New Type98/99 MBT thread

[nemo]

Look -- you keep on going back to 25 year old issue that no longer applies. The problem Russian has is not the gun -- it's the design of the penetrator fin and sabot. Russian enlarged the fin to the size of the barrel so the weight of the sabot can be reduced. However, it created excessive drag that affected the stability of the penetrator when velocity dropped to a certain level. Chinese shell, if you will recall, are based on western design, which does not have this issue.

In the article you cited, the error of the gun is 0.18 mil, which means it has an error of
2*0.18 meter = 36 cm @ 2km / 54 cm @3km ... 90cm @5km. Still good enough to
hit at 5km, if the fire control/stabilization/etc is good enough.

 

[challenge]

few years ago, JDW reported that improve version of 125mm tank gun to armed t-80 tank.during the firing demonstration, the 125mm was able to penetrate NATO triple target at 3200 meter away.
the cyprus army T-80 tanks may be the first receipient .

 

[Norfolk]

Look -- you keep on going back to 25 year old issue that no longer applies. The problem Russian has is not the gun -- it's the design of the penetrator fin and sabot. Russian enlarged the fin to the size of the barrel so the weight of the sabot can be reduced. However, it created excessive drag that affected the stability of the penetrator when velocity dropped to a certain level. Chinese shell, if you will recall, are based on western design, which does not have this issue.

In the article you cited, the error of the gun is 0.18 mil, which means it has an error of
2*0.18 meter = 36 cm @ 2km / 54 cm @3km ... 90cm @5km. Still good enough to
hit at 5km, if the fire control/stabilization/etc is good enough.

That same article from Tianren's Blog (which was from this year) says that the ZPT-98 has 25% accuracy improvement over the 2A46M-1. A 25% increase in accuracy over 1,800 metres translates to 2,250 metres. Remember, the gun for whatever reason, whether it is overpowered or what) suffers from attentuation, so that its energy is prematurely dispersed, thus leading to a shorter accurate range. If the Ukrainian KA1/KBM1 (and this is in the same article that I posted a Global Security link to for the performance of the 2A46M-1) which is also a development of the 2A46M-1 has an accurate range of 2,500 metres, then the 2,250 metre figure for ZPT-98 seems right on. Perhaps a projectile fired from a given gun, if it hits, can effectively destroy its target at a longer range; But to do so consistently and reliably is the gun's accurate range.

A number of improvements have been made to the basic 2A46M-1, especially in recent years, and the Russians have adopted developments of it for tanks since T-80. If you doubt the 25% accuracy stated in the article, then E-Mail its author, Terry Lau. His E-Mail link is near the end of the Tianren Blog article on the ZPT-98 that I have provided the link to in two separate posts. Otherwise, produce a specification for the ZPT-98's accurate range from a reputable, verifiable source. Bear in mind, if the 2A46M-1 and its foreign derivatives (such as ZPT-98) had the accurate range of the Western 120mm designs, the Soviets 20-25 years ago would not have needed to created tank-gun-launched ATGMs with ranges of 4,000-5,000 metres (and this was in the days before top-attack munitions).

The fact that the Type 99 MBT uses these same tank gun launched ATGMs for the ZPT-98 (and using ATGMs, that at least initially did not have top-attack capability) is mute testimony to a tactical need for them. Notice that the NATO 120mm gun designs (or for that matter even the 105mm gun designs) have never featured tank-gun launched ATGMs, not even for top-attack. Western tankers evidently are satisfied with the performance of their guns, and there is no tactical need from their standpoint for tank gun launched ATGMs. The attenuation problem of the 2A46M-1 (that affects the subsequent accuracy of sabot rounds fired) apparently afflicts its derivatives, such as KA1/KBM1 and ZPT-98. If it did not, they would not be using tank-gun launched ATGMs.

 

[dollarman]

4KM effective range still beats 3.1ish range. Also, perhaps the ATGM offers better penetration vs ERA due to tandem warhead. Llaser-beam riding would make it more accurate. Finally ATGM's can be used to engage attack helicopters. Thats clearly a capability of the Type 99 based on the elavation capabilities of the laser-blinder thing. Just because the missle is powerful does not imply the gun is weak.

 

[RedMercury]

Repeating the same argument, which I ripped apart already, for pages upon pages does not magically make it true. You might be right, but your argument is flawed, and your mind set smacks of arrogance and prejudice against Chinese engineers.

The 0.18mil tidbit is more of interest to me than anything you have written. Something quantitative like that versus an ambiguous 25% increase in accuracy (accuracy means what? measured how? at what range?) is far more informative.

I find it odd that a gun which can almost always hit at 2000 meters (on the move against a moving target no less) will be ineffective just 251 meters further. Just a little suspicious to me.

There's a simple rationale behind gun launched ATGMs besides. Even if you can hit a stationary target at 4km, doesn't mean you can hit a moving target at that range, simply because the sabot would take 2+ seconds to fly that far, meaning you have to predict the position of the target 2+ seconds later.

