T-80 Tanks

PLA tested the T80S in 1990s,in the city of SHIJIAZHUANG ,but they were not largely used ,just for test training,the fact is that PLA got mang useful tech and they were used in new tanks.

WWWF said:

PLA tested the T80S in 1990s,in the city of SHIJIAZHUANG ,but they were not largely used ,just for test training,the fact is that PLA got mang useful tech and they were used in new tanks.

Click to expand...

Do you know if these T-80's were acquired from Russia, Ukraine, or another source?

ohh know I was off by 2 on the caliber. Caliber of cours ein cannon is the leanth of the barrel realtive to the diameter of the breach

125/L50 barrel is 6.25 meters long
125/L48 barrel is 6 meters long. I was off by .25m

At least I am trying to use math, not simply relying on a propaganda rag and unsupportable claims.

zraver said:

ohh know I was off by 2 on the caliber. Caliber of cours ein cannon is the leanth of the barrel realtive to the diameter of the breach

125/L50 barrel is 6.25 meters long
125/L48 barrel is 6 meters long. I was off by .25m

At least I am trying to use math, not simply relying on a propaganda rag and unsupportable claims.

Click to expand...

LOL, I know you don't read the posted info. But I view a non-fact based estimate worse than an official claim.

Also note "the rod penetrator's length-diameter ratio is 30:1", I am not the expert in armor-piercing weapon. But I think a real expert can calculate the length of the shell with that, if you really are.

Also the info here here is pretty important

火炮的药室长880毫米，正常后坐距离为280毫米-320毫米，最大后坐距离为330毫米。

I have some problem in translating it since too much techie there, roughly:

The guns blast chamber length: 880mm

barrel retreat distance: 280-320mm, max 330mm

A real expert can get pretty detail info from that.

And this

早在70年代，我国科研人员就展开了大口径坦克炮的研制工作，先后研制成功了120毫米，125毫米，130毫米等多种大口径坦克炮

Translate: From 70s, Chinese evaluated 3 size barrel guns, 120, 125 and 130mm

so better spare too much Russian involvement here

eecsmaster said:

assuming the 30% figure in the article is correct, the corresponding velocity is 2021.5 m/s. A 6.5kg projectile at such speed has a muzzle energy of 26.56 million joules. If the rumor about the tradeoff between barrel life and propellant charge is true, then the article is not without merit.

Also, to just look at muzzle energy for penetration data is a bit naive. Let's be honest, Rheinmetall hired material science engineers for a god damned reason.

Click to expand...

The materials enter more into the rounds ability to retain its shape and resist yaw and friction in the barrel and the design of the sabot(boot). After all a dart shape is pretty straightforwad. One reason DU is used is becuase it is selfsharpening allowing it to addmore of its Ek to the target instead of other factors attriting the energy.

Even with reduced barrelo life I am inclined to disbeleive the statements.They require a massive advance in chemistry and metallurgy not supported by the PLA's R&D budget or design philosophy in the 70's and 80's. Nor are these advances reflected in other related areas of Chinese industry. The claim amounts to changing the face of armored warfare with out any supporting proof. America went to the moon and we got alumanum wheel chairs and personal computers etc. All technology has spin offs and the state of Chinese chemistry and metuallry does not reflect the claimed advances.

The article I posted already states the muzzle velocity of 99 tank: 1780m/s for tungsten alloy APFSDS, very high (German L55 is 1750m/s)

Also the barrel length is 6,412mm, pretty long (L55 is ~6600mm)

Then the only thing left is the shell size(weight), we know the combustion chamber of 99 gun is 880mm long, so the shell couldn't be small (compared with M829E3 830mm?).

But I have problem to find the chamber length of other tank guns, seems that Chiense are more transparent. And we need a real expert here.

Russian 2A46M1 spec, big difference


barrel length: 6,000mm vs 6,412mm(99)
Recoil length: 260-300mm max 310mm vs 280-320mm, max 330mm (99)
Chamber length: 383mm(???) vs 880mm (99)

I have no doubt 99 gun is 45% more powerful than 2A46M1, according to the spec, the data speaks.

So you state that when the lenght of the various gun parts are roughly 45% longer, it means that the gun is the same 45 % better than the one its being compared? Wau...does this logic apply to other areas as well? If one guy is 170 cm of height and another guy is 200cm, is the latter 15 % of better man? Or if the latters pen....You get the point

no the data doesn't speak. the M829E3 is 830mm long but 934mm long with casing. Nor can your interreptation of the Russian or chinese info be right if they ar eusing shells 560-650mm long before propellant.

However assuming the 1780m/s velocity and the increase of 45% over the 2A46M1 firing a BM-42 at 1760

lets do the math again

Russian 6.5kg shell travelling at 1760m/s 3.25M*V^2=10,067,200J

45% increase would be roughly 4,500,000J so we are looking for a kinetic energy range around 14.4 million joules.

a 9kg shell gives us 4.5*1780^2= 14.257

a 9.5 kg shell gives us 15.04 so the shell weight has to be in the 9-9.5kg range. Yet pictures of the rounds show around 560mm leangth.

Now lets use your earleir figure of 30:1 at 560mm long the radius of the penetrator is 18.66~ mm.

now please explain where all that mass is hidden? The US round which is 10kg at 830mm has a radius (assuming the same 30:1 rule) of 27.66~mm

Obviously, the Chinese round isn't DU but rather it is made from UN (unobtainium)

besides the issue of shell mass, is the incredible pressures needed to accerlate the mass to 1780m/s and not blow the breach too pieces. Also neede dis the chemical formula to create a propellant cable of generating those pressures. Both the metallurgy and chemistry form such a feat would have massive spin off values we simply don't see reflected elsewhere in the PLA.

Imagine the upgrade market for T-55/Type 59's rearmed with a new super D-10T made from this super metal and rounds made form unobtainium propelled by this revoultionary propellant. Artilerry systems, loght cannon, civillian applications ect. Yet depsite the claims of the ZTZ-99 Chinese chemistry and metallurgy still lag behind the west in almost all criticla areas. China still can't make a decent high by pass turbofan as an example of chinese metlauurgy.

This is not an attack on China, the PRC has made huge strides, but it still ha sa ways to go before it joins the big boys in terms of engineering feats.