Chinese Type 99 MBT

[pave_hawk]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11664&stc=1&d=1156474644

[somedude]

nice pic.

No additional armor on side skirts though?

[soldier20]

that looks prittey cool when did that tank came out

[baifrank]

nice pic.

No additional armor on side skirts though?

too weak to withstand 20mm cannon

[somedude]

there was some talk of the applique armor being made from alumina oxide plates or some combination thereof... any further info in this regard?

[soldier20]

yeah and the turret looks biger then the Type 98 tank but it looks good

[UrbanRecon]

This tank looks bad a** to me . .

Nice tank tho' . .

[Luno]

She looks great :) are she using the 125mm 2A46M gun?

[baifrank]

She looks great :) are she using the 125mm 2A46M gun?

it is 125mm,but not 2A46M.
it can furnish the shell more higher initialization speed

[Luno]

it is 125mm,but not 2A46M.
it can furnish the shell more higher initialization speed


Thank you mate and i did find some more info :)



The main armament is a fully-stabilized 125 mm smoothbore gun with an autoloader. Despite the early reports indicating the gun was a licensed copy of the Russian 2A46, it is actually an indigenous design derived from the Chinese 125 mm smoothbore gun. The autoloader, however, is Russian.


from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99#Armament

[Ea$y-8]

It seems China has entered the realm of 3rd generation MBTs.

[somedude]

the new paint job/camo look nice.

[Hellfish]

The front armour of Type 99 is speculated to be 3 steel plates "sandwiching" 2 ceramic plates, which gives protection approximately equivalent to 500mm of RHA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour). After explosive reactive armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_reactive_armour) is added, it is said to be equivalent to 1000mm of RHA. (from Wiki)

That's unusually weak armor for a modern tank. The M1A2 has approx 900mm of RHA vs kinetic energy weapons and 1500+ vs chemical energy on the turret front/hull glacis. The T-80U has something like 700/1200 with ERA. Are the wiki figures right?

According to those figures, no modern anti-tank weapon system should have a difficult time knocking one out.

[somedude]

(from Wiki)

That's unusually weak armor for a modern tank. The M1A2 has approx 900mm of RHA vs kinetic energy weapons and 1500+ vs chemical energy on the turret front/hull glacis. The T-80U has something like 700/1200 with ERA. Are the wiki figures right?

According to those figures, no modern anti-tank weapon system should have a difficult time knocking one out.

but then again, what tank can resist any modern anti-tank weapon? Look at the Merkava 4 vs. metis/Kornet. Or the M1A2 against the Kornet (supposedly in Iraq). Or even the M1A2 vs. the RPG-29 in Iraq which got a Golden BB kill. And no tank can resist an ATGM like the Hellfire.

[Hellfish]

You make a point, of course, but it still remains to be seen. The Type-99 can't even resist against modern tank guns and ammo, though.

[somedude]

You make a point, of course, but it still remains to be seen. The Type-99 can't even resist against modern tank guns and ammo, though.

Note that there is no source cited for the Wiki claim. I've seen a range of numbers- from ones where the numbers you quoted were for the baseline Type-98, whereas higher numbers have been reported for the T-99 version.

Checked Jane's Armor and Artillery 2006; no RHAe numbers reported.

[baifrank]

but then again, what tank can resist any modern anti-tank weapon? Look at the Merkava 4 vs. metis/Kornet. Or the M1A2 against the Kornet (supposedly in Iraq). Or even the M1A2 vs. the RPG-29 in Iraq which got a Golden BB kill. And no tank can resist an ATGM like the Hellfire.

the moderm MBT front armor,like M1A2, Merkava 4,LEOPARD-IIA6,TYPE-99, can resist hellfire ; but their back/top armor can not resist even a RPG.
the flank armor give protection approximately equivalent to 500mm-700mm of RHA

[somedude]

the moderm MBT front armor,like M1A2, Merkava 4,LEOPARD-IIA6,TYPE-99, can resist hellfire ; but their back/top armor can not resist even a RPG.

I seriously doubt that.

BTW, generally accepted values of RHAe for the M1 series (dug up from tanknet) are:

M1A1HA
Turret: 660-680 vs KE, 1080-1320 vs CE
Glacis: 560-590 vs KE, 510-800 vs CE
Lower front hull: 580-630 vs KE, 800-900 vs CE

M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2
Turret: 880-900 vs KE, 1310-1620 vs CE
Glacis: 560-590 vs KE, 510-1050 vs CE
Lower front hull: 580-650 vs KE, 800-970 vs CE

M1A2 SEP
Turret: 940-960 vs KE, 1320-1620 vs CE
Glacis: 560-590 vs KE, 510-1050 vs CE
Lower front hull: 580-650 vs KE, 800-970 vs CE

[tony6]

the moderm MBT front armor,like M1A2, Merkava 4,LEOPARD-IIA6,TYPE-99, CAN RESIST HELLFIRE ; but their back/top armor can not resist even a RPG.
the flank armor give protection approximately equivalent to 500mm-700mm of RHA
Dude - I don't think that ANY tank on this planet can resist direct hit with HELLFIRE rocket.

