New Chinese MBT???

[norinco89]

The chinese MBTs are badly outdated. They are still composed of type 59s and 69s and etc. They lack a modern tank. the type 99 came out recently but production have been very limited.

Recent reports(janes) indicate that china have been receiving russian mbt tech. This tech specifically is the 152mm turret tech. Counld this be the ruins of golden eagle that china is buying?

Any info please list

 

[kmaster_bhr]

The Type 99 (also known as ZTZ-99) is the PLA’s third generation indigenous main battle tank (MBT). The tank was developed from the Type 98 prototype. The main contractors are Beijing-based China North Vehicle Research Institute (NEVORI, also known as 201 Institute) and Inner-Mongolia First Machinery Group Co., Ltd (FIRMACO) of Baotou, Inner Mongolia.

It has digital fire-control (Fire accuracy is attained by the laser rangefinder, wind sensor, ballistic computer, and thermal barrel sleeve). The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) with cooled detector using processing in the element (SPRITE) technology has magnification x11.4 , It is also fitted with a compuerised onboard information processing system, which can collect information from vehicle navigation (Inertia/GPS), observation systems and sensors, process it in the computer and display it on the commander's display, giving the ability of real-time command and beyond-vision-range target engaging.


The 99 tank lacks some protection design such as armour bulkheads to separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks and rounds, and the top panels designed to blow outwards in case of explosion.

The 99 is equipped to carry the Russian 9M119 Refleks (NATO codename: AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system which is fired from the 125mm main gun. The range of the missile is 100m to 4,000m. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5km. China has been producing the 9M119 missile locally under license since the late 1990s.

The tank is fitted with a 125mm automatic smoothbore gun with thermal sleeve. In contrast to the early reports which claimed that the gun was a licensed copy of the Russian 2A46, automatic loader is believed to be Russian origin.

The 99 tank is fitted with a JD-3 integrated laser countermeasures suite, which consists of a laser rangefinder, a laser warning receiver (LWR), and an active laser self-defence weapon (LSDW). This is a Chinese design with some French technology influence.

The 99 is powered by a liquid cooled, turbocharged 1,500hp diesel derived from the Germany MB871ka501 diesel technology. At its current 99 battle weight of 54t, this gives a power-to-weight ratio of about 27.78.

 

[norinco89]

i know that already but the type 99 is only in limited production.

Janes http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jaau/jaau060324_1_n.shtml says that the chinese is making a 155mm mbt. It might be a type 99 fitted with a bigger gun but i doubt that the type 99 has enough room for a 155mm. I think it will a more western type 99 with a russian turret.

 

[aaaditya]

does any one know what is the muzzle velocity of the china 125mm/152mm smoothbore guns and how they compare with the european/russian smoothbore guns?

 

[Soner1980]

The Chinese 125mm is based on the same Russian 2A46 SB gun. But the Russians have upgraded it and it is later called 2A46M or M1. The Chinese will also find bugs on it like everthing. But it is roughly a copy of hat of the Russians. Both differ on munitions for a having a muzzle velocity. HEAT is about 800-1100 meter/sec. and the muzzle velocity of the best APFSDS round is about 1800 meters/sec. Also called HVAPFSDS.

A Main Battle Tank with a 152 or 155mm gun? I don't it is possible. Because of the barrel life.

In the late 1950's the Soviets has designed a new type of tank gun: the 115mm Smooth bore gun for the T-62. The rifled tank gun (100mm) was not able to fire High Velocity Armor Piercing ammo especially sub calliber. Also the M68 or L7 105mm tank gun is rifled and is limited to fire ammo of below 1500 meters/second. If the muzzle velocity is high like the 120mm M256 on the Abrams, the barrel wear quickly and after a few shots the barrel must be changed.

So, this is the reason why a howitser is not a good weapon for destroying MBT's. A howitser fires projectiles below 1000 meters/sec. and is not able to fire APFSDS because of its max allowed speed. With 1000 meters/sec. you can not penetrate the armor of the M1A2 also not with a APFSDS DU round because of it's speed. But with the 120mm M256 SB gun, the M1A2 can destroy another M1A2. The M256 is a smoothbore can fire rounds at about 1800 meters/sec. and it is not limited in it's muzzle velocity because it has no groves in the barrel that have to wear. Also a rifled tank gun gets faster overheated...

 

[Gollevainen]

The Chinese 125mm is based on the same Russian 2A46 SB gun. But the Russians have upgraded it and it is later called 2A46M or M1. The Chinese will also find bugs on it like everthing. But it is roughly a copy of hat of the Russians. Both differ on munitions for a having a muzzle velocity. HEAT is about 800-1100 meter/sec. and the muzzle velocity of the best APFSDS round is about 1800 meters/sec. Also called HVAPFSDS.

A Main Battle Tank with a 152 or 155mm gun? I don't it is possible. Because of the barrel life.

