New Chinese MBT???

[Thery]

Well if they go with a different length for the 125mm all I think that they will be able to go with is a 52 caliber length, maybe 53 caliber length. Interesting that they may go with a 120mm, must be in part due to one piece ammunition and matched with a bustle loader, it looks like that the Ukrainians may have offered them a little assistance with this. They have actually tested with a 140 mm quite extensively.

Why do you think that China would go with a 120mm.

Actually they study 120mm gun for quite some time, their first attend could date back to 1970 (some claim it is 1967) with Type-122 tank project, because of technical and manufactory difficulty the project was terminated.

They resume program around 1977 but because the associate tank chassis failed 120mm gun once again could not enter service. However they introduce the 120mm gun on to a Type 321 utility tracked chassis and change it into an anti-tank gun. This is later known as the Type 89 Tank Destroyer.

During Type-99 per-design phase there is also an argument between using 120mm and 125mm gun. Although 120mm never become MBT weapon, but they also never stop its R&D. So I am not surprise if they introduce it at the future.

PLA always known the benefit of 120mm’s one piece ammunition, but because lack associate autoloader it never become their MBT weapon. I believe there maybe also some political reason involved.

 

[Thery]

I also think longer chinese hull is not disadvanatage - aside of bigger mass ofc. More space gives higher upgrade potencial and generally make it easer for engeniers.

Chassis size is base on what internal design and equipment needs. If a smaller chassis can fulfill the requirement there is no reason go for larger ones. After all larger chassis will cost more to produce.

The reason that Type-99 have longer chassis is because its engine. So even if you seem larger chassis as a growth potential, they still could shorten it by using new power pact.

Moreover the length of the chassis is not the only thing that limits the use of larger caliber, as long as PLA still use the Russia style autoloader chassis’s width is what current constrain them. You can not widen the tank too much, because the railway’s width is fixed.

 

[Chrom]

Chassis size is base on what internal design and equipment needs. If a smaller chassis can fulfill the requirement there is no reason go for larger ones. After all larger chassis will cost more to produce.

The reason that Type-99 have longer chassis is because its engine. So even if you seem larger chassis as a growth potential, they still could shorten it by using new power pact.

Moreover the length of the chassis is not the only thing that limits the use of larger caliber, as long as PLA still use the Russia style autoloader chassis’s width is what current constrain them. You can not widen the tank too much, because the railway’s width is fixed.

Hmm, think about it. T-xx design was always mocked for too tight internal volume available for additional devices. Chinese, with longer hull, might solve that. Plus, i dont believe China couldnt reproduce 840 hp engine - its design is VERY old after all, at 60x technical level at most. New 1000 and 1200 engines are another matter... but 840 hp would be enouth for standard T-72 hull.

So, i couldnt really see so dire needs in longer hull just becouse of engine. There should be also other reasons for that.

 

[Thery]

Hmm, think about it. T-xx design was always mocked for too tight internal volume available for additional devices. Chinese, with longer hull, might solve that. Plus, i dont believe China couldnt reproduce 840 hp engine - its design is VERY old after all, at 60x technical level at most. New 1000 and 1200 engines are another matter... but 840 hp would be enouth for standard T-72 hull.

So, i couldnt really see so dire needs in longer hull just becouse of engine. There should be also other reasons for that.

Type-98 use 1200hp engine and Type-99 said to be using 1500hp ones.

I do not suggest there have no other reason why the hull is longer, maybe they did use larger caliber after all.

What I mean is that they could shorten it with new engine.

 

[lonelytoad]

People speculate the new device on top left of the turret is an Active Protective System (APS) like ARENA use by Russia tank. And the square device fixed on turret right behind the commander viewer believed to be just some temporary device use for the APS experiment.

To eckherl
Some people suggest the second picture of yours is actually an upgraded version of MBT2000 instead of Type-99.

According to report from CCTV-7 (military channel of China Central TV), the equipment is not APS but a Laser Blinding System. I am very glad if somebody could tell me the term in English. It detects the laser beam sent by laser ranging system from enemy's tank and radiate back laser beam with high power to blind the observer's eyes.

 

[Waylander]

Doesn't the laser system looks different.
I can't remember exactly though.

BTW, I am very sceptical about the whole system. Modern tank optics are protected against lasers and blinding enemy soldiers with lasers is against geneva convention.

 

[Thery]

According to report from CCTV-7 (military channel of China Central TV), the equipment is not APS but a Laser Blinding System. I am very glad if somebody could tell me the term in English. It detects the laser beam sent by laser ranging system from enemy's tank and radiate back laser beam with high power to blind the observer's eyes.

I believe what CCTV said is the original Type-99, since the upgrade model (99G or 99A(A2), whatever you like to call it) is not yet released.

The device we are talking about has different look than the original laser dazzler. It could be just an upgrade model or it could be APS, but without any other pictures it is hard to tell.

At the end that picture is only a testing prototype, it does not really matter what is that device. Even the device is APS, it still may not enter service and become part of the final production model.

