning bustle for most western tanks and carousel for t-64 group), if you don't plan to do penetration, and can reliably return to rearm after a single engagement.
*Abrams is almost there, but still not enough, even for minimal requirement(and 120mm abrams significantly lowered offensive requirement compared to 105). There was a single obscure Russian prototype(obj. 640) - which in fact did fit enough, but at the expense of the high vulnerability of the bustle even from the front angles.
All others go for a mix - i.e. ready rack sufficient for tactical situations(20-30), secondary storage elsewhere.
It's the Apple effect. If Apple does something, it's considered innovative and becomes the trend. It just depends how well a company or country is about to brainwash its citizens or customers.
We all knew this was the trends tanks were going to go. It was just a matter of technology maturing.
The 99A uses ERA on top of its composites. It may be possible for the first hit through an ERA block that the 99A can offer better protection but worse after that. The Abrams has alot of room in its turret for very thick composites that cover more of the frontal arc than the 99A. Its possible that the 99A has more protection but with only full coverage by its composite armor if its pointed directly at the enemy. The upper frontal armor of the Abrams is actually very thin but sloped at an extreme angle. I have no idea what the currently models have but older declassified documents showed that it was only 38.1mm thick. You can tell its relatively thin by looking at pictures with the drivers hatch open. Although the lower frontal armor has plenty of room for a thick composite block. The hull armor is still probably weaker than its turret armor though due to having less space.
The overall protection of the Abrams is probably better, but id wager the 99A probably has more frontal protection to it's upper frontal armor (The lower frontal armor is thought to be pretty weak) and frontal turret. If you look at the shape of the 99A's frontal armor from the top it should provide better armor coverage against high angle attacks due to the frontal turret shape and the coverage by ERA when looking at the 99A from a 45 degree top down angle. But who knows. I'm just some random guy on the internet guessing about tanks.
I believe that +1000mm is regarding against HEAT if it's the quote I'm thinking of. That's roughly the same as Abrams estimates too.
Chinese milbloggers imagined with a Type 99A would look like with lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine.
Some design went too far
As a joke, this looks like a chariot with dynastic characteristics
