New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Pointblank
Senior Member
Currently, a good team in a M1 Abrams can get off more aimed main gun rounds than the T-72... a combination of factors play into this.
1. Ergonomics. Western tanks are large for a variety of reasons. One of them is for ergonomics; the designers have placed emphasis on the 'fightability' of the crew inside the tank; that means giving them enough room to work in, and having equipment placed in locations that are easily accessible. The M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger II, etc will comfortably hold their 4 crew members easily and comfortably. Russian tank designs (and others that are related) are more cramped and considerably more crude with less interior room and fit and finish. If you ever have the chance to crawl around a Russian tank compared to a Western one, you will notice the difference in room.
2. Protection. The West have placed a higher emphasis on protection compared to Russian designs. Western tanks usually have more armour as the expected doctrine during the Cold War is that the West would be fighting on the defensive. That means increased crew survivability; sprall liners for example line Western tanks to protect against spralling, ammunition storage is in a separate armoured compartment with blow out panels to protect the crew from ammunition explosions.
It is funny all the info u provided belongs to Cold war doctrine. And refer to Chinese Type 98/99 tank. Chinese tank is no more in soviet doctrine. I agreed western tank are more well protected for crew in terms of ammo box blow off but not in terms of better or more armour. Chinese equally emphasize on superior armour compare to western counterpart.
Type 99 weights a 53 tons compare to T-90 which goes less than 50 tons.
And u can'ty deny the fact, u need a more spacious and bigger turret for a 3 man crew compare to a 2 man crew(both excluding driver). Your amour is more spread out and resulted in a heavier tank. This mean tank like M1A1 despite being heavier than Type 99 doesn't automatic concluded its amour is thicker and better.
A better comparison will be the one given by me of Type 99 to T-90. Both uses autoloader and 3 man crew but of course , many factors will still come in.
lower silhouette does not automatically translate into tactical advantage,during the arab israel war.,more than 60% of tank engagement,it was israel tanks fired first.this despite the fact,centurion tank and M-60 has bigger silhouette than T-55and T-62 .other bigger factor was ergonomic, or the "office space",israel discover that tank crews operating capture soviet tank has higher chance of getting tire and physical exhaustion.
U can't deny high profile makes u easily spotted and easier to aim and hit,right? And Israel tank crew are very competent which makes them probably the reason for their success.
If u swoop the Egyptian crew with Israeli on the T-55. Probably the outcome will be different.
Typ 98/99 hull and turret are much more spacious compare to T-55. It's hull is 1 m longer than T-72. Don't forget, its only a 3 man crew tank. Typ98/99 is smaller than M1A1 doesn't mean it is not as spacious as latter.
Last edited:
Pointblank
Senior Member
I don't think soldiers should go into battle with equipment they are uncomfortable using in the long run. If a soldier is comfortable in and with their equipment, they will fight harder, and fight longer.
lcloo
Captain
A larger room and comfort translate to longer endurance in optimum combat alert, this will become for critical is a bettle last more than 24 hours with-out rest. Fatigue crew can't aim and shoot as good as in the first hours of battle.
Effective range of tank gun is more important than the size of tank. If you out-range the other guy, you achieve the shoot first kill first advantage. Small size of T-71 offer not much advantage.
Effective range of tank gun is more important than the size of tank. If you out-range the other guy, you achieve the shoot first kill first advantage. Small size of T-71 offer not much advantage.