New Chinese MBT???

[Waylander]

Mmmmh, if you operate that close to your own infantry you could very well just switch the APS off.

In the end an APS normally directs it's blast into the direction of the incoming ATGM or RPG.

So the enemy has too shoot it's missiles nearly directly through your own infantry units to put them into harms way of the APS.
And a detonating ATGM is also not going to be very friendly to an infantrymen standing nearby.

 

[Chrom]

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

But China wouldnt have to build 50+t hull in case of 840hp engine in first place. I mean, the premise here was "China couldnt develop small enough engine for t-72 hull and was FORCED to build large, heaver hull to install larger, already developed engine." I wrote why logically with phrase is most likely false.

China FIRST developed larger, heaver hull for own separate reasons, and THEN started to seek powerfull enough engine for it.

 

[Chrom]

Mmmmh, if you operate that close to your own infantry you could very well just switch the APS off.

In the end an APS normally directs it's blast into the direction of the incoming ATGM or RPG.

So the enemy has too shoot it's missiles nearly directly through your own infantry units to put them into harms way of the APS.
And a detonating ATGM is also not going to be very friendly to an infantrymen standing nearby.

Yes, especeally considering how most current ATGM's are of multi-purpose use, and have quite strong intentional anti-infantry effect.

 

[eckherl]

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.

Countermeasure devices are designed for armored offensive operations where your infantry will most likely be mounted or behind your main armor support, in the event of a joint dismount and armored operation the chances will be minimal due in part because of heavy armor being brought up from the rear to provide support, bad guys will be busy contending to your dismounts or bugging out of the area to avoid confrontation with your tank support. Tanks providing support for infantry to the front has always been a hazard and has restricted in some cases the use of KE projectiles due to the pedals seperating from the projectile. The average distance downrange where sabot pedals seperate range from 100 to 300 meters, this is not counting forward seperation momentum beyond that range. The chances of your dismounts being that close to the flanks and front will be at a minimum.

 

[Thery]

But China wouldnt have to build 50+t hull in case of 840hp engine in first place. I mean, the premise here was "China couldnt develop small enough engine for t-72 hull and was FORCED to build large, heaver hull to install larger, already developed engine." I wrote why logically with phrase is most likely false.

China FIRST developed larger, heaver hull for own separate reasons, and THEN started to seek powerfull enough engine for it.

I’m not quite catching your point. Are you suggesting that finalize a hull design then search a engine to fit with it, is more logic than designing a hull with already existing engine? It maybe true that designer leaves some room for future improvement, but designing a hull without any engine in mind is hardly a logical action.

Could you see it this way?
Because of increase protection and firepower, a more powerful engine is needed to overcome the increased weight, but to install such engine the hull need to be lengthening a bit.

As to my understanding when designing tank hull, size, weight, protection and mobility are all considered at the same time. And the final design needs to balance all these factors base on user requirement. Such design will include lots compromises that may not ideal on their own but are required by other factors.

People seem Type-99’s hull length is one of such compromise, it maybe the ideal solution at that time, but it could be improved base on new technology, martial and industry skill. Since a more compact engine already installed in Al – Khalid (MBT-2000), therefore it is understandable why some people criticize Type-99 does not implement the same kind technology.

PS: Sorry about the wordiness hope it is still readable.


To eckherl:
I just realize that I can not send or receive PM yet. So if you want send me any info could you please send it to my email. Thanks for you time and sorry for the trouble.

Here is a new photo of the Type-99, which shows its rear view.

 

[Chrom]

I’m not quite catching your point. Are you suggesting that finalize a hull design then search a engine to fit with it, is more logic than designing a hull with already existing engine? It maybe true that designer leaves some room for future improvement, but designing a hull without any engine in mind is hardly a logical action.

1. China dont need to design anything. We had prepostions what T-99 is enlarged copy of T-72 BECAUSE China couldnt find a small enough engine. Well, in the case of T-72 copy China wouldnt need to desing own engine. Chinese could just copy engine together with T-72. See, no need to redesign hull. I'm sure it would be much easer to copy not-so-high-tech engine than design own, worse (by your suggestion) hull.