[somedude]

Dude - I don't think that ANY tank on this planet can resist direct hit with HELLFIRE rocket.

yeah, it's at least a 20lb+ penetrating shaped charge warhead, not to mention the rocket fuel. Besides, most modern ATGMs these days target the top of the tank where it is most vulnerable.

[pave_hawk]

Note that there is no source cited for the Wiki claim. I've seen a range of numbers- from ones where the numbers you quoted were for the baseline Type-98, whereas higher numbers have been reported for the T-99 version.

Checked Jane's Armor and Artillery 2006; no RHAe numbers reported.
Yes, some sources say 700mm RHA for the turret base armor.

[somedude]

Yes, some sources say 700mm RHA for the turret base armor.

and keep in mind that the base armor was also designed to be modular, so it's possible that while the original Type-98 was 700mm, upgraded modules have been added for the Type-99.

[MkH]

Nice. Is it a completely independent Chinese design or built on some Russian tank?

[saigonsmuggler]

some chinese defense website claimed a while back that Type 99 incorporate DU armor just like the M1A2 series. They claimed the frontal arc RHA is higher than the M1A2SEP.

The newest Hellfires have tandem warhead. The penetration values of the Hellfire series are classified so really there's no way to tell whether an M1A2SEP can resist a frontal Hellfire impact.

M1A1s have been hit and penetrated by Hellfires during GW1 friendly fires. I understand that those were side hits and the M1s were destroyed (no loss of lives however).

[somedude]

Nice. Is it a completely independent Chinese design or built on some Russian tank?

According to JAA '06; The chassis of the Type-98 is very similar to that of the T-72, with the driver at the front, power pack at the rear, and turret in the center. But the hull of the Type-98 is longer, and is of all-welded steel that incorporates ceramics and advanced composites to improve battlefield survivability.

[saigonsmuggler]

but then again, what tank can resist any modern anti-tank weapon? Look at the Merkava 4 vs. metis/Kornet. Or the M1A2 against the Kornet (supposedly in Iraq). Or even the M1A2 vs. the RPG-29 in Iraq which got a Golden BB kill. And no tank can resist an ATGM like the Hellfire.
I think those Mk4s destroyed were hits from the side and rear. The frontal hits have produced only mobility kills at the beginning of the war.

Also the claim of Kornet vs. M1 in GW2 are false (tank-net).

[somedude]

I think those Mk4s destroyed were hits from the side and rear. The frontal hits have produced only mobility kills at the beginning of the war.

Also the claim of Kornet vs. M1 in GW2 are false (tank-net).

Yes, I think what was supposed to be the Kornet turned out to be the RPG-29.

Do we have confirmation on the frontal hits producing only mobility kills? I get the feeling that it was all rather hush-hush about which weapons did what.

[saigonsmuggler]

From the pics on this website (daily pics) as well as on tank-net, the two Mk4s with confirmed frontal hits did not burn but rather appear to be in good shape except for the messed up NERA armor modules. They were towed out of the battle by D9s.

In some of the pics, the tank commander (assuming the original one) still rides in his hatch holding flag. It is strange however that a hit on the turret NERA kills the mobility of the tank. My WAG is that the HEAT jet impacted (in one case) the top of the turret NERA and continues down into the engine compartment below when turret was turned to the right. Just my WAG... it could also have been mechanical breakdown.

The 3 Mk4s destroyed near the end of the war in Wadi Saluki were confirmed rear hits.

[somedude]

From the pics on this website (daily pics) as well as on tank-net, the two Mk4s with confirmed frontal hits did not burn but rather appear to be in good shape except for the messed up NERA armor modules. They were towed out of the battle by D9s.

In some of the pics, the tank commander (assuming the original one) still rides in his hatch holding flag. It is strange however that a hit on the turret NERA kills the mobility of the tank. My WAG is that the HEAT jet impacted (in one case) the top of the turret NERA and continues down into the engine compartment below when turret was turned to the right. Just my WAG... it could also have been mechanical breakdown.

The 3 Mk4s destroyed near the end of the war in Wadi Saluki were confirmed rear hits.

