New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
vincelee said:
OMG I agree with you. I call it Redneck Sh*thole.
Remember that game command and conquer generals?
Well anyways type 98/99 is 12 tons lighter than the M1a2 and on other websites they say that its armor might be influenced by type 80uMBT. Like its cavities in the turret's frontal armor which are covered by plates, placed flush and bolted to the turret's roof. So could this mean that type 98/99 could be immune from most NATO atgm's (HEAT) on its front arc? I'd like to believe so. + that picture SwimmerX posted where the type 98 took a hit from an ATGM.:china:
In response to many people's request for actual numbers on type 99's armor ratings, you can actually do a fair estimate on combat data gathered from it's predecessors, the t-80 and its lesser cousin the t-72. (Note that they are vastly different tanks build for different grades of troups and vary sharply in capabilities.) t-55 -> t-64 -> t-72 -> t-90 ||| t-55 -> t-62 -> t-80 -> black eagle? Strangely the 115mm rifled of the t-62 is often regarded as superior to the L7.... (This was in an era where sabot was in its infance and heat seemed the way to go)
----------------
Fact: The Chineses L7 t-59D (80's tech) can achieve 590mm with du sabot.
Fact: The Type 89 120mm smoothbore can achieve roughly the same amount. Though it should be noted that such tests were done in the early 1990's and there fore were using tungsten sabot rounds.
Fact: The type 89's gun is often regarded by both the west and chinese as a copy of the m249 gun.
Deduction: The armor penetration ability of the type 99's gun, although varying as stated by many sources, is probrably higher then the ability of the improved L7, therefore 600+. The reports of 900-960mm penetration may be the rumors stured up by over-nationalistic fans. However, with the new generation guns (L55) just coming into play, it would not surpise me that china, with the technological knowhow to create something similar to the L44, and by taking full advantage of the 125 bore dimater of the standarized rounds, could perfectly be able to create something in the 900+ range within a short time.
-----------
Fact: T-72 have been hit by 10+ rpgs from all sides in Chechenia with our suffering penetration. Due to the fact that they were still limping, it would be safe to assume that they were hit mainly in the turret. Also taking effec the close proximity of city warfare, it woudl be safe to assume that they were hit in the back as well.
Fact: Chechenian rebels had rpg-29s
Fact: After the Orange Revolutions in former USSR, Ukranian "T-84s" were used as test subjects for 105 and 120mm sabot. It was reported that the T-84s, "Russian T-80s) were able to sustain 105mm tungesten sabot at a range of 1500m when armed with era, although i have not had any info on the 120mm tests.
Fact: During the Iraqi-Iranian war, non-era T-72s were often hit with At-3's and were still able to limp home.
Fact: Era-equipt T-80's were destroyed quite easily from the front by improved At-4's (Some say that they were Hj-8s? Can anyone confirm?).
Fact: Soviet 90's tech Kontakt-5 persumably is the equivalent of 200mm of rha to sabot and 600mm of sabot to heat.
Deduction:
Sabot-
Front Turret: ~ 700mm (German 105mm tungesten round, 500mm) + (200mm, era; china supposively got 16 fully armed T-80u's in 1993)
Side Turret: Unknown.
Front Glacius: 600mm+ ? (Im just gonna take the T-80's figure on this.)
Turret Side and back: Unknown.
Turret Top: <70mm The T-72's were penetrated by Gau-8 fire from 3000+m. The Gau-8 has a penetration of ~70mm at 2000m, you do the math. Although im not saying thatt the t-99 is based on the t-72, there seems to be little evidence of the Pla considering top armor, notable examples being the Korean K-2 featuing top era blocks.
Chassis back and sides: <500mm Seeing as how the front armor is almost always the thickest, and that no era is fitted, the figure seems fairly accurate.
-------
Heat:
Turret Front: 1100mm+ Seeing the seemingly huge resistence of Kontakt Era, and the fact that even t-72s were able to stand up to 500mm+ of rpg-29, the figure would come as a moderate estimate. (500mm + 600m+) And of couse the Type 99 would have better armor then the T-72.
Glacius Front: 1000mm+? Again, same evidence with the turret front, there are no actual figures, but we do know that there was no penetration.
The rest: There is very little info to base the rest of the arguement, however we do know that in Chechnia, the Type 64+ series of tanks were hit at almost all sides from rpg-29's proving their resistence to Heat projectiles. This should come as no surprise as the T-72 and T-80's were designed during an era stressing the dangers of Heat based weapons.
Note: Does anyone know why the east dosent just create a 65+ ton tank to match their western counterparts? The have the engine, and if we consider mobility, both sides would be at an equal disadvantage.
----------------
Fact: The Chineses L7 t-59D (80's tech) can achieve 590mm with du sabot.
Fact: The Type 89 120mm smoothbore can achieve roughly the same amount. Though it should be noted that such tests were done in the early 1990's and there fore were using tungsten sabot rounds.
Fact: The type 89's gun is often regarded by both the west and chinese as a copy of the m249 gun.
Deduction: The armor penetration ability of the type 99's gun, although varying as stated by many sources, is probrably higher then the ability of the improved L7, therefore 600+. The reports of 900-960mm penetration may be the rumors stured up by over-nationalistic fans. However, with the new generation guns (L55) just coming into play, it would not surpise me that china, with the technological knowhow to create something similar to the L44, and by taking full advantage of the 125 bore dimater of the standarized rounds, could perfectly be able to create something in the 900+ range within a short time.