In the late 1950's the Soviets has designed a new type of tank gun: the 115mm Smooth bore gun for the T-62. The rifled tank gun (100mm) was not able to fire High Velocity Armor Piercing ammo especially sub calliber. Also the M68 or L7 105mm tank gun is rifled and is limited to fire ammo of below 1500 meters/second. If the muzzle velocity is high like the 120mm M256 on the Abrams, the barrel wear quickly and after a few shots the barrel must be changed.

So, this is the reason why a howitser is not a good weapon for destroying MBT's. A howitser fires projectiles below 1000 meters/sec. and is not able to fire APFSDS because of its max allowed speed. With 1000 meters/sec. you can not penetrate the armor of the M1A2 also not with a APFSDS DU round because of it's speed. But with the 120mm M256 SB gun, the M1A2 can destroy another M1A2. The M256 is a smoothbore can fire rounds at about 1800 meters/sec. and it is not limited in it's muzzle velocity because it has no groves in the barrel that have to wear. Also a rifled tank gun gets faster overheated...

Not wanting to sound too picky, but there are major difference in 152/5mm howitsers, cannons and tankguns. First of all howitsers are artillery piece with caliber/tube lenght ratio bellow 30 (if i remeber correctly). Cannons are artillery pieces with the same ratio high respectfetly. None is planning to fit filed cannon (not to mention howitsers) to tanks, but to developt a specific tankgun of 152~155mm calibre.

 

[Soner1980]

Ok, that's nice to hear. But why so big step from 125 to 152 or 155? Germany had a plan to produce 135mm or 140mm tank gun for the Leopard-2a6.

The tank must be also larger if there is a 152+mm tank gun installed and the Russian influenced Chinese tanks are not in their design. Meaning of that there is a new design needed to carry such big howitser look-a-like Smoothbore tank gun. If they can penetrate the front armor of a leopard-2a6 or m1a2 sep MBT from 3000 meters, then it is a good design.

 

[Big-E]

Why would anyone want a smoothbore gun? I thought rifling made it more accurate and gave greater velocity.

 

[Soner1980]

No, smoothbores are able to fire at more velocity. The grooves is good but the gun will wear also faster than smoothbore guns. A smoothbore can by that reason fire at much higher velocity. So, the 105mm M68 on the original M1 fires at 1485 meters/sec. and the 120mm M256 on the M1A1 and newer fires 1800 meters/sec present. Maybe there will be round designed that can fire 2000 meters/sec or more. The smoothbores are also accurated because the projectiles are fin stabilized. On rifled sub calibers there is also fin stabilization, making the grooves not neccesary anymore. It just blocks the round for higher speed.

 

[hehejee]

re

It's just the problem of time.

 

[hehejee]

again

the front two pics is type 99s.the 3th picture is type 98s

 

[eckherl]

No, smoothbores are able to fire at more velocity. The grooves is good but the gun will wear also faster than smoothbore guns. A smoothbore can by that reason fire at much higher velocity. So, the 105mm M68 on the original M1 fires at 1485 meters/sec. and the 120mm M256 on the M1A1 and newer fires 1800 meters/sec present. Maybe there will be round designed that can fire 2000 meters/sec or more. The smoothbores are also accurated because the projectiles are fin stabilized. On rifled sub calibers there is also fin stabilization, making the grooves not neccesary anymore. It just blocks the round for higher speed.

Good post : you are off just a little on the muzzle velocity with the M68 105mm MB, when firing the M833 APFSDS-T you will have a muzzle velocity of 1494 meters/sec, if firing the M900 APFSDS-T you will get a little more.
With these velocitie`s we have pretty much have gone as far as we can go firing conventual type ammo, thus needing the smoothbore. Britian still uses a 120 mm rifled gun but have realized that to get more punch they need to go with the smoothbore.

 

[psyclops]

If anyone actually does go to a 152/155mm gun on a tank, I'd bet its primary round would be some sort of HE for infantry support. Its tank-killing round would probably be a big ATGM, and would be the main reason for the large caliber. Trying to fire APFSDS out of a gun that big just seems to me to be opening up a huge can of worms in terms of recoil, barrel wear, and shock to onboard electronics. Not to mention the problems of storing and loading shells that big (which would be a serious problem with HE and ATGM rounds, too, of course). I'd be surprised if the Chinese or anyone else goes ahead with a six-inch tank gun anytime in the near-to-medium future.

 

[Soner1980]

Yes psico, I agree with your text.

The Jews had a 60mm tank gun on it's US supplied Sherman tanks in the 1960's. The 60mm tank gun had the power of a 90mm tank gun on the M48 but with much lesser recoil and the ability to fire faster, more rounds carried and very cheap to produce.

Why getting bigger if smaller also gaves more punch power? The 100mm smootbore tank gun on the Chinese Type-69 version was dissapeared quick because of the lack of upgrading knowledge of the Chinese.