Here is the original laser dazzler

 

[eckherl]

Actually they study 120mm gun for quite some time, their first attend could date back to 1970 (some claim it is 1967) with Type-122 tank project, because of technical and manufactory difficulty the project was terminated.

They resume program around 1977 but because the associate tank chassis failed 120mm gun once again could not enter service. However they introduce the 120mm gun on to a Type 321 utility tracked chassis and change it into an anti-tank gun. This is later known as the Type 89 Tank Destroyer.

During Type-99 per-design phase there is also an argument between using 120mm and 125mm gun. Although 120mm never become MBT weapon, but they also never stop its R&D. So I am not surprise if they introduce it at the future.

PLA always known the benefit of 120mm’s one piece ammunition, but because lack associate autoloader it never become their MBT weapon. I believe there maybe also some political reason involved.

Yes - I know of the Type 89 tank destroyer, how many units are still equiped with them. They could very well get Ukrainian influence for a bustle loader, as you already know that Ukraine had some influence on the Al-Khalid design with Norinco. I do have a hard time thinking that the lengthened hull on Type 99 and Al - Khalid was due in part because of power pack design, Al - Khalid already has the most compact power pack that is currently out there. I wish I could get some photos of the Auto loaders on both tanks and see how they are protected and carry the rounds which could be a factor that China and Pakistan looked into for crew safety during potential ammunition cook offs suffered in other T series designs.

 

[eckherl]

Doesn't the laser system looks different.
I can't remember exactly though.

BTW, I am very sceptical about the whole system. Modern tank optics are protected against lasers and blinding enemy soldiers with lasers is against geneva convention.

I think that they recessed in the optic system on the proto type photo. And China doesn`t abide by the Geneva Convention, neither does Russia.

 

[Chrom]

Type-98 use 1200hp engine and Type-99 said to be using 1500hp ones.

I do not suggest there have no other reason why the hull is longer, maybe they did use larger caliber after all.

What I mean is that they could shorten it with new engine.

But the engine size being much bigger. I meant, they could just copy original 840 hp engine back then if they really needed an engine. As they prefered tp actually develop new, much bigger engine and new, longer hull for it - i doubt they elongated hull JUST becouse of engine.

 

[Chrom]

BTW, I am very sceptical about the whole system. Modern tank optics are protected against lasers and blinding enemy soldiers with lasers is against geneva convention.

Common, noone really cares about various conventions anyway. Small weak excuse is all what needs to cirumvent any conventions if it gives real benefit.

To put it clear, EVERY major country do regulary violate Geneva convention, and generally use this convention as propaganda tool against competitors who also do not abide it

Either way, it is not APS 100%. As said, there is no kill device in sight. You know, lenses cant really hurt RPG rocktes.

 

[crobato]

But the engine size being much bigger. I meant, they could just copy original 840 hp engine back then if they really needed an engine. As they prefered tp actually develop new, much bigger engine and new, longer hull for it - i doubt they elongated hull JUST becouse of engine.

Hard to say. The 1200hp and 1500hp engines are of German design, and is licensed produced in China. I bet its the same engine for the Leopard II.

 

[Thery]

Yes - I know of the Type 89 tank destroyer, how many units are still equiped with them. They could very well get Ukrainian influence for a bustle loader, as you already know that Ukraine had some influence on the Al-Khalid design with Norinco. I do have a hard time thinking that the lengthened hull on Type 99 and Al - Khalid was due in part because of power pack design, Al - Khalid already has the most compact power pack that is currently out there. I wish I could get some photos of the Auto loaders on both tanks and see how they are protected and carry the rounds which could be a factor that China and Pakistan looked into for crew safety during potential ammunition cook offs suffered in other T series designs.

Al – Khalid (MBT-2000) hull is shorter than Type-99, and it is the result using more compact power pack and how it is been positioned. Which is exactly the reason why some people suggest implement such design.

I don’t think you can improve crew safety by just lengthen the hull as long as you still use the Russia style autoloader. Actually the rounds inside the autoloader are quite well protected, but the extra ammunition stored inside the fighting compartment is another story, especially when there is no fire suppression system like Iraqi T-72.

Here is some picture of the T-72 autoloader

 

[Thery]

I also skeptical about effectiveness of such laser system. Is it violated the Geneva Convention is debatable same as waterboarding. There is no evidence suggest that the system is actually able blind people let alone claim it is specifically designed for such function. Sure this does not make ether side is correct, it only tell us that the current rules are not clear enough.

To put it clear, EVERY major country do regulary violate Geneva convention, and generally use this convention as propaganda tool against competitors who also do not abide it

It is very sad that almost every country tries to bend the rule toward her favor.

 

[Thery]

Either way, it is not APS 100%. As said, there is no kill device in sight. You know, lenses cant really hurt RPG rocktes.

Arena killing device is just only small ammunition panels, and other APS such as trophy is also not very noticeable if you are not at the right angle.

