I mean no offense but I highly doubt China can make better composite armor than the Russians (keep in mind by this I mean China 10~ years ago when ZTZ-99A was being worked on), not because Chinese composites are bad, but because Russian metallurgy and experience is simply better.
Up until the mid-2000s China was still using basic steel composites. Which while effective are not innovative.
China puts lower level stuff on tanks just so they can be made more cheaply and in greater numbers. It doesn't mean it was still using steel composites in mid 2000s (please let me know the source of this info) because it only has ability to use this. If it was effective and cheap, they wouldn't bother putting something more expensive and only slightly better on tanks.
Type 99 is longer than T-90M. The distance between lower wedge corner and edge of interior space on commander side is much longer than that distance on T-90M. Of course material matters but for each gram, the performance of the overall armor pack of the two are comparable because the scientific and technological level between these two are comparable. There is really no reason to believe that 99A's was treated the same as 96A.
T-90M is roughly 50T and 99A is close to 60T. Let's say there's 5T total of pure armor difference. With T-90M it spreads its armor more whereas the 99A focuses almost all that armor for pure frontal. And then there's 5T difference still. PA would have been demonstrated VT-4's frontal in live testing with just mechanical turret being shot at by various things. I'm not sure if the Russians would have offered such things but T-90 is not hard to shred through. Better arc but side shot is as lethal anyway. Angled shots is where T-90 does better.
Anyway the whole argument there is similar to saying even up to mid-2000s the US was still using B-52. It ignores the big picture and ignores cost saving efforts. It doesn't go towards proving the whole country is only technologically capable of that level.
But generally Chinese tanks do take compromises upon compromises due to cost saving, preference for higher numbers of units built, and doctrine of how the tanks are used which brings us to the next point below.
And I also mean no offense to the Chinese tank commander, but if getting shot from the side was no concern, than every other country than China wouldn’t be putting emphasis on side armor.
Every country has different circumstances and doctrines. China's is building and sending a lot of tanks. The idea is to always outgun and have better protection than whatever the tank is facing. In China's case really it is just Type 96A since that is the majority tank force. 96A has no hope against any of the tanks on that list but doctrine again here is important. 96A will never face an equal number of superior tanks. Not even close. The whole PLA commander's point is that helicopters, long range artillery and things like drones have reduced the capability of the enemy so much that PLA tanks will not be driving into artillery fire or even anything more than 30mm fire. If there is the odd tank or anti tank infantry then the far superior numbered force overwhelms that.
Every country is in a different position with what else they have. It is never just about a tank itself.
In the PLA's case the never getting shot from the side is the task of this support which is the largest in the world and at least the second most well equipped (only talking about home turf or neighboring area). Urban fighting for tanks is already when strategy has fallen apart and not something China if defending China would need to do much if any of. If that is the case APS becomes much more useful and necessary.
The biggest threat to tanks on a battlefield aren’t other tanks, it’s infantry with anti-tank armor which will almost always try to engage from the side or the front, and with Chinese tanks the issue is such that not even the front 1/3rd of the side is covered, meaning any enemy at even a 30 degree angle can take a shot at the side and achieve penetration. That’s after the fact that China is still using Last Gen ERA and that the ERA coverage on the 99A has a massive gap on the side. (FY-4 is comparable to later iterations of Kontakt-5 these are both 2nd Gen, Relikt is 3rd generation ERA) China also doesn’t employ hard kill APS systems which basically make most armor thickness discussions irrelevant because you cannot engage the tank with most projectiles. Even the GL-5 doesn’t protect against Top-attack projectiles like trophy and ARENA. And there’s also the fact that crew survivability would be poor in the Chinese tanks due to unarmored carousel and ammo in the storage compartment, something the T90M has fixed. It also has protection against HE projectiles for its engine. So it’s not just about thicker armor, there’s a bunch of factors that go into tank
protection, the T90M covers a lot more of them than ZTZ-99 or VT-4.
Yes T-90M has a better all around protection but in urban and against anti-tank infantry all are equally dead if shots come from top or purely to the side. No matter what MBT, a pure side shot using latest anti-tank weapons are all 100% kills. Of course older RPGs will not penetrate but I'm talking the latest dedicated anti-tank weapons that can nearly get through the front.
So anyway that's all decisions for the army. Do they want that extra protection that's useful in 1% to 20% scenarios or place that to supplement frontal protection even more. All compromise in available armor. All of this comes down to engine. Which is why western tanks are the best in mobility + protection balance. The engine determines how much you have to play with and the level of compromise between these.