Was it confirmed what type of weapons made those hits?

[pave_hawk]

Nice. Is it a completely independent Chinese design or built on some Russian tank?
The autoloader is copied from Russian as well as some part of the body.

[somedude]

The autoloader is copied from Russian as well as some part of the body.

Maybe for the original Type-98. But purportedly the autoloader has been modified to accomodate long rod 30:1 penetrators on the -99s.

[the_penguin]

Fund this quote over over in the "New Type98/99 MBT thread" tread at the Sinodefence forum:

Bit of information on the Composite armour: The basic of they type 99 composite armour is muti layer of some form of speical rubber sandwiched in between metal plates and reinforced by some kind a ceramic composite or something. Been told by these chinese engineers that it very effective vrs heat and some even claim it immume to it. But am not sure how effect it is.

Sounds lot like the armor of the Russian T-72B(M) or T-90 and if you look at the weight difference, with the Type 99 being about 1.5 meters longer and 4 tons heavier, do I think its safe to say that the Type 99 has about the same level of armor as the T-72B(M) or T-90. The unknown factor is then how effective the type 99's ERA is vs. KE and HEAT attacks.

[somedude]

Fund this quote over over in the "New Type98/99 MBT thread" tread at the Sinodefence forum:


Sounds lot like the armor of the Russian T-72B(M) or T-90 and if you look at the weight difference, with the Type 99 being about 1.5 meters longer and 4 tons heavier, do I think its safe to say that the Type 99 has about the same level of armor as the T-72B(M) or T-90. The unknown factor is then how effective the type 99's ERA is vs. KE and HEAT attacks.

That's not a confirmed rumor. Others say it has DU armor. Who's right?

[saigonsmuggler]

Was it confirmed what type of weapons made those hits?
Not that I know of.


Fund this quote over over in the "New Type98/99 MBT thread" tread at the Sinodefence forum:
...

it was on sinodefence a while back that they claim the Type 99 frontal arc contains DU armor.

Metal plates sandwiching rubber? This sounds more like NERA, which is geared more toward defeating sabots than HEAT jets.

[S.H.P.D]

Good picture!!!!!!

[czr]

Dumb question, is that a smoke screen behind the tank or exhaust fumes?

[the_penguin]

That's not a confirmed rumor. Others say it has DU armor. Who's right?

Well, its from a chinese guy and its sound like an armor type that are relative easy to make, secondly if the Type 99 did use DU in its armor package wouldnt we see a much greater increase in its weight.

[saigonsmuggler]

Dumb question, is that a smoke screen behind the tank or exhaust fumes?
Both. He's probably injecting diesel into the exhaust manifold to generate smoke. It looks like an exhaust smoke screen.

[the_penguin]

Metal plates sandwiching rubber? This sounds more like NERA, which is geared more toward defeating sabots than HEAT jets.

Metal plates sandwiched between rubber is the kind composit armor you find in a T-72B and T-90 turrets and yes its mainly geared towards defeating sabots, that is why you have ERA block on the outside to deal with HEAT attacks.

[Hellfish]

Dumb question, is that a smoke screen behind the tank or exhaust fumes?

Smoke screen.

[pave_hawk]

Well, its from a chinese guy and its sound like an armor type that are relative easy to make, secondly if the Type 99 did use DU in its armor package wouldnt we see a much greater increase in its weight.
I don't think 99 has DU armor either.
Some clues have shown that many Chinese tank experters are very conservative on the use of DU armor on tanks. They think the DU dust made by a hit on the armor is dangerous to crews. Though, it is possible that this is only an excuse for the lack of capability to make such armors.

[eATS]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83585

[pave_hawk]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83585
Photos in the link should be the updated pre-produced model. They have different turret hull and formation of ERA with the one in this thread.

[eATS]

the thread is the new turret

[eucalyptus]

My favourite tank picture, it´s so pretty

[eATS]

china forum says all thats different on that first pic is the new camo paint.. it is a killer photo.

they also say those turret modules are copied from leo, refering as leo type module...

[Steel21]

In all of the modern MBTs, which uses DU Armor?

Of all the MBTs out there, there was only one in my knowledge to use DU armor, the M1A1HA. I doubt the Leos use them as the Germans refuse to use DU ammo. The Challenger's armor is not DU based but of a ceramic and metal composition.

I think we it would be a bit hastly to discredit the T99. Its targeting and tracking is probably as advance as its western counterpart. Its lighter than the Leo and Abrams while powered by 1500hp, which give it roughly the same mobility as the LeClerc. As to the gun, its safe to say that all modern main guns made in the lalst 10-15 years firing APFSDS will take any tank made in the last 10-15 years out of immediate action, survivability of the crew is a function of a angle, placement and then the armor package.