But the engine size being much bigger. I meant, they could just copy original 840 hp engine back then if they really needed an engine. As they prefered tp actually develop new, much bigger engine and new, longer hull for it - i doubt they elongated hull JUST becouse of engine.

Do you really think 840hp engine for a 50+ tone Tank?

 

[eckherl]

Al – Khalid (MBT-2000) hull is shorter than Type-99, and it is the result using more compact power pack and how it is been positioned. Which is exactly the reason why some people suggest implement such design.

I don’t think you can improve crew safety by just lengthen the hull as long as you still use the Russia style autoloader. Actually the rounds inside the autoloader are quite well protected, but the extra ammunition stored inside the fighting compartment is another story, especially when there is no fire suppression system like Iraqi T-72.

Here is some picture of the T-72 autoloader

Yes - you are correct, the type 99 is longer:

Al-Khalid length 6.9 M versus Type 99 length 7.3M
Russian T-72 length 6.95 M versus Russian T-80 series 7.4 M

I feel if you have some additional room that it is quite possible to provide a armored fire wall between the crew and ammunition auto loader, and yes it would be of the upmost importance to not strap projectiles to the sides of turrets, but this is not really what is causing catastrophic vehicle losses, it is the auto loader that when penetrated doesn`t have enough dispersion room for HE shells and projectile charges when cooking off, thus causing alot of turrets being lifted from the hull. This very well could be why China and Russia and a few others are looking at bustle mounted systems.

I have actually experienced the T-80U auto loader in action and it got my attention, its that scary from someone standing 6.1 in height. :shudder

 

[Thery]

Yes - you are correct, the type 99 is longer:

Al-Khalid length 6.9 M versus Type 99 length 7.3M
Russian T-72 length 6.95 M versus Russian T-80 series 7.4 M

I feel if you have some additional room that it is quite possible to provide a armored fire wall between the crew and ammunition auto loader, and yes it would be of the upmost importance to not strap projectiles to the sides of turrets, but this is not really what is causing catastrophic vehicle losses, it is the auto loader that when penetrated doesn`t have enough dispersion room for HE shells and projectile charges when cooking off, thus causing alot of turrets being lifted from the hull. This very well could be why China and Russia and a few others are looking at bustle mounted systems.

I have actually experienced the T-80U auto loader in action and it got my attention, its that scary from someone standing 6.1 in height. :shudder

I thought T-80 is only ~ 7 m long.

Is it more logical increase tank’s height instead of its length to enhance crew safety? Since the autoloader carousel is just under the combat compartment.

In conventional tank battle the carousel location is rarely been hit, actually I believe the crew member will dead way before the carousel been hit.

However such design is extremely valuable against mine and/or IED, which I believe is a huge disadvantage under current tank battle environment.

 

[eckherl]

I thought T-80 is only ~ 7 m long.

Is it more logical increase tank’s height instead of its length to enhance crew safety? Since the autoloader carousel is just under the combat compartment.

In conventional tank battle the carousel location is rarely been hit, actually I believe the crew member will dead way before the carousel been hit.

However such design is extremely valuable against mine and/or IED, which I believe is a huge disadvantage under current tank battle environment.

N0 - Russian T-80 and T-64 have always been 7.4, the Ukrainians have managed to get the T-84 down to 7.085 though.

Looking at a T-80U it seemed that you have a little bit more room to be able to add some additional protection, but yes - If you could manage to raise the height then this would be the most logical thing to do.

That is actually a misconception, most studies that I have seen show that the carousel is one of the biggest factors in deaths and catastrophic vehicle losses incurred on T series tanks, it doesn`t have to directly be hit to cause damage. There just isn`t enough of a barrier between the bulk ammunition supply and crew.

 

[eckherl]

@Thery

I will dig out some reference material inregards to the auto loader and PM you with it. Getting back to the countermeasures, China has pretty much stated that ther will have a system designed along the lines of Arena, I do not think that the photo that we have been viewing is that system due to a lack of sensors that is clearly shown with the Arena system. Russia has given them Arena systems for testing along with Shtora, the lay to claim is that sometime this year or next year they will start fielding it on their next generation Type 99 so we may have to waite a little longer for a clear look see.

 

[Thery]

@Thery

I will dig out some reference material inregards to the auto loader and PM you with it. Getting back to the countermeasures, China has pretty much stated that ther will have a system designed along the lines of Arena, I do not think that the photo that we have been viewing is that system due to a lack of sensors that is clearly shown with the Arena system. Russia has given them Arena systems for testing along with Shtora, the lay to claim is that sometime this year or next year they will start fielding it on their next generation Type 99 so we may have to waite a little longer for a clear look see.

Thanks that is very kind of you.

Right now there is so many different APS is really hard to keep track of which is which. I believe just Israel already have 2 or 3 system under develop.

I still think all this APS is a nightmare for infantry on the field.
Maybe it is time to develop heavy body armor for the infantry once again.