New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Gollevainen]

Why all the latest photos posted in this thread couped with the "is this the new T-99GZXCVY supertank?" tags? Exspecially when all the photoes have either been GCIs or completely different tanks which are easy to check up if you just bother. It however demands somesort of objectivity and not the silly "I want to belive its the new Type 99G" thinking.

This image shows ZTZ96Gs, easy to reqocnise from the ZTZ99 series due its hull, note that the hull keeps rasing towards the end and not sloping back as in the ZTZ99. Also these tanks lacks the Shtora-1-type countermeassure kit atop the turret.

And last, a picture of three tanks (let them be any tanks) is a solid indication that the army in question has....three of such tanks in its inventory (not neccerically in full service). To have solid indication of some system being massively delivered to the corresponding army needs little bit more.

 

[RedMercury]

Since winter road evaluations were just going on in the Spring, this is at most a T&E deployment with a handful of tanks.

 

[SteelBird]

Everyone has seen this video before? It's from youtube. It compare and claim that the Type 99's stabilizer is inferior to the Japanese Type 90.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

However, after compared with the pix on the main site, I found that the tank in the video is likely to be the type 96 rather type 99. OK, some expert please confirm this.

After all, I would like to ask one question: How good is the type 99 's stabilizer and its fire control system?

 

[crobato]

Looks like a 96 to me.

Also something funny about the video. The T-96 is running full bore on hard solid dry ground, but the T-90 is over soft muddy ground. That's going to affect the speed and ride of the tank so I don't think the T-90 is moving as fast or crashing to the ground as hard as the T-96. But give the T-90 credit in one area, the active self leveling suspension can also contribute to the gun stabilization control, although in my opinion, being too complicated is not something I have faith in.

If youtube theatrics is what decides the best tank, then look at this then.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Soviet General]

hmmmm must look in to this

 

[jackbh]

That is Type-96 in the video for sure, 100% for sure.

 

[tphuang]