What is interesting it the inclusion of an active defense package on te T99G. Certainly, this makes it more survivable than the M1A1, which does not know if its been targeted and thus cannot bring its much esteemed frontal armor package into play.

Another point to be examined is that the T99 is supposed to have modular armor. Thus, it is not improbable that there is a DU package for this tank, now or somewhere down the road. China certainly has the capacity to manufacture DU. They may exclude it as there is no challenge to T99 in all potential theater of opeartion.

T99G is mostly likely the one of the most powerful indigenous design in the Eastern hemisphere, ranking with the prohibitly expensive SDF Type 90. Another factor is the upcoming Korean K2.

[saigonsmuggler]

Not just M1A1HA but all M1s currently in the US Army service have DU armor. Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armor (Chobham II) - no DU afaik. Leopard 2 uses Chobham-like armor in addition to its frontal turret NERA armor modules.

Not all Western FCS are the same. For instance, the Challenger 2/2E have scored relatively poor in CAT competitions and in Greek tank trials. Again, could be many things but the FCS quality cannot be ruled out. Leclerc also scored lower than the usual top two contenders - Leopard 2 and M1A2.

I don't think it's safe to say that all modern main guns made in the last 10-15 years firing APFSDS will take any tank made in the last 10-15 years out of immediate action. What range? Where hit?

Crew survivability also depends greatly on main gun ammo stowage, as demonstrated in many conflicts. IMHO, the recent Lebanon conflict points out the great need for blow-out panels for main gun ammo stowage. Only the M1 series has blow-out panels for all of its main gun stowages.

M1 series also have modular armor so it is possible to build DU modular armor.

[somedude]

Not that I know of.


I was reading jane's defense weekly today, and they had an interesting article on the recent Hizbullah ATGMs.

Some key bullet points;


Forty-five per cent of the Israel Defence Force's (IDF'S) MBTs hit by Hizbullah ATGMs during the fighting were penetrated.
Out of 50 IDF Merkava Mk 2, 3 and 4 MBTs hit, 21 were penetrated. Eleven of the incidents resulted in no fatalities while 10 incidents resulted in 23 crew casualties. During the fighting, the IDF encountered a wide variety of Russian- and Iranian-made ATGMs, including the Kornet-E 9P133, claimed to be able to penetrate 1-1.2 m of armour protected by ERA; the Metis-M 9M131, equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead; the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 'Spandrel'); the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot') and the tandem warhead RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade.
IDF is pressing Rafael to accelerate development of the Trophy APS.From another JDW article; Hizbullah also used the older Saggers to great effectiveness. When Israeli troops would enter a building, Hizbullah forces, working from a pre-sighted bunker, would zero in on the house and blow it up with a Sagger, from as far as 3km away.

[eATS]

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5915/2279307960707300mk3.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5125/2279307960708055zo0.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3314/2279307029154772ar1.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9271/2279307029155795rn4.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5329/2279307029153365js9.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2704/596aa3.jpg

[somedude]

What is #210 testing? Seems to have extra electrical equipment stuck on the turret.

Also, is that a two piece sabot? that's a lot of charge...

[eATS]

it has paintballs on it, wonder if its electronics for a war simulation...

[CyberSpec]

This is slightly off topic, but Chinese Army related......


AMPHIBIOUS MODIFICATION FOR ARMOURED VEHICLES
(Last updated 9 September 2006)

http://img3067.imagevenue.com/loc533/19165_amphibious1_122_533lo.jpg


For many years, the PLA relied on dedicated amphibious armoured vehicles such as the Type 77 (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type77.asp) to provide armour-protected amphibious assault landing capabilities. Equipped with water jets for propelling and turning in the water, the Type 77 is capable of carrying marine soldiers and their equipment from amphibious ships 10km or more offshore to the landing beach at a fairly high-speed (11~12km/h). However, this type of vehicle also has some apparent weaknesses. Firstly, to achieve high-speed travelling in the water, the vehicle designer had to sacrifice its armour protection to reduce the overall combat weight. Secondly, the vehicle’s floating tanks, which help the vehicle afloat in the water, become useless once the vehicle is ashore. The bulky floating tank design also affects the vehicle’s travelling performance on the land. As a result, these dedicated amphibious armoured vehicles are highly vulnerable when being used for land battle.





