New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Ambivalent]

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.

Here is what you are missing Lion. A tank like the M-1 and Leopard can depress their main guns further than Russian style tanks. This allows an Abrams crew to mask their turret better than the crew of a T-72/80/98 or T-99 can. Western tanks can approach the crest of a hill upslope and aim the gun over the crest while keeping the rest of the turret and the hull glacis hidden and protected from shot. The crews of Russian or Russian style tanks cannot lower their barrels enough to take as full advantage of such cover as an Abrams can.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To achieve similar hull and turret protection, T-80 style tank crews must dig a fighting position.
The Russian style autoloader is failure prone. Keep in mind we operate a good many modern Russian made tanks. I have seen and photographed them at my work. The autoloaders fail in excess of 20% of the time, while hand loading is essentially fool proof. Hand loading 120 mm ammo can be done at a rate of one round every four seconds, that is the minimum standard. A hot crew in battle can halve the time to load for a short period of time. The Russian style autoloader requires 22 rounds to be placed in a carousel inside the turret, where it is incredibly vulnerable to a hit. Western tanks put all ammo in the bustle behind the crew, and the crew is protected by a titanium blast door that must be opened to remove each round. Blow off panels on top of the ammo bustle protect the crew from direct hits to that spot, so an ammo explosion does not destroy the tank or harm the crew. With the Russian auto loader a hit means a deadly ammo explosion.
The last fault with the auto loader is that it's achingly slow. It requires 6-7 seconds to load a round, and during this time the turret may not traverse nor may the gun be elevated, meaning during the loading cycle of 6-7 seconds the next target may not be aimed at. Compare this to a western gun with manual loading where the turret is in motion and the barrel raised or lowered at the next target as the gun is loaded.
The US Army has a version of the Stryker in testing with a 120 mm gun using the French auto loader. In our estimation it is unreliable. Manual loading in combat is faster and more reliable, which is why the US Army has never used an autoloader.
The US Army resists going to any caliber above 120 mm as the weight of the shell would require an autoloader and the extra size would cut down on the number of rounds carried, to the point with some proposed calibers that the tank could not carry enough reloads to be useful in combat. The current 120 mm round with our best propellant load will defeat any known armor, including that of the T-80 as well as Kactus and Kontact.

 

[RedMercury]

Here is what you are missing Lion. A tank like the M-1 and Leopard can depress their main guns further than Russian style tanks. This allows an Abrams crew to mask their turret better than the crew of a T-72/80/98 or T-99 can. Western tanks can approach the crest of a hill upslope and aim the gun over the crest while keeping the rest of the turret and the hull glacis hidden and protected from shot. The crews of Russian or Russian style tanks cannot lower their barrels enough to take as full advantage of such cover as an Abrams can.

Reflects the defensive doctrine behind Western tank designs. Only useful on the defense and paid for by heavier mass, less tactical and strategic mobility, heavier logistic requirement, larger signature, and larger target area.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To achieve similar hull and turret protection, T-80 style tank crews must dig a fighting position.

Which is why they have built in self-entrenching machinery.

The Russian style autoloader is failure prone. Keep in mind we operate a good many modern Russian made tanks. I have seen and photographed them at my work. The autoloaders fail in excess of 20% of the time,

And how many T-90s do "you" operate? Or ZTZ-99s? Unreliability in 80s era autoloaders is no indicator that autoloaders designed 10+ years later are unreliable.

while hand loading is essentially fool proof.

except to injury, fatigue, vehicle movement.

Hand loading 120 mm ammo can be done at a rate of one round every four seconds, that is the minimum standard. A hot crew in battle can halve the time to load for a short period of time.

under ideal conditions. Not when the tank is moving and the crew are bouncing around inside. Not when the loader is tired.

The Russian style autoloader requires 22 rounds to be placed in a carousel inside the turret, where it is incredibly vulnerable to a hit.

With the Russian auto loader a hit means a deadly ammo explosion.

Flat out wrong. Russian analysis has shown this to be completely false. It is the extra rounds outside the autoloader carousel that are vulnerable. The carousel is actually not inside the turret, but under it, in the most protected portion of the tank. The carousel is also armored so that spall from a penetration would not ignite the contents.

The last fault with the auto loader is that it's achingly slow. It requires 6-7 seconds to load a round, and during this time the turret may not traverse nor may the gun be elevated, meaning during the loading cycle of 6-7 seconds the next target may not be aimed at.

Flat out wrong. Dated info on old autoloaders.

Compare this to a western gun with manual loading where the turret is in motion and the barrel raised or lowered at the next target as the gun is loaded.
The US Army has a version of the Stryker in testing with a 120 mm gun using the French auto loader. In our estimation it is unreliable. Manual loading in combat is faster and more reliable, which is why the US Army has never used an autoloader.

Amusing claim considering the French claim upwards of 20 wounds a minute.

The US Army resists going to any caliber above 120 mm as the weight of the shell would require an autoloader and the extra size would cut down on the number of rounds carried, to the point with some proposed calibers that the tank could not carry enough reloads to be useful in combat.

A self-imposed limitation which will be regretted when 140mm guns start to be deployed.

The current 120 mm round with our best propellant load will defeat any known armor, including that of the T-80 as well as Kactus and Kontact.

