New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Blitzo]

This is how I view the Type 96G. The Type 99 came out but required further refining, and the basic Type 96 design was alright but it had obsolete equipment and turret design. So when the Type 99 had new variants rolling out soon, the technology was implemented on the Type 96 to improve its capabilities. And also its easier to mass equip the army with Type 96 or convert by modifications existing old Type 96 to G variant. Keeping the old design to save cost, rather then creating a new project to equip the East and South division armies with a new Main Battle Tank. Also bringing the Type 96 to around Type 99 standard but without the excess of 50t weight issue for the East and South environments.
So far all articles gather gives a number for the Type 99 of all variants including the elite showcase models to be around ~500, and for the Type 96 around ~2700-3000. So if your looking only on China Tanks its nearly reaching 50% modern-advance Main Battle Tanks in numbers for its Ground Forces.

Yeah totally agree with your statement.

But I also thought of something along the lines of less "T-72". Like with a bustle autoloader so it's less likely to blow up from enemy fire. Cause as everyone knows that happened to many T-72's over the years when facing western tanks. I'd be horrified if that happened to Type 96G + Type 99..... Are bustle style autoloaders that hard to make..?

 

[the spectator]

Yeah totally agree with your statement.

But I also thought of something along the lines of less "T-72". Like with a bustle autoloader so it's less likely to blow up from enemy fire. Cause as everyone knows that happened to many T-72's over the years when facing western tanks. I'd be horrified if that happened to Type 96G + Type 99..... Are bustle style autoloaders that hard to make..?

I don't believe china has the technology to make the bustle style autoloaders. Also I think that china has not settled on the latest type-99 design yet as evidenced by the low output. I think they need one more redesign based on a new set of different requirements and operational parameters before they mass produce a new set of tanks to replace their obsolete inventory. Even Egypt has close to 1,000 M1s and china only produced 200 of the type 98 and 99s.

 

[Delbert]

Yes I do understand that China needs more modern tanks...

But I do believe type-99 is better than those type-70's, 60's and 50's? right?

So it would be a good stop gap as for the meantime. infact I am not suggesting to build 5,000 of those. Just additional 200 per year or 300.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't believe china has the technology to make the bustle style autoloaders. Also I think that china has not settled on the latest type-99 design yet as evidenced by the low output. I think they need one more redesign based on a new set of different requirements and operational parameters before they mass produce a new set of tanks to replace their obsolete inventory. Even Egypt has close to 1,000 M1s and china only produced 200 of the type 98 and 99s.

I've done some background reading on bustle autoloaders but is it THAT hard to make them? Anyone who knows more about tank guns I want to hear from.

But on the ~200 number, I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it's from Sinodefence... Well I dunno. I got my skepticisms about Sinodefence. I think they made a small number due to the cost.

A large number of next gen Type 96 tanks which have bustle autoloaders and APS. That would be fantastic.

 

[crobato]

The 200 number is long obsolete, probably about four years ago. We should base estimate on the numbers of visually confirmed tank brigades that has the tank. So far, we got about four or five. And a PLA tank brigade is about 124 to 132 tanks.

Beijing 112th Tank Brigade
Shenyang 118th Tank Brigade
3rd Armored Division, 1 brigade
6th Armored Division, 1 brigade

 

[HKSDU]

I just wonder where did you get these figures? Type 96 were just estimated to be around 1500, while Type 99 around 200.

China Central Television Military Channel 7, Sina.com articles, China mainland military forum, general articles, picture evidence (strongest source of my numbers) serving in that brigade, with around ~130 in each brigade. And with 4 brigades as Crobato stated the location of the brigades you end up around ~500 Type 99. Type 96 number is the same method of how I got the Type 99. Though it was alot harder cause of the Type 88 conversion to Type 96, it was hard to get a decent number. The Type 96G is easy to spot, but the old Type 96 with non-arrow turret with slanted vertical flat turret was alot harder to tell the difference. From other simular appearance tanks. Just some update on location of tanks serving which brigade, and which brigade has replaced theirs with newer models gives you an update number. Sinodefence I would say is about 2-3 years old on tank information on the quantity.

 

[HKSDU]

Yeah totally agree with your statement.