Conventional armoured vehicles in the PLA service such as the Type 63 (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type63.asp) and Type 89 (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type89.asp) armoured personnel carrier (APC) and the Type 86 (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type86.asp) infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) all have limited amphibious capability, a common feature seen on almost all Soviet/Russian and Chinese designs. These armoured vehicles use their tracks for propulsion in the water, which merely produces an average speed of 6~8km/h. This amphibious capability was mainly for river-crossing operations (less than 1km water travelling). However, in an amphibious assault operation, the vehicle must travel over 10km to reduce the risk to navy ships from missiles, aircraft, boats, and mines. The existing amphibious capability of these vehicles is therefore highly insufficient.





To improve the armoured vehicle’s amphibious capability without sacrificing their combat effectiveness, the PLA is introducing an amphibious modification package as an interim solution before a more capable design becomes available. The core concept of this modification is to fit the existing armoured vehicles with “add-on” floating tanks and outboard motors. These additional features provide the vehicle with much improved performance in the water. Once the vehicle reaches the landing beach, it can have these equipments quickly detached and get ready for land battle.
Recent photos released by Chinese press showed that most obsolete Type 77 amphibious armoured carriers in service with the PLA Marine Corps have now been replaced by the Type 63 APC and Type 86 IFV with amphibious modifications. A typical modification package normally includes two floating tanks (one front, one rear) and one or more outboard motors. The two new Amphibious Mechanised Divisions formed between 2001 and 2004 are also equipped with these types of armoured vehicles. Compared to the Type 77, these armoured vehicles provide a more capable combat capability as well as better armour protection to its crew.





In the future these temporarily modified vehicles are likely to be replaced by the PLA’s new generation Type 97 (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type97.asp) IFV. The Type 97 is fully amphibious and has two water jets for high-speed water travelling. The vehicle is armed with a 100mm main gun and a 30mm co-axial cannon, a giant leap from the armament of the Type 63 APC and Type 86 IFV.

http://img3067.imagevenue.com/loc563/19166_amphibious2_122_563lo.jpg

http://img3067.imagevenue.com/loc583/19167_amphibious3_122_583lo.jpg


Type 97 ("Fully" amphibious IFV)

http://img3067.imagevenue.com/loc458/19555_type973a_122_458lo.jpg

[ourkids]

But unfortunately... Made in China. =) lol!

[magantosh]

nice pics, but actually speaking i'm worry about the armor~

[magantosh]

But unfortunately... Made in China. =) lol!


hey guy, i know just you korea can manufecture the child-styling M1, and named K1!

[ourkids]

hey guy, i know just you korea can manufecture the child-styling M1, and named K1!

Hey, m8. Yes, we made Child-Styling M1 called K1, but it can make China's thing to be wasted just like Iraqi's tanks.

and, pls calm down... I think you need to recognise your country's product quality. I know China will rise up in Asia soon, but still I'm not sure China's products quality. Only amount and price are problem, Kung-Fu boy!

[MajorTom]

What a wonderful a peaceful planet we are living in! :D
Cease fire boys! ;)

Type-99 really is a interesting and powerful MBT.
And look out for China. Forget the stupid WOT.
In 20 years the China ll be the biggest economy in the world.
Time to start to learn chinese? ;)

[ourkids]

What a wonderful a peaceful planet we are living in! :D
Cease fire boys! ;)

Type-99 really is a interesting and powerful MBT.
And look out for China. Forget the stupid WOT.
In 20 years the China ll be the biggest economy in the world.
Time to start to learn chinese? ;)

Ait, I'm stopped. Peace!

[Lokos]

Excellent pictures.

Lokos

[Luno]

can any chine’s member identify this Smartphone? :)

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8223/20060807084659107236ar2.jpg

[Pvt.Anderson]

when watching it from other angles you notice that they must have coppied some of the Leo2's silouete

[Luno]

Some more chine’s tanks
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9315/20060316215553123982ku9.jpg






intersting anti riot vhicle

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5975/20060216131245112441fo3.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6474/20060216131245214488nn4.jpg

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2585/20060216131342136978rt0.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9937/20060216131343177657jb5.jpg

[Decebalus]

But unfortunately... Made in China. =) lol!

Its true that most things made in China are cheap and very poor quality, but that's because they are exported. You buy a watch made in China, it won't last you 5 months.

However when it comes to technology for themselves, they built top notch stuff. A few years ago they launched a rocket to space.

[D-gin]

I think I'm love with that riot vehicle....I've never seen anything like that....Cheers.

