PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos

A

A.Man

Major
First Y-9 for PLA Army Aviation

CEZW-fypikwt3322978.jpg
 
S

Shimakazerun

New Member
Registered Member

1. The replacement of the ZBD05 amphibious IFV will have a waterborne speed of 50km/hour (31.07mph).

2. Type-99A is equipped with 攻坚弹 (anti-reinforced-concrete/bunker busting round?), specifically for the invasion of Taiwan.

——right



3. Type-99a is equipped with gun-launched anti-air missiles against helicopters.

4. Type-99a's protection against top-attack munitions is xxx mm (triple-digit mm) RHA, which is immune to all existing top-attack bomblets. Frontal protection against "穿" (penetration?) is 7xx mm (700+ mm) RHA, and against "破" (broken/shatter?) is 1xxx mm (1000+ mm) RHA, good enough to defeat all existing anti-tank rounds and anti-tank missiles at combat distance. (I'm not entirely sure about the technical difference between "抗穿" and "抗破". Could please someone help me with this?).

——抗破 is the abbreviation of 抗破甲弹 means anti-HEAT
抗穿 is the abbreviation of 抗穿甲弹 means anti-KE

5. Type-99a is quipped with all the usual features: advanced fire-control, hunter-killer capability, commander's stabilized sights with thermal imaging, automatic/integrated bore-sighting device, milli-wave ballistic radar, automatic ammo-selection, etc.

6. Performance parameters of Type-99a's powerpack surpasses German MTU and equivalents, however the lifespan of the engine is 500 hours (?!) vs 1000 hours (?!) of the MTU, but still good enough to meet our practical needs. (Are those typos? 500 and 1000 hours are way too short.)

7. Type-99a has been produced in greater numbers than its predecessor, the Type-99.

8. Work has begun on the Type-99B, which is tailored toward assaulting 'special fortified terrains/areas and urban warfare. The main consideration here is the possible future needs that might arise once China's One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR) project is finished. (Interesting...)

9. The Russian T-14 Armata and the Japanese Type-10 are "garbage" (Unsure if the word "garbage" was actually used by the lecturer or merely represents the poster's sentiment.)

——the word 毛明 used is garbage.As the writer told me that

10. We have not considered larger caliber guns, whether they be 130mm, 140mm, or 152mm in diameter. The reason is that we are confident of the firepower of our guns. We have already achieved muzzle energy of 1x mega-joules (10+ mega-joules) with our existing tank guns, and soon we will achieve close to 20 mega-joules.

Supplementary material (provided by the original poster) for clarification purposes:
1. On why T-14 and Type-10 tanks are "garbage":
According to Mr. Mao Ping, "the Russians claim that T-14 has improved crew protection due to its unmanned turret and a separate armored crew compartment, but they ended up with a very large hull, with a height of 2.8 meters. This very large hull size has compromised its survivability." "T-14's engine cylinders are arranged in an X-pattern, as opposed to the V-pattern of our own tank engines. This X-pattern has resulted in a higher center of gravity and compromised T-14's controllability (mobility and maneuverability?)." "Our Type-99a, the American M1A2SEP, and the Japanese Type-10 are all claimed to feature a digital battlefield management system that integrates armor elements with mechanized infantry, but only America and China have actually fielded fully-digitized infantry divisions. America is the first to have done it, and China is the second." (I think what is implied here is that Type-10's digital battlefield management system lacks the ability to communicate with the infantry because Japanese infantries have not been digitized. Only America and China have achieved an all-emcompassing digital battlefield management system that integrates all participants, including individual soldiers, into the system). "The Japanese Type-10 is rarely seen. This is because it has very poor reliability; the threads easily come off during maneuver." "As for T-14, despite its claimed innovations, its firepower, protection, and maneuverability are unimpressive; it's no worry for us."

2. Regarding the armor protection level (of Type-99a):
"We tested an anti-tank missile that can penetrate 1200mm RHA on the Type-99a, the armor held up." (The poster didn't specify the tested armored area. Was it the frontal turret armor? Glacis armor? Side armor? I think the area in question is likely the frontal turret armor.)

——Probably turret.

"Therefore, the protection level far exceeds 1200mm RHA, but is less than 2000mm RHA. Our newest anti-tank missile, whose design was frozen (certified?) this year, can penetrate 2000mm RHA. Type-99a cannot defend against this new missile."

——定型 means able but may be not yet equiped


3. Don't hold your breath on a full account of this lecture or any official confirmation (meaning the lecture was top-secret). Somebody else at the lecture took some pictures (I have shared them above) and posted them on the internet. The authorities are now looking for him. I took some photos as well, but after careful consideration, I will not share them.
Also, this summary is an abridged version of the lecture.
The lecture also covered other areas such as the mechanics (methods and laws?) of armor protection, a new penetrator material, and gun accuracy. These areas are more exciting than what I have shared with you here, but I won't reveal them because I don't want to be invited to tea (hauled in by the authorities).
One last thing, I thought the add-on armor modules of (Type-99a?) were NERA (non-energetic reactive armor). I was mistaken. The actual composition of the add-on modules is far more exciting, and I apologize for not revealing it here.
 
Z

zhonghua

Just Hatched
Registered Member
It is great that China is improving areas such as transport aircraft! These airplanes are not as sexy as fighter planes, but are necessary components for force projection in China's region and beyound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top