Could you see it this way?
Because of increase protection and firepower, a more powerful engine is needed to overcome the increased weight, but to install such engine the hull need to be lengthening a bit.

Again, your suggested Chinese intentions was T-72 copy. You suggested they didnt managed it due to inabilty to copy T-72 small engine, so they were forced to install bigger, already available engine to bigger hull.

Whereas my understanding - Chinese planned better, more heavy version of T-72 hull from the start. NOT becouse they couldnt copy original T-72 engine. No. Just because they wanted better, heaver hull. Of course, for heaver hull they needed more powerfull engine. Luckly, this engine was already available, so it was easy decision.

As to my understanding when designing tank hull, size, weight, protection and mobility are all considered at the same time. And the final design needs to balance all these factors base on user requirement. Such design will include lots compromises that may not ideal on their own but are required by other factors.

People seem Type-99’s hull length is one of such compromise, it maybe the ideal solution at that time, but it could be improved base on new technology, martial and industry skill. Since a more compact engine already installed in Al – Khalid (MBT-2000), therefore it is understandable why some people criticize Type-99 does not implement the same kind technology.

For the same dumb reason same peoples may critize T-72 designers so they didnt installed modern 1200 HP version on original T-72. Not very smart, eh? At the time of T-99 there was no such engine available. Thats 1st. With the same modern technology, they could build 1500 or even 1600 version of T-99 engine - thats 2nd. While still enjoying bigger hull.

PS: Sorry about the wordiness hope it is still readable.


To eckherl:
I just realize that I can not send or receive PM yet. So if you want send me any info could you please send it to my email. Thanks for you time and sorry for the trouble.

Here is a new photo of the Type-99, which shows its rear view.

 

[Thery]

1. China dont need to design anything. We had prepostions what T-99 is enlarged copy of T-72 BECAUSE China couldnt find a small enough engine. Well, in the case of T-72 copy China wouldnt need to desing own engine. Chinese could just copy engine together with T-72. See, no need to redesign hull. I'm sure it would be much easer to copy not-so-high-tech engine than design own, worse (by your suggestion) hull.

Type-96 is about the same size and weight as T-72, and Chinese already able make 730hp (early version) and 1000hp engine (upgrade version) for it. So there is no reason why Chinese need “Copy” T-72 or its engine, I am not sure what point are you try to make.

Again, your suggested Chinese intentions was T-72 copy. You suggested they didnt managed it due to inabilty to copy T-72 small engine, so they were forced to install bigger, already available engine to bigger hull.

I never suggest that Chinese unable to copy “T-72 small engine”. By the way I never even suggest Chinese have such intention to copy T-72 engine. As mention above Chinese already have similar class engine as T-72 at that time, however they do not have a 1200hp+ engine with same size at that time.

Whereas my understanding - Chinese planned better, more heavy version of T-72 hull from the start. NOT becouse they couldnt copy original T-72 engine. No. Just because they wanted better, heaver hull. Of course, for heaver hull they needed more powerfull engine. Luckly, this engine was already available, so it was easy decision.

I do not think we have too much difference on this one. I also reread my own posts, and realize they are somehow misleading. So at here I apology to you first, it is not my intention to suggest Type-99 hull is bad design or it is a bad tank hull.

Chinese do need “better” and “heavier” hull, so they need more powerful power-pact, and the whole design is base on all the needs and equipments. Because lots difference reason the designer makes some compromise, but this does not make the hull become “bad” it only means it is not perfect and which means it have room to improve.

For the same dumb reason same peoples may critize T-72 designers so they didnt installed modern 1200 HP version on original T-72. Not very smart, eh? At the time of T-99 there was no such engine available. Thats 1st. With the same modern technology, they could build 1500 or even 1600 version of T-99 engine - thats 2nd. While still enjoying bigger hull.

People start criticize Type-99 hull only after they saw the compact design of other “new” tank. What they are trying to say is that Type-99 hull design is not perfect and with using more compact power-pact it will perform better. I believe you will also agree on this, as you also said with new technology Type-99 could free up space for other use.

I believe our biggest disagreement is on the size issue. What you believe is that the larger the hull the better it is, because it can hold more equipment, creates better crew environment and lots other benefits. I also agree that larger hull have such benefits. However larger hull also have its draw backs, which means heavier weight (lesser maneuverability and mobility) and cost more.

