New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Bohemond said:I know some were arguing that the Abrams is not as good as the Americans say it is, but I am not to sure, it can be knocked out, yes, but it is easily repaired and back in action, and crew survivability is fantastic(The abrams knocked out in desert storm was shot from a short distance and in the side and the round didnt penetrate completely, and the crew survived...) . Dont forget also that the LeClerc, Leopard, and the Challenger are all similarly as good...Im not sure if this tank compares to any of those.
Also it probably has an autoloader, which is a bad idea, a average Abrams crew can get off a shot every 4 seconds, some even at 2 seconds apart. Average autoloader is 8 seconds.
Also you must not forget that no matter how good the equipment...how good are the people using it, how experienced and well trained are the commanders ect...
Any army that is lesser in equipment quality and greater in skill and morale will win, look at history, especially Israel.
If the Abrams in Gulf War fought T-72 with Optics such as night vision or thermal vision, a whole lot more Abrams would be knocked out. You can't see what you can't hit. The T-72s Iraqis used were poorly maintained and they were used as pillboxes, instead of vehicles, which destroys the purpose of a tank. The T-72s that shoot Abrams from the side did fully penetrate its armour, but most T-72s were destroyed by the air force. Tanks wasn't much of a factor during the Gulf War...
First. Generally i did not need to read this, i knew most of those facts for pretty long time. Second. Did i say copy? Please read carefully, i said exactly "based on T-72", you're confronting imaginary person:
Also i have some objections to the article:
This can't be true, no sir, at no account. Leo has armor blocks spaced from the main armor:
The blocks of ZTZ-99 are definitely not hollow, it IS ERA, not just by the size of reinforcement, but by their look as well. It may look like Leo-style armor, but it is different, Andrei is conpletely right (by the way he is quite knowledgable man, and he was never wrong). Furthermore article confronts itself here:
Autoloader is not a bad idea, at least it's perfornamce. I remember some guy on the old board (who was M1 tanker) said that their average performance was 5 shots per minute.
Can't help but agree to this. Also people, who judge any soviet-design modern vehicle by iraqi T-72M experience often fail to understand that T-72M had significantly less armor then any modern tank, based on T-72 design. Even assuming that ZTZ-98/99 has composite armor from T-80 - fronatl arc protection should be about 750mm/sabot (since it's physical thickness is 750mm, and T-80style armor multiplyer against sabot is about 1). T-72M for example had 250mm/sabot armor.
What happens to an M1, or any other tank today, when hit by a good DU round:
As for the T-98 vs. T-72 debate, I'd like to point out that in both Russia and China, when new tanks are built, often the designer would re-use components from older models. This reduces the number of "new" component production requirements and helps in cost savings.
One example is the T-72M using turbocharged vairant (780 hp) of the 500-hp V-12 diesel engine, originally designed for the T-34 tank. There are other T-34 designed components that could be found on the T-72M, but few people today would claim that the T-72 is based on the T-34.
It's very likely that the T-98 use some components originally designed for earlier tanks. But at what point do you stop claiming that the whole tank is "based on" some other tank, and start referring to it as a "new" tank?
It's like, why do people still refer to the Q-5 as "based on" the MiG-19 when the Q-5 has been so extensively re-designed? The J-8's design takes many elements from the MiG-21, yet nobody refers to the J-8 as a MiG-21 variant.
As for the T-98 vs. T-72 debate, I'd like to point out that in both Russia and China, when new tanks are built, often the designer would re-use components from older models. This reduces the number of "new" component production requirements and helps in cost savings.
One example is the T-72M using turbocharged vairant (780 hp) of the 500-hp V-12 diesel engine, originally designed for the T-34 tank. There are other T-34 designed components that could be found on the T-72M, but few people today would claim that the T-72 is based on the T-34.
It's very likely that the T-98 use some components originally designed for earlier tanks. But at what point do you stop claiming that the whole tank is "based on" some other tank, and start referring to it as a "new" tank?
It's like, why do people still refer to the Q-5 as "based on" the MiG-19 when the Q-5 has been so extensively re-designed? The J-8's design takes many elements from the MiG-21, yet nobody refers to the J-8 as a MiG-21 variant.
M1s, iraqians...even Q-5 ATTACK AIRCRAFTS....
ff ff ff ff
I've had to close THREE threads concerning Type 98 in this forum sofar and I seriously don't want to do it fourth time...got it? So cut out the M1 talks, don't even think of posting anything about planes in landforce forum anymore and most of all, keep cool, this topic seems to be as flamable as the good ol India-china comparison...
ff ff ff ff I've had to close THREE threads concerning Type 98 in this forum sofar and I seriously don't want to do it fourth time...got it? So cut out the M1 talks, don't even think of posting anything about planes in landforce forum anymore and most of all, keep cool, this topic seems to be as flamable as the good ol India-china comparison...
About the BMS story...No satellite ring no BMS period. I said it the Chinese had merely a Theater Awarennes System (wich is quite good since mot all M1's have BMS) but not a proper BMS.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
Red not Dead said:
interesting. sinodefence claims that the vehicle is equipped with a device for gps navigation. in peacetime, thats probably not a problem. the gps will probably be replaced by galileo in the near future.
but your right. the tank has a battlefeild information display and onboard inofrmation processor, but no bms yet.
that is defintley a 98. you can tell by the turret design and the t-72 style front. many different armors have been seen equipping the type 99, not just one pattern. different patterns probably signify a different armor. onep attern may be era, while this could be add on composite armor blocks