Cool!Pics of 99 MBT in 2014 Manuoeuvre at Zhu-Ri-He training field

[tranquilium]

Well done, but you forgot to answer my question which is where the type 99 store the extra ammunition does it store it inside the the turret and hull just like the Russian do?.

The short answer is NO。

The standard ammunition load for type 99 tank is 41 shells, in which 22 of is stored within the automatic reloader with additional 19 shells stores in the rest of the compartment. It is worthwhile to note that while type 99 and T-90 shares a common ancestor, type 99's turret is much flatter in order to minimize target profile.

Now, there is an additional important piece regarding to ammunition storage in type 99. I mentioned earlier that type 99 takes after the Soviet type-80 tank. During the Chechen wars, it is discovered that Russian tank line has a problem with ammunition explosion. The reason is that older Soviet tanks tends to have poor fire suppression mechanism installed and as a result has a greater chance of secondary ammunition explosion comparing to NATO tanks which has better fire suppression system. I have no idea if they fixed the issue in T-90A and T-90S, but type-99 is equipped additional armor insulation for ammunition as well as advanced fire suppression system.

 

[Malik Alashter]

The short answer is NO。

If you have a picture?.

because I argued a freind of mine about that matter.

 

[Akasa]

wow my friend, you know I like china so I don't wana say any thing make you guys mad and sad.

but any way, we can buy the Russians tanks and S.korean tanks please don't tell me your type-99A2 any better than the Russians tanks or the real deal korean one.

from Iraq with love to china sorry for my wrong news.

Any technical reasons why not?

 

[HariPrasad]

Very Nice pictures!!!!

 

[Akasa]

But it has the same lay out of the 99 right.

Well, how do you define the word "layout"? It might share some internal configuration-related motifs in regards to the original Type 99, which has many variants itself, but there are enough upgrades and redesigns to warrant it a different designation, and thus, a different classification.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Any technical reasons why not?

Well I have two faults that capture the design from any further upgrade in armament and crew safety.

first the auto loader design make impossible to the engineers to develop a better apfsds projectile.

second the extra ammo will set in fire once the tank penetrated in the fighting compartment. that will cook the crew as we've seen that in Syria!! now you can claim that you guys added an armored box for the extra ammo but that still a mere claim without any prove to support it. In my mere opinion that's due to fact that fighting compartment in that design small enough to prevent any such idea.

I wonder why there isn't a thread about made in china like the other nations do?.

 

[Akasa]

Well I have two faults that capture the design from any further upgrade in armament and crew safety.

Well, that would already be a faulty assumption in light of the many upgraded variants within the Type 99 family. Such upgrades include increased armor thickness and new armor composition (Al2O3), redesigned armor, addition of soft kill and hard kill defense systems, etc.

first the auto loader design make impossible to the engineers to develop a better apfsds projectile.

Please do explain this claim, as there are many Chinese APFSDS rounds that are available for the Type 99. If you are claiming this is an inherent result of the autoloader design then Russian tanks suffer from the same hindrances.

second the extra ammo will set in fire once the tank penetrated in the fighting compartment. that will cook the crew as we've seen that in Syria!! now you can claim that you guys added an armored box for the extra ammo but that still a mere claim without any prove to support it. In my mere opinion that's due to fact that fighting compartment in that design small enough to prevent any such idea.

Have you seen modern Russian tanks cooking off or exploding while fighting the war against terror? The Russians and the Chinese use the same autoloader principle and ammunition configurations in their respective vehicles. If tanks like the T-90S were able to fight wars against Russian domestic terrorists well, why couldn't Chinese tanks? The stored ammunition might be in danger if they are hit by penetrating projectiles, but the vehicle would be sported with a variety of defenses against penetration in the first place. In fact, if any Western or Chinese tank is penetrated, chances are that the electronics would be fried, if not the crew themselves, which would render the tank useless regardless of a subsequent cookoff or lack thereof.

I wonder why there isn't a thread about made in china like the other nations do?.

You are judging the capabilities of a tank based on how many topics are being posted on the Internet?

 

[tranquilium]

second the extra ammo will set in fire once the tank penetrated in the fighting compartment. that will cook the crew as we've seen that in Syria!! now you can claim that you guys added an armored box for the extra ammo but that still a mere claim without any prove to support it. In my mere opinion that's due to fact that fighting compartment in that design small enough to prevent any such idea.

I already explained the ammunition explosion issue in my previous post. T-80 and T-72's ammunition explosion issue stems from insufficient fire suppression mechanism, which is fixed in Type 99. In order to overcome the fire suppression system and trigger ammunition explosion in modern tank like Type 99, you have to overcome its 1200mm of body armor and penetrate the fight compartment itself. If you can accomplish this, then you have already killed the entire tank crew anyway.

 

[Penguin]

It is actually pretty silly to compare even T-90A with Type 99. T-90A is based on the old Soviet 72 Tank, which is a medium tank. The operation doctrine of T-72 is to use mobility to concentrate sufficient number of units to thin out enemy tank lines. Type 99 is a heavy tank that is based on the old Soviet T-80 tank, which is heavy tank. The operation doctrine of T-80 is the heavy, elite force that is used to break through enemy position.

