You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T-80 Tanks
- Thread starter Shalashashka
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Pointblank
Senior Member
That's from the People's Daily.....
I stop arguing with this kind of logic then.
The science and mathematics behind what they are claiming do not add up. Plain and simple.
The science and mathematics behind what they are claiming do not add up. Plain and simple.
I will put more trust on the designer of the tank than some self-claimed experts, esp when the designer spoke to an official media.
FYI, ZTZ99 doesn't use the 2A46 autoloader, just borrowes some design idea from that, so all the claim based on that is groundless.
I will put more trust on the designer of the tank than some self-claimed experts, esp when the designer spoke to an official media.
FYI, ZTZ99 doesn't use the 2A46 autoloader, just borrowes some design idea from that, so all the claim based on that is groundless.
The autloader is indeed a carousel design from the T series, even the article you cited admits that. If you have proof it is not a copy of the system used on the 2A46 then please provide it, in english so I can examine it. Also pics of ammo loading on the ztz-99 show a clear short rod penetrator with no attached propellant between 500 and 600mm in leangth proving two piece ammo. So the claims are not groundless as the visual evidence supports the written claim. The visual evidence also supprts my contention that the gun is under performing becuase of two peace ammo. The best performing rounds for a 2A46 carousel autoloader is probalby the BM-48 which comes in around 760mm in leangth* but can only be fired from specially modifed T-90's with improved autlaoders. The Russians next round the BM-42M desinged for cassette style loading on the Black Eagle is even longer but that is coming from bustle rack storage, not the hull.
That's from the People's Daily.....
The offical rag of the CCP does not cotnain propaganda for domestic consumption? The simple fact that no offical source outside of a newspaper supports the claims the article made should be proof enough. There are guys who analyze tanks and main guns with doctorates in physics and they don't support the claims. Even my severly limited math skills shoot the whole idea down.
"Math > Newspaper"
* Vassily Fovanov provided me with that information.
I don't have the English source to "prove" it, ok. Somebody posting that will be put in jail, it's China. I give you some information but I won't prove it anyway:
The "500 and 600mm" you refered to is for 96(88c) series, which is correct. But 99 is a total different beast, as mentioned by the real 99 developer in this forum, designed from the scratch.
The first T-72 Tank China got was from the East European country, it was long long time ago, so its technology has been well absorbed and melt into Chinese design. It has nothing to do with 2A46 today.
You just need to take that designer's word, I never find they fake any data before.
The "500 and 600mm" you refered to is for 96(88c) series, which is correct. But 99 is a total different beast, as mentioned by the real 99 developer in this forum, designed from the scratch.
The first T-72 Tank China got was from the East European country, it was long long time ago, so its technology has been well absorbed and melt into Chinese design. It has nothing to do with 2A46 today.
You just need to take that designer's word, I never find they fake any data before.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
Math > Newspaper, of course
but then again you keep claiming that kinetic energy is, what? mass * velocity? When it CLEARLY is not?
but then again you keep claiming that kinetic energy is, what? mass * velocity? When it CLEARLY is not?
Math > Newspaper, of course
but then again you keep claiming that kinetic energy is, what? mass * velocity? When it CLEARLY is not?
Well just spare that one. I never discuss math with them, those guys never have a solid background in math anyway.
The data they quoted are all based on Russian guns, while the real 99 developer already clarifies that 99 cost is 3 times of 96. Then you use some brain and math, you will know why.
Last edited:
I don't have the English source to "prove" it, ok. Somebody posting that will be put in jail, it's China. I give you some information but I won't prove it anyway:
The "500 and 600mm" you refered to is for 96(88c) series, which is correct. But 99 is a total different beast, as mentioned by the real 99 developer in this forum, designed from the scratch.
The first T-72 Tank China got was from the East European country, it was long long time ago, so its technology has been well absorbed and melt into Chinese design. It has nothing to do with 2A46 today.
You just need to take that designer's word, I never find they fake any data before.
Of course he faked data, he is claiming a round that is between 500 and 600mm long and betwen 6 and 7kg is penetrating armor in excess of 950mm RHAe. Like I said no round can do that.
Fro the Chinese round to penetrate that type of armor (960mm and still not break the laws of physics when it came to velocity and chamber pressure
EECmaster,
Ek= 1/2MV^2(Ek=.5MV^2) I did my math wrong, I don't claim to be a math expert. I was using 1/2 M*2V bleh, had my 2 in the wrong spot.
if I rework the numbers
M829E3 10kg 1555m/s 5(1/2M)*1555^2= 12,090,125j worth of KE est performance 900mm 13433.47jj per mm of RHAe
DM-43 (from L55) 7.5kg 1750m/s 3.75 (1/2M) 1750^2= 11,484,375j worth of KE est performance 850mm 13511.02j per mm of RHAe
BM-42 6.5kg 1760m/s 3.25(1/2M) 1760^2= 10,067,200j est performance 650mm 15488j per mm of RHAe
Chinese round 6.5kg(based on similaritiesto the Russian round based on leangth) 1760/ms 3.25(1/2M) 1760^2 10,067,200j est performance 960mm 10486j per mm of RHAe.
Thats 22% better penetration energy than the US round for 35% less weight and use of a shorter projectileto boot and the US has been continually improving its M829 series with much larger R&D budget, combat experiance, and better super computers, metallurgy, ect. Russia who has had the 125mm for 40 years and a highly developed brain trust can duplicate that Chinese feat either, its a bogus claim.
Notice the NATO rounds with long rod design come in around 13k while the shorter and less efficent Russian rounds comes in at 15K. makes sense the long rod penetrator has demonstrated its advantages, in this case about 20% better for no other reason than leangth. The chinese round which looks vissauly nearly identical to the Russian round is as much better than the NATO rounds some how over coming the short leangth and reduced math giving it performance 50% better than the Russian design.
Like i said i am no math expertbut I dare anyone to come up with a formula that allows the Chinese round to surpass the rounds of every other nation and still use light weight and short 2 piece ammo.
Chinese round 6.5kg(based on similaritiesto the Russian round based on leangth)
Can you stop making this nonsense?
As I said before this doesn't apply to 99. Or I will ask you to provide the evidence for that.
Can you stop making this nonsense?
As I said before this doesn't apply to 99. Or I will ask you to provide the evidence for that.
Yes it does apply,the Chinese round is roughly the same dimensions and is fired from the same size bore. Unless you have a valid sourced reason for why I should not extrapolate a Russian round to proximate a Chinese round when both are decended form the same technology and engineering base. As I stated earleir pictures here on this website show the loading of the ZTZ-99 and the estimates were for a round between 5-600mm in leangth. It was also clearly 2 piece ammo
I understand your problem,if you accept the 6-7kg weight and 1760m/s velocity you can't accpet the newspaper.understand my view,I accpe tthe limitatiosn of the 125mm gun so cannot accept the newspaper.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.