New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
during israel-hezbollah war, some israel merkava carry jammer design to jam ATGM such as AT-6,TOW or milan.but israel also discover older generation of anti tank missile such as Sagger or RPG-7 can not be jam.
same for US army in iraq war, M-1A1 carry jammer design to disorient iraqi soviet supplied ATGM,but the real threat it turn out,come from RPG-7 or OED.
Last edited:
I read on the Chinese military website that the type-99 with new armor weighs over 60tons. And they say China is going to deploy the modified type-99 in the South because of the Taiwan situation. It also say that the armor on the front of the turret is thicker than the m1a2 tank. There is a new 1500 hp engine being used in the tank with a 140mm gun that was developed.
Skywatcher
Captain
They might as well go for the 1800hp engine then, if they want to put on the 140mm, unless they want that thing to get stick in the mud or what not.
Pointblank
Senior Member
The issue is ground pressure, when on soft terrain. Wider and longer tracks solve this issue.
I suspect the 140mm cannon is one of those "good ideas" which will never see the light of day; armies have been playing around with the 140mm cannon since the 1980's but in the end the size/weight/space issues probably outweigh any gains in firepower. At a minimum, I don't see any tank using a 140 unless there is an autoloader included or two piece ammunition.
As a historical comparison, the Germans figured that if an 88 was great in a Tiger, then a 128mm would be even better in a "Jagdtiger", but the end result was so big and heavy that it was practically immobile, carried fewer rounds and took longer to get into action.
It can be argued that the upper useful limit of main guns have been reached with the current 120/125mm main guns; any further increases in caliber is subject to the law of diminishing returns. The only possible advantage to the 140mm would be making gun launched missiles slightly easier to design in order to squeeze into the dimensions allowed.
There is no 'correction' needed, it is not good question. Joule is a unit of energy.. it is NOT enough to determine armour penetration. Apply two shells with precise same muzzle energy, and penetration will be different. Muzzle energy is entirely meaningless except as a convenient indicator for general performance of gun (mass and speed of shell).
Think of it this way, an APFSDS with different core will have vastly different armour penetration despite similar muzzle kinetic energy.
Armour penetration characteristic is certainly not something easily computed by anything as facile as just kinetic energy.
Last edited:
Regarding to the 140mm gun, with the rise of smart munitions and net centric army, is a gun that is capable of penetrating ridiculously thick armour really necessary? If a tank can share information with every other platform in the theatre, it can engage targets it can't see with long range smart munitions, if there are targets it can't defeat, it will just avoid that target and instantly get help from weapon systems that can defeat that target.
Last edited:
With armor ever going thicker, and composite material getting stronger each year, it would be natural that you start to field better and bigger guns.
I read from some where that the us army was trying to knock down some crippled tank in Iraq, and using the 120mm gun from the M1 and it did not penetrate. So if one day China's army had to face a tank like M1 then they better have a better and bigger gun, so they have a chance to penetrate the armor.
I read from some where that the us army was trying to knock down some crippled tank in Iraq, and using the 120mm gun from the M1 and it did not penetrate. So if one day China's army had to face a tank like M1 then they better have a better and bigger gun, so they have a chance to penetrate the armor.