-----------
Fact: T-72 have been hit by 10+ rpgs from all sides in Chechenia with our suffering penetration. Due to the fact that they were still limping, it would be safe to assume that they were hit mainly in the turret. Also taking effec the close proximity of city warfare, it woudl be safe to assume that they were hit in the back as well.
Fact: Chechenian rebels had rpg-29s
Fact: After the Orange Revolutions in former USSR, Ukranian "T-84s" were used as test subjects for 105 and 120mm sabot. It was reported that the T-84s, "Russian T-80s) were able to sustain 105mm tungesten sabot at a range of 1500m when armed with era, although i have not had any info on the 120mm tests.
Fact: During the Iraqi-Iranian war, non-era T-72s were often hit with At-3's and were still able to limp home.
Fact: Era-equipt T-80's were destroyed quite easily from the front by improved At-4's (Some say that they were Hj-8s? Can anyone confirm?).
Fact: Soviet 90's tech Kontakt-5 persumably is the equivalent of 200mm of rha to sabot and 600mm of sabot to heat.
Deduction:
Sabot-
Front Turret: ~ 700mm (German 105mm tungesten round, 500mm) + (200mm, era; china supposively got 16 fully armed T-80u's in 1993)
Side Turret: Unknown.
Front Glacius: 600mm+ ? (Im just gonna take the T-80's figure on this.)
Turret Side and back: Unknown.
Turret Top: <70mm The T-72's were penetrated by Gau-8 fire from 3000+m. The Gau-8 has a penetration of ~70mm at 2000m, you do the math. Although im not saying thatt the t-99 is based on the t-72, there seems to be little evidence of the Pla considering top armor, notable examples being the Korean K-2 featuing top era blocks.
Chassis back and sides: <500mm Seeing as how the front armor is almost always the thickest, and that no era is fitted, the figure seems fairly accurate.
-------
Heat:
Turret Front: 1100mm+ Seeing the seemingly huge resistence of Kontakt Era, and the fact that even t-72s were able to stand up to 500mm+ of rpg-29, the figure would come as a moderate estimate. (500mm + 600m+) And of couse the Type 99 would have better armor then the T-72.
Glacius Front: 1000mm+? Again, same evidence with the turret front, there are no actual figures, but we do know that there was no penetration.
The rest: There is very little info to base the rest of the arguement, however we do know that in Chechnia, the Type 64+ series of tanks were hit at almost all sides from rpg-29's proving their resistence to Heat projectiles. This should come as no surprise as the T-72 and T-80's were designed during an era stressing the dangers of Heat based weapons.
Note: Does anyone know why the east dosent just create a 65+ ton tank to match their western counterparts? The have the engine, and if we consider mobility, both sides would be at an equal disadvantage.
20.10.1999 T-80U and T-90 Protection Trials
On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.
T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.
The following weapons were used:
* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
o RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
o RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
o RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
o Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
o Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
o Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
o Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)
Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:
* ATGLs
o T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
o T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
* ATGMs
o T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
o T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
* APFSDS
o T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
o T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.
T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.
The following weapons were used:
* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
o RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
o RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
o RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
o Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
o Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
o Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
o Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)
Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:
* ATGLs
o T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
o T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
* ATGMs
o T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
o T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
* APFSDS
o T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
o T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
alright, I think the images could be a little big for this one,
This is some really large images, if you want to see the text more clearly, click to enlarge it and then move cursor over image and click and see it magnify
This is some really large images, if you want to see the text more clearly, click to enlarge it and then move cursor over image and click and see it magnify
from JDW
Chinese tank gun developments
The latest main battle tank (MBT) to enter service with the PLA is the Type 98, which uses a chassis very similar to that of the Russian T-72 series. On this is mounted a new locally-developed two-person turret, armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. The latter is mounted below the turret and first loads the projectile, and then the charge. The weapon system is based on Russian technology.
The Type 98 is in service with the PLA in limited numbers and was followed by the Type 99. This is almost identical to the Type 98, except that the turret has an arrow-head design similar to that of the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6.
More recently it has been revealed that China is developing a new MBT, which is understood to be armed with a 152 mm gun fed by an automatic loader. The weapon would be coupled to an advanced day/thermal sighting system that will allow moving targets to be engaged with a high first-round hit probability while the vehicle is stationary or moving.
At least one source has indicated that Russia has supplied some of the technology for the new Chinese MBT project, in order to earn valuable foreign currency to fund some of its own tank development programmes. This is understood to apply mainly to the main armament and the diesel power pack.
Chinese tank gun developments
The latest main battle tank (MBT) to enter service with the PLA is the Type 98, which uses a chassis very similar to that of the Russian T-72 series. On this is mounted a new locally-developed two-person turret, armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. The latter is mounted below the turret and first loads the projectile, and then the charge. The weapon system is based on Russian technology.
The Type 98 is in service with the PLA in limited numbers and was followed by the Type 99. This is almost identical to the Type 98, except that the turret has an arrow-head design similar to that of the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6.
More recently it has been revealed that China is developing a new MBT, which is understood to be armed with a 152 mm gun fed by an automatic loader. The weapon would be coupled to an advanced day/thermal sighting system that will allow moving targets to be engaged with a high first-round hit probability while the vehicle is stationary or moving.
At least one source has indicated that Russia has supplied some of the technology for the new Chinese MBT project, in order to earn valuable foreign currency to fund some of its own tank development programmes. This is understood to apply mainly to the main armament and the diesel power pack.
tphuang said:
Me says bollocks no need for a behemot.