[Luno]

she looks damn brutal :)


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4222/20060216131245128232su6.jpg

[D-gin]

she looks damn brutal :)

That she does....p-)

[saigonsmuggler]

Imagine if you roll that anti-riot tank down a street here in the US... the ACLU will have your head rolling..
:)

[saigonsmuggler]

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5125/2279307960708055zo0.jpg
Looks like they still use the 2-piece ammo. The length of the sabot looks short, again due to the 2-piece requirement. The L : D ratio thus cannot be high, limiting the armor penetration potential of the round.

I think they are storing the fuels in the sponsons above the tracks? If so, American experience during OIF showed that when these external fuel cells are lit up, fire may get out of control, leading to losing the tank.

[NimDod]

Looks like they still use the 2-piece ammo. The length of the sabot looks short, again due to the 2-piece requirement. The L : D ratio thus cannot be high, limiting the armor penetration potential of the round.

I think they are storing the fuels in the sponsons above the tracks? If so, American experience during OIF showed that when these external fuel cells are lit up, fire may get out of control, leading to losing the tank.

with a 2-piece ammo arrangement you can store more ammo in the tank. the auto loading system loads the warhead first (depends on what the gunner's choice), and the other part is the same for all ammo types. its pretty efficient.
the main problem is with the extrication of a loaded round.
and I'm not surethat a 2-piece ammo necessarily means its a weaker shell. the British tanks also use a 2-piece round.

the sponsons (whats a sponson?) over the tracks looks like storage cabins to me. the fuel tanks are probebly at the back, next to the engine.

[saigonsmuggler]

right the brits also use a 2-piece ammo system. Their latest APFSDS round is the CHARM-3 DU sabot, which trails the American M829A2/A3 rounds in armor penetration performance. Part of the blame lies in the relatively short rod. With the 1-piece ammo design, the sabot rod can extend to almost the entire length of the casing itself (deep down into the casing) - you cannot have this with a 2-piece ammo design. To have the same length sabot as a 1-piece design, the breech size will be unreasonably large.

BTW the Brits are in the process of switching to the German 120mm smoothbore gun (L55 gun I believe) to improve the performance of their tanks against armor threat.

regarding the "sponsons", I've read somewhere that they are fuel cells but am not certain.

[somedude]

I don't believe that's a riot vehicle- the bright red paint leads me to believe it's a firefighting vehicle, which could probably be used in a secondary role for fighting riots, due to the mounted water cannon.

[JoaMei]

Why dont the Brits go for the 140mm, its production ready? They can either have this and the best performing Gun at present or the get the 120mm L55 to have Ammo commonality with their allies.

[KillerBD]

That roit control vehickle looks like its on an old T-55 tanks chassies (not sure if that spelled right).

[saigonsmuggler]

Why dont the Brits go for the 140mm, its production ready? They can either have this and the best performing Gun at present or the get the 120mm L55 to have Ammo commonality with their allies.
I don't think the 140mm gun is ready. Haven't heard much news about it recently.

The original reason the Brits went with the L30A1 rifled gun was their obsession with the HESH rounds along with better performance for the HE rounds. However as I understand, the CHARM-3 APFSDS round's lack of performance is causing anxiety, especially when compared to American and German latest sabots (M829A3 and DM53/63 respectively). If I recall correctly, recent armor estimates put the latest Russian T-90(M) beyond the performance bracket of the CHARM-3 at 2000m. Thus the main reason in the switch to the L55 gun is the increased armor penetration performance, with ammo commonality providing a nice bonus.

I think (not sure) the Brits will also go with the DM53/63 German tungsten sabots instead of the American M829A3 dep. uranium sabots.

[chillycraps]

she looks damn brutal :)
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2585/20060216131342136978rt0.jpg

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4222/20060216131245128232su6.jpg
on the side of the vehicle says "fire department" in Chinese. Possible that they are using it as a fire fighting vehicle for explosive storages. (as in the second picture, the building has the words "dangerous goods storage" on its wall)

oopz teppanyaki~

[eATS]

would be cool to merge these 2 threads,

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83585

Nice the Fire Truck Tank, i had a small version of it., Ty for the Hi-res...

[eATS]

what is this? looks like a advanced Mortar system on a Bradley.... found it yesterday when i was looking for type99...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/637/12592698259007ch0.jpg

[Heron]

AMOS actually

[JoaMei]

I don't think the 140mm gun is ready. Haven't heard much news about it recently.

The original reason the Brits went with the L30A1 rifled gun was their obsession with the HESH rounds along with better performance for the HE rounds. However as I understand, the CHARM-3 APFSDS round's lack of performance is causing anxiety, especially when compared to American and German latest sabots (M829A3 and DM53/63 respectively). If I recall correctly, recent armor estimates put the latest Russian T-90(M) beyond the performance bracket of the CHARM-3 at 2000m. Thus the main reason in the switch to the L55 gun is the increased armor penetration performance, with ammo commonality providing a nice bonus.