Interesting section on Type 99 and Type 96
闲谈99坦克和96坦克
关于99，额想说自己的看法：
99也就是三代坦克，是我国装甲车辆发展的一个阶段成果，从后来的三大大改预研，三代大改坦克的改进来看，99的问题多多，只是我国迈进三代坦克门槛的敲门之作。
炮长观瞄虽然采用了下反加热像，并有自动跟踪能力，但是在动对动精度上和舒适性上有很大缺陷。用有光学取景器的小DC，额还是喜欢看着屏幕拍照，只有迫不得已的情况下才用那个光学取景器。
与下反观瞄配套的热像在发现和识别距离上与西方同期坦克热像有一定的差距。
车长周视瞄准只有白光和微光通道，车长对于战场形式的感知能力一般。也许我们不必苛求，要知道豹二也是在A5以后才上车长热像的。
车内信息化水平一般，当然额不知道三代大改预研上取得的成果是否应用到后期交付的几批99里面。
军迷们受某人三代坦克专辑的荼毒很深，中国125 坦克炮/弹只处于当今世界坦克炮的中上水平（额只和米帝和德国的120比）远远未达到世界第一的水平。某人的什么穿深960只是个神话，现实中我国125 能达到800就很牛了（估算，换算某数据），当然米帝和德国也不会好太多。99和96的125由于炮的不同，威力也是不同的，两者差距相当于83-105 和94-105的威力差距。现实中99使用现役某弹的数据在600-700之间(具体的额不说）
负责任的说一句，额们已经把毛子的2A46系列全面甩开了，毛子2A-46威力最大的和96的125差不多。
瞄导合一，发射炮射导弹，目前额们只有三个型号的装甲车辆可以。99 二代步和100轮突。观瞄能力没有炮射导弹远，几公里的射程都是白搭，额觉得还是老老实实用穿甲弹和破甲弹吧，这个东西还给毛子比较好。
关于底盘，99的传动和发动机勉强达到三代门槛，很多很多的不足，而且底盘的防护能力与本人想象的有一定的差距。关于发动机，额负责任的说一句，99的1200马力发动机和任何国家无关，引进的只是某国的工艺，但实现工艺的手段完全国内自行开发。
传说中的三代大改，额能说的是：三代大改与99的差异很像豹二A4和A6的差异，发动机从1200换了1500，同时全车重量增加了不少。本菜指出的缺点基本得到解决。至于什么城市战坦克不就是挂套件么？
现在在说说96
很多人都喜欢YY96坦克的威力，一直在疑惑为啥出口巴基斯坦的85系列都那么多年了，为啥到90年代末我们才装备了以85系列为原型的96呢？
这个还得从120坦克炮下马说起：
120炮的下马原因很简单，就是内弹道设计不好，炮管长，药室大，导致以此为条件设计的底盘尺寸巨大,进而为了保证机动性得用一台马力巨大的发动机（相对于当时我们的750马力的12150而言）这显然是不可能的。
在120被迫下马后，我国坦克车辆设计人员做出了两个决定。使用对车内空间要求较小的分装125并以从某国获得的125炮为原型研制我国自己的125坦克炮。（火炮设计的门道不是看以什么为原型，而是看自己国家的工业基础和设计手段）另外继续发展从欧洲引进的105炮，使其成为在三代坦克服役前我国坦克的主炮。
应该说当时的125在威力上要比120有一个倒退，120的威力在500以上，而当时毛子的2A46威力只有400左右，所以么在125炮的威力超过120之前，我国是不会装备使用125炮坦克的。
虽然引进的L7 105炮性能一般，但是我们通过100滑的研制，对于这个这个口径火炮的设计积累了很多经验，研制了自用的105坦克炮，并以此为原型发展了若干种型号的105坦克炮，包括88A和59D-2使用的94加长105，发射某弹的威力在500左右。
90年代中期某年后，125坦克炮的高膛压耐受能力大幅度提高，使得125炮的威力大幅度提高，超过了120在台架上的某试验数据。为了避免在三代大量批产之前仍然大量使用老59的尴尬和避免三代技术要求过高而带来的风险问题，决定以85Ⅱ为基础装备威力超过了120的某型125坦克炮的96坦克大规模装备部队。
96最初的定位就是一个降低三代坦克风险的保底装备，所以在各方面性能上都有些差距。以85ⅡM的41吨的全重来说，防护力不会好到什么地方。而96继承了很多85ⅡM设计的96来说防护远达不到三代坦克的要求。
再说火控：可以认为96原型的火控是99坦克下反的功能阉割版。在新闻录像里目前只见过96短停射击和较低速度的动对动瞄准，这也是96火控系统导致的问题。另外据某教材，96火控的发现能力也只能保持在某个范围，而这个范围相对与大多90年代后期装备的坦克来说比较偏低。
进入2000年后，由于99坦克某些方面问题迟迟得不到有效解决，并且军方对99的技术要求是否能满足2000年后的作战环境和潜在危险，遂决定在三代基础上研制三代大改坦克。我国陆军装甲力量的主体只能依靠防护能力和技术较低的96
所以此时的96又取得了一个机遇发展期，继续改进96有很大的市场。
同时周边国家坦克发展的更新换代明显放缓，先前预计的M1 勒克莱尔，豹二坦克大量出现在我国周边的情况并没有出现，所以96的防护劣势问题并没有十分突出。
那么96的改进就集中在了几个方面：
增加附加装甲，在一定程度上提高了坦克的防穿 防破的能力。
使用技术成熟的上反观瞄，并使用了发现能力较强的热像，基本摆脱了96坦克发现能力落后的帽子。
增加了功能齐全二代车内终端，使得全车信息话水平大大提高。
目前虽然发动机任然是12150，但是可能更换体积更小的新型8V150发动机与三代大改坦克发动机形成系列化。
有人喜欢对比MBT-2000和印度的T-72
防护型前者好，传动 发动机技术水平两者相当
火炮前者要好不少，观瞄，两者用的都是萨基姆的热像，都是下反。前者还有车长观瞄。
不用比也知道谁好了
I think unlike a lot of posts online, this is a very realistic look at the capability of 99 and 96. Talks about the motor and engine of Type 99 being not that good, barely at 3rd generation level. He says the entire stuff about being able to penetrate 960 mm at 2000 m is a myth. If it can reach about 800, that'd be pretty amazing. The current performance is around 600 to 700 mm. They have tossed away 2A46 series, because it's just not that good. For comparison sake, the best of 2A46 series can reach the performance of the 125 mm on Type 96.

It mentions a bunch more stuff, about problems facing Type 99 and 96.

 

[Skywatcher]

I always suspected that the 960mm was for some sort of prototype/demonstration/proof of concept technology which never quite made it into service for a variety of reasons (single piece ammunitions probably aren't compatible with the ZTZ-99's current autoloader, to my knowledge).

Edit: Or if it was two piece ammunition, the only way to really improve the performance is put more powerful propellant and increase the mass of the penetrator, both of which are doable. However, the penetrator, though heavier, isn't going to be so stable because of its relatively short length and the increased recoil from improved propellant are both going to wreck havoc with accuracy at long range, making the use of such a weapon purely academic at best.

 

[challenge]

the article most probably old news.

 

[Skywatcher]

Well, after doing some measurements with the 125mm round picture, I think it is reasonable to say that it may be as powerful as the M289A3, but certainly not as accurate. The length ratio of the penetrator is certainly well over 30:1 (the penetrator itself is probably 25-20mm in diameter) if the penetrator runs the whole length of the first ammunition piece (which seems a logical assumption, given Indian and South Korean APFSDS types) and the piece itself is about 750mm in total length. These measurements are based off the assumption that the discarding sabot itself is 125mm, which is a given.

The Chinese 125mm piece apparently has about 200mm extra length compared to the M289A3, which would mean more propellant. As for the penetrator itself, it could mass as much as a penetrator of the M289A3 if the Chinese simply increased the length of the depleted uranium tip as opposed to the rest of the penetrator, which is simple enough.