Because you prefer larger hull so you suggest even if PLA install more compact power-pact they should keep the size unchanged, just like Challenger 2E after use EutoPowerPact they use the free up space for fuel.

What some people suggest is that with more compact power-pact Type-99 is able to reduce the hull size, which will reduce the overall weight. And this weight save can ether improves mobility or it will give room for further armor improvement. Because lots reason China has very tire constrain on the weight and size on their armor vehicles, and Type-99 is very close to that limit. So some people seem the reduce size and weight does give more growth potential to Type-99 than space.

At the end the whole argument is likely about different battle doctrine (the prefer order of tank’s 3 main ability), and how to use new technology to improve current tank. BTW I personally have no preference on this issue. I simply just represent the view of those who does not like the current Type-99 hull.

 

[Chrom]

Type-96 is about the same size and weight as T-72, and Chinese already able make 730hp (early version) and 1000hp engine (upgrade version) for it. So there is no reason why Chinese need “Copy” T-72 or its engine, I am not sure what point are you try to make.

See? I agree. China, obviously, could make small enouth engine.

I never suggest that Chinese unable to copy “T-72 small engine”. By the way I never even suggest Chinese have such intention to copy T-72 engine. As mention above Chinese already have similar class engine as T-72 at that time, however they do not have a 1200hp+ engine with same size at that time.

Why they would need 1200+ hp engine of same size? And why you would expect them to have such engine, if NOONE else in the world had one?

I do not think we have too much difference on this one. I also reread my own posts, and realize they are somehow misleading. So at here I apology to you first, it is not my intention to suggest Type-99 hull is bad design or it is a bad tank hull.

Chinese do need “better” and “heavier” hull, so they need more powerful power-pact, and the whole design is base on all the needs and equipments. Because lots difference reason the designer makes some compromise, but this does not make the hull become “bad” it only means it is not perfect and which means it have room to improve.

I absolutely agree that. Every hull is compromise, and everything have rooms for improvements. Slightly longer, heaver hull is certainly not a big disadvantage or a sign of technological backwardness IF there is corresponding benefits of better armor or large internal volume.

People start criticize Type-99 hull only after they saw the compact design of other “new” tank. What they are trying to say is that Type-99 hull design is not perfect and with using more compact power-pact it will perform better. I believe you will also agree on this, as you also said with new technology Type-99 could free up space for other use.

Sure. But thats like bashing original M1A2 because there is, obviously, now a room for improvements.

I believe our biggest disagreement is on the size issue. What you believe is that the larger the hull the better it is, because it can hold more equipment, creates better crew environment and lots other benefits. I also agree that larger hull have such benefits. However larger hull also have its draw backs, which means heavier weight (lesser maneuverability and mobility) and cost more.

No, i dont believe that. Everyone know i'm actually fun of smaller hulls and signatures But in case of T-72 development i can see why someone would want slightly large hull, and what benefits it might bring if done right.

Because you prefer larger hull so you suggest even if PLA install more compact power-pact they should keep the size unchanged, just like Challenger 2E after use EutoPowerPact they use the free up space for fuel.

Not nessesary. But possible. As you mentioned, additional free space always could be used well.

What some people suggest is that with more compact power-pact Type-99 is able to reduce the hull size, which will reduce the overall weight. And this weight save can ether improves mobility or it will give room for further armor improvement. Because lots reason China has very tire constrain on the weight and size on their armor vehicles, and Type-99 is very close to that limit. So some people seem the reduce size and weight does give more growth potential to Type-99 than space.

Hmm. Thats where we start our disagreement. I mean, THERE WAS already more compact engine at time of T-99 design. So i cant really see reason why Chinese would now reduce T-99 size if they didnt that before. Every reason why they gone for bigger hull back then is still holds now, with new, more compact or more powerfull engines.

At the end the whole argument is likely about different battle doctrine (the prefer order of tank’s 3 main ability), and how to use new technology to improve current tank. BTW I personally have no preference on this issue. I simply just represent the view of those who does not like the current Type-99 hull.

Personally, i just want to stress one thing - China had reasons for bigger hull, OTHER than engine.