Basic T72 is 42 tons. How is the Type 80 (at 42.5 ton T-80B, 46 tons T-80U) a heavy tank while T-90 (at 47.5 ton, T-90SM is 50 ton) is a medium tank?? The light/medium/heavy distinction was abandoned with the adoption of the term MBT (main battle tank)

 

[tranquilium]

Basic T72 is 42 tons. How is the Type 80 (at 42.5 ton T-80B, 46 tons T-80U) a heavy tank while T-90 (at 47.5 ton, T-90SM is 50 ton) is a medium tank?? The light/medium/heavy distinction was abandoned with the adoption of the term MBT (main battle tank)

You are correct in the sense that light/medium/heavy distinction is abandoned with the adoption of MBT, but the role differentiatial they each occupy remains. In old times, medium tanks are the easy to manufacture battle tanks that is meant to make up the bulk of a nation's armored forces. They cost significantly less than their heavy counterparts and are treated as expendable units in war of attrition. Heavy tanks is typically the best performing a nation can reasonable manufacturer. By numbers, they will not be a large part of the army, but their higher performance allow them to perform tasks not possible for the medium ones, such as punching through heavily fortified positions. Essentially, they compliment each other on battle fields, but if you are just looking at the parameters tank by tank, the heavy tank will also always come out on top. T-72 and T-80 are such compliment, so are Type 96 and Type 99 tanks. I guess I should elaborate the medium and heavy more refers to their role rather than a weight designation.

 

[Penguin]

You are correct in the sense that light/medium/heavy distinction is abandoned with the adoption of MBT, but the role differentiatial they each occupy remains. In old times, medium tanks are the easy to manufacture battle tanks that is meant to make up the bulk of a nation's armored forces. They cost significantly less than their heavy counterparts and are treated as expendable units in war of attrition. Heavy tanks is typically the best performing a nation can reasonable manufacturer. By numbers, they will not be a large part of the army, but their higher performance allow them to perform tasks not possible for the medium ones, such as punching through heavily fortified positions. Essentially, they compliment each other on battle fields, but if you are just looking at the parameters tank by tank, the heavy tank will also always come out on top. T-72 and T-80 are such compliment, so are Type 96 and Type 99 tanks. I guess I should elaborate the medium and heavy more refers to their role rather than a weight designation.

Uhm, the classification into light, medium and heavy tanks is indicative of weight, which itself is a function of level of armor protection and main armament (gun size). Attached to that are different battlefield roles e.g. reconnaissance and flank protection (fast light tank), main force (slower medium tank) and spearhead or breakthrough tank (even slower heavy tank).

Today, there are no purposely designed light tanks, though there are armored guns systems (2s25, AGS) and AIFV/ICV variants reequipped with 100-125mm cannon for fire support roles. Given the speed of movement required on today's battlefields, heavy tanks are no longer designed (note US Army wants lighter units in future). There are only medium tanks, which range between 40-60 tons. None of these are slow. All have 120-125mm cannon. The only variables are level of armor protection, yes or no to an autoloader (i.e. 3 or 4 crew) and choice wrt creature comfort (i.e. how much additional internal space) . If you choose an autoloader and a 3-man crew and give less attention to creature comfort (i.e. design for persons of smaller average posture), you end up with a smaller and lighter tank for a given level of protection.

(mmm, I wonder, ... is there a relationship between incidence of obesitas in a population and the size and weight of tank produced or used by it )

 

[Aepsilons]

look at this.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Well, that would already be a faulty assumption in light of the many upgraded variants within the Type 99 family. Such upgrades include increased armor thickness and new armor composition (Al2O3), redesigned armor, addition of soft kill and hard kill defense systems, etc.



Please do explain this claim, as there are many Chinese APFSDS rounds that are available for the Type 99. If you are claiming this is an inherent result of the autoloader design then Russian tanks suffer from the same hindrances.



Have you seen modern Russian tanks cooking off or exploding while fighting the war against terror? The Russians and the Chinese use the same autoloader principle and ammunition configurations in their respective vehicles. If tanks like the T-90S were able to fight wars against Russian domestic terrorists well, why couldn't Chinese tanks? The stored ammunition might be in danger if they are hit by penetrating projectiles, but the vehicle would be sported with a variety of defenses against penetration in the first place. In fact, if any Western or Chinese tank is penetrated, chances are that the electronics would be fried, if not the crew themselves, which would render the tank useless regardless of a subsequent cookoff or lack thereof.



You are judging the capabilities of a tank based on how many topics are being posted on the Internet?

No I just want to see a thread about the chinese products.

Yes both tanks share the same problem per auto loader.

Show me one clip about the T-90s involved in a fight either in chechnia or Ausetia?.

 

[cirr]

 

[Zabaniyah]

There are a picture of it in the Iraq MoD room beside ch-3 and ch-4 so we might got or getting some of them serving in the Iraqi army.

You guys already have the Abrams. I don't see why you'd need it.