I believe if one of the NATO countries taked over the 100mm SB production, that gun could maybe deadly as the 120mm tank gun or at least closing to it. Because for APFSDS rounds it is not the size in the barrel but the amount of the charge behind the projectile and the length of the barrel

Or radically, the 25mm ATK Bushmaster: 25mm APFSDS round with velocity of 1800 m/s can be used in anti tank warfare. Or even APDS rounds because of the 25mm diameter of the 120mm Long rod penetrator is almost equal to 20-30mm thickness.

 

[PlasmaKrab]

Caliber notwithstanding, the technology of APFSDS rounds allows lighter guns to pack a decent anti-armor punch. As far as my figures tell, recent high-L/D 105mm rounds (M-900, M-1060CV...) have the same order of penetration as early 120mm rounds (M-829, DM33...).
Some firms also produce low-recoil large-caliber guns, as Thun Arsenal's 120L52 whch can be fitted on a Leopard1 or M-48.

So with enough technology, either low-caliber high-performance rounds or easy-fit high-caliber guns are no great feat. What bothers me most with 140+mm guns as are being researched now is the lower ammo allowance. For the same weight and volume, you can safely assume 20% less rounds then with a 120/125mm gun. So a much, much better FCS is required to make the most out of these weapons (balancing the lower shots number with a higher %hit).

Anyway, back to the topic. It looks like the Chinese have taken the recoil into account somehow, since they are reported to study a 88mm ETC as an alternative/parallel development.
A 152mm conventional gun would allow easier technological follow-through from their Soviet-style two-piece sabot rounds, since even a short enough penetrator would carry a lot of kinetic energy.

I got a copy from Jane's article on the subject (February 2006), but I don't think I can post it here?

 

[Soner1980]

Yes I agree. It is the technological breack through but more high-tech means also expensive parts in weapon systems.

Also again, the Jewish (better called Israeli) 60mm tank gun is the best example of this. If the Chinese selected for a bigger 'mouth', then they want less research and simpler tech wich is also faster to deploy. Also today it will be used as a tank gun, after research is advancing, the 152mm gun will be improved like the M256 or even the 2A46. The 125mm 2A46 is known of it's poor accuracy in the 1960's when it was first entered service.

If I must make a decision, than the 105mm tank gun should be upgraded or even rebuilt without any grooves, making a 105mm smoothbore tank gun with much higher muzzle velocity as almost deadly as the other tank guns.

 

[eckherl]

Yes I agree. It is the technological breack through but more high-tech means also expensive parts in weapon systems.

Also again, the Jewish (better called Israeli) 60mm tank gun is the best example of this. If the Chinese selected for a bigger 'mouth', then they want less research and simpler tech wich is also faster to deploy. Also today it will be used as a tank gun, after research is advancing, the 152mm gun will be improved like the M256 or even the 2A46. The 125mm 2A46 is known of it's poor accuracy in the 1960's when it was first entered service.

If I must make a decision, than the 105mm tank gun should be upgraded or even rebuilt without any grooves, making a 105mm smoothbore tank gun with much higher muzzle velocity as almost deadly as the other tank guns.

When did the Israeli`s have a 60mm as a tank gun for the sherman, also China has some of the best producers of mainguns, (The Russians). We tried going with a bigger caliber many years ago ie: Sheridians and M60A2s, to have a effective armor defeating capability when ended up going with a missile system for this caliber, Russia is quite content with their 125mm and we are content with our 120mm. The 105mm is still a potent maingun but with the new armor packages that are out there on modern tanks, you are not going to be able to penetrate them from the front at a fair distance.

 

[PlasmaKrab]

Alternative Chinese development?

Can anyone here tell me why the Chinese aren't giving more use to their 120mm guns? I know they have put long-tube 120mm smoothbore guns at least in some tank destroyers like the PTZ-89 (and apparently a wheeled SPATG project). Only a couple of hundreds of those seem to be in service, so have there been problems with the gun? The design dates back to the mid-80s, so couldn't these problems be solved?

With such a weapon and new domestic/Russian/etc. technologies, they could easily develop a new MBT with a bustle autoloader and DU long-rod APFSDS rounds comparable to US rounds. Possibly even something similar to a T-84 Oplot or Cherny Orel based on the Type-99 for starters.

 

[Thery]

There is no detail information about the tank other than this picture. Interestingly this picture is first revealed on XinhuaNet(Xinhua News Agency), which makes it like official confirmation (leak) of this Type-99 upgrade model.

 

[eckherl]

There is no detail information about the tank other than this picture. Interestingly this picture is first revealed on XinhuaNet(Xinhua News Agency), which makes it like official confirmation (leak) of this Type-99 upgrade model.

They have many different proto types with possible future upgrades that are floating around. You wouldn`t happen to have a few more photos of this model would you, I am most interested in the counter measure devices perched on top of the turret, also would like a look at the maingun at full length.