 

[Gollevainen]

Now the next person calling someone biased, arrogant or prejudice towards anyone better have some sort of engineering degree over ballistics, othervice he will learn the basics of ballistics while flying from the force of Golly kicking his ass:nono::nono:

Keep the discussion civil and provide proofs, facts and figures if making bold comments and more importantly when making comments that are near of being personal insults.

I've have to close more threads of type 98/99's maingun than most of you have years lived, so keep on praying that I wont have to close this one as well.

Gollevainen

 

[Norfolk]

There is nothing ambiguous about the 25% accuracy increase figure of the ZPT-98 over 1,800 metres of the original 2A46M-1. It is plainly stated in both the original Chinese-language and the English-translations of the article on Tianren's Blog. As I stated in a previous post, if you have doubts about the figure, E-Mail Terry Lau himself, his link is provided near the end of the article.

Attentuation is the problem with the 125mm gun; perhaps it is from too powerful a a propellant charge, too fast burning propellant charge, or too short a barrel for the charge used - for that matter, the original 2A46M-1 had an insufficiently rigid barrel, which was corrected in later production batches. The derivatives of the 2A46M-1 seem to share this problem; both the 25% accuracy improvement of the ZPT-98 (which works out to 2,250 metres) on the 1,800 metres of the original 2A46M-1 and the 2,500 metres of the Ukrainian KA1/KBM1 accord with this.

Clearly, if a 125mm Soviet or derivative gun such as ZPT-98 on Type 99 MBT wants to reach the published 3,200 of German/US 120mm (or longer such as the 3 mile/4,800 metres range that M-1 A1 tanks of the US Army 24th Infantry Division [Mechanized] tanks engaged and destroyed Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks at as they headed north to the al-Hammar causeway west of Basra - see "The Generals' War" by Michael R. Gordon and LtGen. Bernard E. Trainor (USMC ret.); I have already cited this source in previous posts, and this source contains the references to the After Action Reports concerned, and once again, if you do not find these credible then PM Utelore on our forum and ask him - he was an M-1 tanker who fought in the 1991 Gulf War ), then tank gun launched ATGMs with 4,000 to 5,000 metres range are required. And that is just what 2A46M-1 and ZPT-98 use.

Here is another source about the 2A46M, which describes near the bottom on Page 135 the accurate range of the 125mm on the T-72; it is from the University of Military Intelligence, a private-think-tank that is connected with, and has direct access to, both the US Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona (USAIC) and its classified documents. To access the classified documents from the USAIC that the University of Military Intelligence has, you must have DoD security clearance. Here is an unclassified manual prepared by the University of Military Intelligence for the "Ariana Forces" formerly known as the US Army OPFOR at Fort Irwin, California, the National Training Center:

Quote:

96B1A06L-SHO2
13 5
T-72 Main Battle Tank
DESCRIPTION:
The T-72 medium tank is similar in general appearance to the T-64. The T-72
has six large, die-cast, rubber-coated road wheels and three track return rollers.
It has a 14-tooth drive sprocket and a single-pin track with rubber-bushed pins.
The gunner's IR searchlight is mounted to the right of the main gun. The 12.7-
mm NSV anti-aircraft machine gun has a rotating mount, and there is no
provision for firing it from within the tank. There are normally only a few small
stowage boxes on the outside of the turret, and a single short snorkel is stowed
on the left side of the turret. The T-72 has a larger engine compartment than the
T-64, and the radiator grill is near the rear of the hull. The T-72 has greater
mobility than the T-62. The V-12 diesel engine has an output of 780 hp. This
engine appears to be remarkably smoke-free and smooth-running, having
eliminated the excessive vibration which was said to cause high crew fatigue in
the T-62. Although the engine is larger than that of the T-64, the heavier (41 mt)
T-72 is believed to have approximately the same road speed as the T-64. The T-
72B1 is powered by a multi-fuel V-12 piston air-cooled 840 hp engine that will run
on three fuels: Diesel, Benzene or Kerosene. Two 200-liter auxiliary fuel drums
can be fitted on the rear of the hull. The T-72 can be fitted with a snorkel for deep
fording, and takes about 20 minutes to prepare for amphibious use. The T-72
has better armor protection than the T-62, due to the use of layered armor and
other features discussed above under T-64 capabilities. The advanced passive
armor package of the T-72M and T-72M1 can sustain direct hits from the 105mm
gun equipped M1 Abrams at up to 2,000 meter range. The later T-72Ms and T-
72M1s are equipped with laser rangefinders ensuring high hit probabilities at
ranges of 2,000 meters and below. The turret has conventional cast armor with a
maximum thickness of 280-mm, the nose is about 80-mm thick and the glacis is
200-mm thick laminate armor. Besides the PAZ radiation detection system, the

-Unquote

To verify this, go to Google.com, type in Ariana Threat Guide in the search box, and the first result should be the threat guide itself. Click on it (and once it loads - it is 6.92 MB, so it's BIG) and go to near the bottom of Page 135. There you will find the specification for the accurate range of the T-72 main gun - 2,000m. It lists the accurate range of the 125mm gun on the T-72 as being 2,000m - not far off from 1,800m that Global Security quotes. Even 25% improvement over 2,000m amounts to the same 2,500m of the Ukrainian 125mm.