T-90M may cover a lot more angles better but also dead in pure side shot or top shot. Arena is Russian, Trophy is Israeli. I don't think any of these three APS are designed for top attack missiles. Only T-14's APS is designed to also engage top attack missiles. APS is most important against infantry and urban setting. So the APS itself matters more than the tank in these settings. It is actually rare for non-urban fighting where infantry is fighting tanks. Infantry are too easily detected by networked military. Urban is different and every war in recent decades where infantry have gone up to effectively kill tanks has been in urban environment. China truly does not prepare for this where geurilla fighters or infantry are shooting them in city. Maybe Taiwan scenario but I doubt China wants to commit to military solution. It is only to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence so clearly it works only as a deterrence. Neither side want that but lets say if that is happening, then you can bet PLA will lose many tanks if Taiwanese are armed with many anti-tank missiles or PLA will refrain entirely from using tanks and send only anti-infantry drones and robots.
And many different types of anti-infantry methods from expensive to efficient.
Just to clarify again; I don’t think China can’t make a good tank, if they prioritized tanks as much as say Russia and put in as much money, I’ve got no doubt they’d probably make one of, if not the best tank in the world, but it’s just not their priority as you said. I still think they’ll upgrade the ZTZ-99A soon as it’s beginning to show its age. That will be an interesting sight to see.
I doubt China will bother to make a top tier tank that is better than 99A in terms of relative position in that league of tanks when next generation tanks come out. I think even NATO countries don't have new generation tank programs but want to keep upgrading this generation... only Russia for some reason chose to pour money and energy into that path because of particular situation and wider strategy of expected and planned wars. China is developing some replacement but just in trials and sort of conceptualizing. If it does, it would need to be much better to justify the spending. 99A is middle ground. Sacrificing side armor and angled shot survival for pure frontal armor and guaranteed shot survival for frontal. Infantry and top attack missiles yeah it doesn't seem to care much about but mostly due to doctrine where it doesn't plan on using them in situations where they are in that kind of environment, if so then they will put on the best APS they can develop just for protection against top attack missiles.
It's very expensive to achieve this like T-14. Need much more electronics and software to integrate AESA panels with those APS. Chinese tank philosophy is very different and partly due to not having been in that sort of fighting unlike Russia has with tensions with Europe, Chechnya, and US France and Germany have with wars in middle east and north africa where their tanks have been used. Of course also the tensions with Russia from their side. China just views tanks as this mechanical thing to carry that gun while wearing 30mm shots from all angles and 120mm/125mm from front. The rest is drones drones drones and helicopters, artillery support (China really really does emphasis artillery and anti-surface missiles) and even electronic warfare. Tanks is too one dimensional to Chinese planning and consideration.
I don't think China will bother with something like leading tank battle innovation like T-14 for example. Instead drones kill tanks 99 times out of 100 and tanks kill helicopters and drones 1 time out of 100 if it is lucky.
Infantry is a different consideration and PLA thinks when fighting any enemy in China, it has infantry advantage and all the supply line advantage too.
For Taiwan scenario, I doubt China wants to go to war and has no need as long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence. The military threat is there to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence but the real strategy for reunification and ending the Chinese Civil War is through total economic victory. Economic victory means industrial victory and science and technology victory. Then military advantage is even greater in 20 years, more in 50 year, too undeniable in 100 years etc. Resolved of course before that but it is already clear the trends.
I don’t doubt the Arjun is trash, I agree with all your points there lol.
The may have underestimated the K-2 however. I still have some questions about it’s protection but I’ll do some more research on it, it sounds like a very potent tank.
As for the Merkava, i wouldn’t place it any higher on the list simply because of its design once more, it has its engine in the front, any hit achieving penetration, while probably not hitting the crew, will put the tank and all its systems out of action. The ammunition/penetration is also average at best. It’s definitely above average, but not better than the Leo or the Abrams. It’s massively helped in protection by the very common usage of Trophy APS.
Arjun is an example of extremely poor planning and unwillingness to shift design as time dragged on. They kept 1970s and 1980s concerns and considerations into the 1990s and so on.
K-2 is just excellent against tanks, networked warfare (since South Korea itself is pretty strong in networked warfare and supporting assets are there), and infantry. It is good at urban fighting too due to AESA and APS. RWS and more cameras and sensors.
Merkava 4 is old. It's quite good but far from invincible I mean even farmers and geurillas have taken out Leopard 2A5, M1A1/2, Leclerc, and many Merkavas. This is partly why China prefers drones and other aspects of army (not even counting those other domains) over just pure cool and top tier MBT.
Arjun however is fcking expensive for what it is.