I think (not sure) the Brits will also go with the DM53/63 German tungsten sabots instead of the American M829A3 dep. uranium sabots.

Afaik the 140mm is finished (Picture Swiss Prototype), but so far nobody ordered it.

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8420/pz87140mm1ku.jpg

[eATS]

AMOS actually

i have a video of a norwiegan patrol boat shooting a simular looking AM0S system while its hauling arse and making crazy turns. the one on the boat looks alot like CV90 with AM0S. The Chinese one reminds me of that alot... wonder if they are gonna put that on the new tracked system i posted last week, looks like it would work out good on that..

this actually imprssess me, would be a key peice in their arsenal. they are covering every angle. i bet they follow russia with the mig-31 modified a satlite kill missle.

i'm glad there is news of Skunkworks Aurora project fabricating. Poular Science article explains how the sonic booms from Aurora leaves a signature on siesmographs.

[eATS]

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8420/pz87140mm1ku.jpg

wow, is that reactive Armor on turret?

[Luno]

i have a video of a norwiegan patrol boat shooting a simular looking AM0S system while its hauling arse and making crazy turns. the one on the boat looks alot like CV90 with AM0S. The Chinese one reminds me of that alot... wonder if they are gonna put that on the new tracked system i posted last week, looks like it would work out good on that..

this actually imprssess me, would be a key peice in their arsenal. they are covering every angle. i bet they follow russia with the mig-31 modified a satlite kill missle.

i'm glad there is news of Skunkworks Aurora project fabricating. Poular Science article explains how the sonic booms from Aurora leaves a signature on siesmographs.

swedish not norwiegan
http://www.amf4.mil.se/images/local/030629_ssg120bakifranupp.jpg

http://www.amf4.mil.se/images/local/030629_ssg120fartframatbb.jpg

[jmcmtank]

I don't think the 140mm gun is ready. Haven't heard much news about it recently.

The original reason the Brits went with the L30A1 rifled gun was their obsession with the HESH rounds along with better performance for the HE rounds. However as I understand, the CHARM-3 APFSDS round's lack of performance is causing anxiety, especially when compared to American and German latest sabots (M829A3 and DM53/63 respectively). If I recall correctly, recent armor estimates put the latest Russian T-90(M) beyond the performance bracket of the CHARM-3 at 2000m. Thus the main reason in the switch to the L55 gun is the increased armor penetration performance, with ammo commonality providing a nice bonus.

I think (not sure) the Brits will also go with the DM53/63 German tungsten sabots instead of the American M829A3 dep. uranium sabots.

The only reason for the smoothbore adoption by the British is logistic isolation; ie only the UK and Oman use the ammo. The Charm gun is capable of firing at much higher pressures and with longer penetrators by design. The UK doesn't use HE btw. The loss of the ability to bombard targets, eg in built-up areas is a serious one.
While 140mm was once seen as the maximum calibre before the law of diminishing returns affected performance it was then realised that extending penetrator length of 120mm did the job without resorting to a new calibre.

[Polyshot]

on the side of the vehicle says "fire department" in Chinese. Possible that they are using it as a fire fighting vehicle for explosive storages. (as in the second picture, the building has the words "dangerous goods storage" on its wall)

oopz teppanyaki~


Interesting idea for giving a new lease of life for those obsolete tanks........ but I don't like the position of the water jet....... they should take the place of where the main gun used to be...........

[Polyshot]

The only reason for the smoothbore adoption by the British is logistic isolation; ie only the UK and Oman use the ammo. The Charm gun is capable of firing at much higher pressures and with longer penetrators by design. The UK doesn't use HE btw. The loss of the ability to bombard targets, eg in built-up areas is a serious one.


You forgot the Indian's 120mm rifled gun on their Arjun MBT.........

[JoaMei]

@eATS


wow, is that reactive Armor on turret?

No, its a swiss developed passive Add on. They chose to develop their own Package istead of the german V-shaped design.

[DaGreatRV]

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8420/pz87140mm1ku.jpg


Doesn't the length of the barrel impare the offroad, storage and urban warfare capabilities?