This is about the best UNCLASSIFIED material you are going to get about the REAL performance of the 2A46M-1. And it is upon this performance that the 25% increase in accuracy of the ZPT-98 is based, and it readily accords with the performance of a fellow 2A46M-1 derivative, the Ukrainian KA1/KBM1.

 

[Nethappy]

Everyone clam down... it took some time cos these thing are sensitive.
I have verify the reason for the guided missile round.

Actually the chinese has realized that the Type99 surivability is lower then most western tank and that the west have been developing extend range round for that own tank. Therefore without a round that can out-range most western tank round, provide a high probability frist round hit and penertation, the chinese tank are in real trouble. The russian main gun guided missile provide a minimum risk platform to work on.

This is one of the main reason they the russian missile in the frist place it save alot of time and money on development.

gun launhced anti tank missiles are very expensive,according to steven zaloga, cost for 10 rd. of AT-10 "bastion" is equally one t-72 tank!

The chinese can built anything much cheaper then anyone else in the world and most military manufaturers are state owned.

 

[nemo]

Norfolk:
You are confusing *system* level accuracy with *gun* level accuracy. From the angular error/deviation, even T-72 *gun* are accurate enough. If there is a limitation in effective range, the additional error come from somewhere else. The accuracy of the gun itself is not the primary error, so it make no sense extrapolate the system accuracy from gun accuracy.

And you seems to be fixated on extrapolation of the capability of type-98/99 from T-72. This will only work if type-98/99 is a clone of T-72 with same manufacturing standard. There are enough difference both in design and manufacturing standard (monkey model vs. a much newer, top of the line) that make this assumption questionable.

 

[Norfolk]

Norfolk:
You are confusing *system* level accuracy with *gun* level accuracy. From the angular error/deviation, even T-72 *gun* are accurate enough. If there is a limitation in effective range, the additional error come from somewhere else. The accuracy of the gun itself is not the primary error, so it make no sense extrapolate the system accuracy from gun accuracy.

And you seems to be fixated on extrapolation of the capability of type-98/99 from T-72. This will only work if type-98/99 is a clone of T-72 with same manufacturing standard. There are enough difference both in design and manufacturing standard (monkey model vs. a much newer, top of the line) that make this assumption questionable.

No-one has provided a clear, unambiguous,and verifiable specification to the contrary; moreover, when an article states that there is a 25% increase in accuracy of one gun over another of which it is itself a development, then it is clear that that means a 25% increase in its accurate range, not 50%, not 100%, - 25%, no more, no less. A an assertion otherwise has no foundation in logic, it is a mere obfuscation, an analytical dead-end. Do not deny the specifications that you have been provided with unless you can reciprocate.

Provide clear, unambiguous facts to support your argument. Otherwise, no analysis is possible, and only groundless assertions are left. I have provided several sources for what I have presented, with clear facts, and ways to readily access those sources for verification. So far none have been provided to the contrary. The ZPT-98 is stated to have an accuracy 25% greater than that of the original 2A46M-1 in the article on Tianren's Blog (and as I have repeated before, if you doubt the veracity of the specifications in that article, you can E-Mail its author Terry Liau on the link provided near the bottom of the article itself; if you have questions about the article, then ask its author personally), and that works out to either 2,250 m or 2,500 m depending on either of two the sources that I have provided.

I have provided two separate sources, one that derives from US Army intelligence information (which also has access to T-72s that belonged to East Germany and other former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 1980's and early 1990's; some of those T-72s are in the US now, including Fort Irwin, California), and one that draws its information from the Ukrainian manufacturer of the T-72 (including the original and subsequent improved models). I have provided similar sources for other facts that I have provided.

You can even go to our own China Defence.com site which will tell you that the Type 99MBT's 125mm gun is accurate to 2,000m - and that is posted by our Administrator, DongFeng. PM him to verify this. And if there is doubt about the sources I gave for the 1991performance in Iraq/Kuwait with the US(/German) 120mm, then PM Utelore on our forum and ask him - he was in an M-1 and fought in that war.

Only unsupported claims and assertions have been provided to counter what I have provided. There has been no meaningful reciprocation, and thus, no effective counter to what I have provided. Do some research of your own, and provide clear facts and specifications that can be easily verified and subsequently discussed. If you need some help to locate sources, ask me, but don't go on interminably that you disagree with what I have provided without providing reciprocal yet contrary specifications. Try Global Security or Jane's Defence; even the US Army and DoD provide electronic access to unclassified sources. Otherwise all that is left is rhetoric, not analysis. Dig deep, find hard facts, post them with references that can be easily accessed and verified, and present your argument. Then you will have a solid case and a clear analysis.