Unsupported assertion; Based on the rude shock Western analysts got when they found out their rounds didn't do well against cold war T-80s, most likely false.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Are they referring to type-99G or some future tank? I assume they are talking about the successor to the type-99G.

I believe they're talking successor to the 99 series. This one will have anti-air capabilities among other things.

 

[Blitzo]

I believe they're talking successor to the 99 series. This one will have anti-air capabilities among other things.

On the anti air capabilities.... Don't all modern chinese tanks (type 96,99 etc) have the capability to use a laser guided missile which has anti air (helicopter) capability?

I find the two occupants thing interesting -- the future US tank under development seems to have only two occupants too. :0

 

[AssassinsMace]

On the anti air capabilities.... Don't all modern chinese tanks (type 96,99 etc) have the capability to use a laser guided missile which has anti air (helicopter) capability?

I find the two occupants thing interesting -- the future US tank under development seems to have only two occupants too. :0

Could be but they seem to be talking new toys. Interesting if it'll be a Tor-M type weapon. If the driver and gunner are sitting side by side, there's more room for other stuff in the turret.

 

[jackbh]

No tanks in the world as we currently speak has any offensive capability of anti air are available. The best we could think of is the passive laser defense that China has developed, but that is really just going after the optic and sighting range finder equipments.

 

[maozedong]

Are they referring to type-99G or some future tank? I assume they are talking about the successor to the type-99G.

it is not refering to type 99G, not thing relate to type 99, he just talk future tank, these are applicable to tanks throughout the world, just talk, not thing.

 

[challenge]

type-99G fitted with active protection system,speculate that the technology is clone copy of russia Arena system.
back in 2001,article in top81 claim that nanjing has successfully fabricate 94 gigahertz MMW band T/R MMIC .
the small AESA could be part of type-99 APS.

 

[Ambivalent]

Reflects the defensive doctrine behind Western tank designs. Only useful on the defense and paid for by heavier mass, less tactical and strategic mobility, heavier logistic requirement, larger signature, and larger target area.

A Leopard or M-1 is as mobil as any Russian tank, and they have superior suspensions giving the gun a smoother ride and keeping the treads in contact with the ground.

Which is why they have built in self-entrenching machinery.

And how many T-90s do "you" operate? Or ZTZ-99s? Unreliability in 80s era autoloaders is no indicator that autoloaders designed 10+ years later are unreliable.

We buy new build tanks from Ukrain and the Czechs, as well as older tanks from a variety of sources. There are both Soviet and Ukrain built T-80's in US service. Go out to Fort Irwin some time.

except to injury, fatigue, vehicle movement.

under ideal conditions. Not when the tank is moving and the crew are bouncing around inside. Not when the loader is tired.

Sorry but you are wrong. The minimum acceptable firing rate for qualification is four rounds per minute, and hot crews can fire a round every two seconds, but as I said that is for a short period of time

Flat out wrong. Russian analysis has shown this to be completely false. It is the extra rounds outside the autoloader carousel that are vulnerable. The carousel is actually not inside the turret, but under it, in the most protected portion of the tank. The carousel is also armored so that spall from a penetration would not ignite the contents.
Flat out wrong. Dated info on old autoloaders.

Again, wrong on your part. The carousel inside the turret is the danger. That is what explodes, and it is not in the most protected part of the tank if you hit if from the side, as was the case in combat in Iraq.

Amusing claim considering the French claim upwards of 20 wounds a minute.
A self-imposed limitation which will be regretted when 140mm guns start to be deployed.

The French gun is no more reliable than the Russian gun. It can be traversed while the auto loader is working, but the barrel cannot be raised or lowered, giving it an advantage in rate of fire over the Russian gun, but not over manual loading.
Even if a dead reliable auto loader could be developed, the size of 140 mm ammunition means a reduction in the ammo load so great the tank will not have enough rounds to make it effective in combat. When the M-1 switched from the original 105 mm main gun to the current 120 mm gun, the ammo load had to be reduced from 55 rounds to 44, about the minimum the US Army considers acceptable.

Unsupported assertion; Based on the rude shock Western analysts got when they found out their rounds didn't do well against cold war T-80s, most likely false.

No, based on test firings against actual Russian Kontact and Kactus armor. The T-90 is nothing more than a modified T-72, it is not significantly better armored than it's immediate predecessor. The applique armor used on the T-90 is defeated by our latest load. Ditto the T-80, examples of which we have.
Now, what the Chinese use as armor remains a mystery to us, at least in open source literature.

 

[A.Man]

99坦克遭红箭-9攻击：主体部分竟毫发未伤

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

99 tanks were Red Arrow -9 attacks: the main part of the actually harmlessly!Figure(1)
2009-12-09 08:43:32 Shuzhong OK CDC Forum 【Large In Small】 Comments




OnBack to the bookSpeaking of a chief straightforward and suggest that China ranked the world's top 99 tanks, the top three comprehensive combat capability first, and some user said not believe it, 99 tanks and missile attacks actually are not afraid of people, we should not fight a real bomb to try?

In fact, 99 has long been done before in the equipment againstTankMissile attack tests, video on the screen are heavy users even said Red Arrow 9 anti-tank missile attacks, 99 tanks, the results were ablaze and vanish after 99 emerged unscathed, turret and the body without the slightest damage, only the destroyed turret around some of its subsidiary observation equipment . Video evident from this sectionTotal divisionTelling the truth, 99 protective ability is definitely first class!