But I also thought of something along the lines of less "T-72". Like with a bustle autoloader so it's less likely to blow up from enemy fire. Cause as everyone knows that happened to many T-72's over the years when facing western tanks. I'd be horrified if that happened to Type 96G + Type 99..... Are bustle style autoloaders that hard to make..?

If your refering about the "Shot trap" where the gap between the turret and hull situated towards the front is of a concern to cause a blow out. Then no. Don't be mistaken of the WWII "Shot trap" where the turret blows out caused from solid shot piercing rounds, to the modern kinetic energy pentrator rounds. Its different cause following simular to the Leopard 2 design it allows the round to undergo stress instead of pentration, thus preventing round from pentrating.

If NORINCO was concerned of this little design hiccup, simply armour upgrades or armour modifications to increase that section could be simply achieved. The only disadvantage is its likely to allow the round to impact on the turret ring.

So the so-called auto-bustler blowing up upon penetration is true in someway. BUT the round must first penetrate the armour, in which NORINCO designed in a way that it doesn't.

 

[King_Comm]

If an APFSDS or the metal stream from a large HEAT round reaches where the auto loader is on a Type 99, the vehicle, and the crew will not survive regardless of whether an auto loader is there or not. The ammunition store on the rear of the turrent on western tanks are more for providing a counter balance to the barrel of the gun to allow faster and more accurate turret traverse than making the tank more survivable.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

If your refering about the "Shot trap" where the gap between the turret and hull situated towards the front is of a concern to cause a blow out. Then no. Don't be mistaken of the WWII "Shot trap" where the turret blows out caused from solid shot piercing rounds, to the modern kinetic energy pentrator rounds. Its different cause following simular to the Leopard 2 design it allows the round to undergo stress instead of pentration, thus preventing round from pentrating.

The gap between the turret and hull has nothing to do with the autoloader exploding.

So the so-called auto-bustler blowing up upon penetration is true in someway. BUT the round must first penetrate the armour, in which NORINCO designed in a way that it doesn't.

Not true. If the autoloaders in the Type-96/98/99 are anything like the ones in the latest Russian tanks, then the round does not actually have to penetrate the tank. During the Chechen conflict, a number of T-80s exploded when the autoloader with vertically placed rounds was hit: in theory it should be protected by the roadwheel, but when the tank got hit on its side armour the ready-to-use ammunition exploded. This was an issue of the sideways vibrations of shock generated when the tank was hit from the side causing the ammunition to detonate within the autoloader.

 

[HKSDU]

The gap between the turret and hull has nothing to do with the autoloader exploding.



Not true. If the autoloaders in the Type-96/98/99 are anything like the ones in the latest Russian tanks, then the round does not actually have to penetrate the tank. During the Chechen conflict, a number of T-80s exploded when the autoloader with vertically placed rounds was hit: in theory it should be protected by the roadwheel, but when the tank got hit on its side armour the ready-to-use ammunition exploded. This was an issue of the sideways vibrations of shock generated when the tank was hit from the side causing the ammunition to detonate within the autoloader.

NORINCO studied these numerous wars of auto-loader incidents, they went through numerous design change from their original design. The Chechen War in 1994-96, way before the first Type 99 model came out, the Type 98.

Wrong. The T-80 explosion in the Chechen War wasn't cause of auto-loader implentation flaw. It was cause the rounds use was of poor choice being semi combustible rounds as to brass rounds. The rounds going off in the T-80 weren't neccesarly the ones stored on the auto loader since the auto loader itself is well protected, but the extra rounds are stored in the crew compartment, that can cause the survivability issue of the rounds going off without round penetration. The Russians learn't from this War and started to phase out T-80 due to this and the engine problems, and replace then with more capable T-90. And the gap in the hull and turret does sometime lead to auto-loader explosion. Seen in Iraq wars.

The T-80 in Chechen War, T-80B and T-80BV using the old 2A46-2 and 2A46M-1 all design in the late 70's and early 80's. So firstly the loader itself was of an old design that wasn't thoroughly tested, and poor choice of rounds used. I believe the Type 99 auto-loader design is based on the 2A46M-1. So for the auto-loader with decent rounds, should only explode upon pentration of rounds. I suspect that the constant upgrades to the Type 99 such as the A2 variant is more then just electronics and countermeasures, exterior you can see notable changes but the internals are still not fully shown to the public media. Even the older Type 99 variants. But like I said previously first the round must pentrate.