[Lazarou]

what is this? looks like a advanced Mortar system on a Bradley.... found it yesterday when i was looking for type99...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/637/12592698259007ch0.jpg
Is that just fan art or have the Chinese copied the AMOS? :|

http://www.patria.fi/modules/page/show_page.asp?id=21C10C264B8E4505AD39D6C5D6D947C5&tabletarget=data_1&MENU_2_activeclicked=09AE65C7FCB94C758F37614E49478D8B&MENU_2_open=true&pid=CD4D13CFAE8C47318A3961CFF188055B&layout=2005_eng

[jmcmtank]

You forgot the Indian's 120mm rifled gun on their Arjun MBT.........
It uses one-piece ammo, L30 splits charge and projectile. Here is a pic of the German 55 calibre gun mounted on CH2 btw;
http://www.jmcmtank.com/images/mil/smoothbore.jpg

[saigonsmuggler]

Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme
The Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme is a programme to upgrade the main gun of the Challenger from its current 120mm L30A1 rifled gun with the 120mm Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun currently used by the Leopard 2 A6. The use of a smoothbore allows the Challenger to use enhanced lethality rounds developed in Germany and the US. Also, the L55 is a longer gun, giving rounds increased muzzle velocity versus earlier smoothbore cannon. Other improvements have also been considered, including a regenerative NBC protection system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060329_2_n.shtml

It's a Lethality Improvement Programme - it is designed to give the C2 more teeth because the L30A1/CHARM-3 don't cut it anymore.

Second, you cannot have a penetrator rod with the same L/D ratio from a 2-piece ammo as you can in a 1-piece ammo. Here's a cutaway pic of a M829A3 round:

http://www.defense-update.com/images/m829a3.jpg

As you can see, the penetrator rod/fins extends almost to the bottom of the casing, giving an excellent L/D ratio for optimum armor penetration. A 2-piece design cannot have the rod/fins extend into charge bag for obvious reason, thus limiting the length of the rod, i.e. suboptimal L/D ratio. So if the rod in a 2-piece system is as long as the M829 rod, the gun breech will be too long and will not fit inside a tank.

[pave_hawk]

[quote=Lazarou;1924429]Is that just fan art or have the Chinese copied the AMOS? :|

It is only an fan art.

[jmcmtank]

Remember that "Lethality Improvement" is the British Government's expression! What will happen is the tank will get a faster APFSDS (by definition) with less barrel wear at the cost of less HE on target and shoots will become direct only. They only went down this route when Jordan declined to join in with developing a new fin round so the smoothbore was actually the second option.
AFAIK the "Enhanced Lethality" rounds referred to are the selective fused HEAT rounds, etc-oh great we get to shoot down helicopters.
While those in the US and Germany are probably comfortable with one-piece ammunition it is seen as a negative step in ammunition safety in these parts.
I believe that the choice of the L55 guarantees a move to tungsten "green" ammo as DU doesn't perform much better out of the longer barrel.
Next problem for the UK is getting the stowage to work; projectiles are stored above the turret ring with charges below in armoured bins-one suggestion is moving the NBC pack out of the bustle.
Peculiarly enough the L55 gun doesn't project any further than the L30 when fitted to Ch2?
The change is now set in stone but I don't see any rush for the new armament as the L30 can, unfortunately, take the turret off a Ch2 so I don't see present Russian tanks proving a problem. Interesting also that the US seem happy with their 44 calibre gun and KE rounds.

[saigonsmuggler]

Remember that "Lethality Improvement" is the British Government's expression! What will happen is the tank will get a faster APFSDS (by definition) with less barrel wear at the cost of less HE on target and shoots will become direct only.

True. HESH flies pretty slow from what I gathered. They love HESH though. Big bang! :)


They only went down this route when Jordan declined to join in with developing a new fin round so the smoothbore was actually the second option. AFAIK the "Enhanced Lethality" rounds referred to are the selective fused HEAT rounds, etc-oh great we get to shoot down helicopters.

I recalled that the main reason was the superior armor penetration offered by the L55 and DM53 combo. I will read more on this when I have more time. This is all from memory for me at this time.



While those in the US and Germany are probably comfortable with one-piece ammunition it is seen as a negative step in ammunition safety in these parts.

why? The C2 already stores HESH rounds in open crew area. That's not really safe. Besides the M1 stores all its main gun ammo in armored and vented compartments. Only the charge bags are in armored/liquid bins right?



I believe that the choice of the L55 guarantees a move to tungsten "green" ammo as DU doesn't perform much better out of the longer barrel.
Next problem for the UK is getting the stowage to work; projectiles are stored above the turret ring with charges below in armoured bins-one suggestion is moving the NBC pack out of the bustle.

It would be nice if the C2 moves to a safer (M1-like) ammo stowage schema with the L55 gun. The one friendly fire incidence in OIF managed to ignite a HESH round stored in the open crew area. The result was devastating.



Peculiarly enough the L55 gun doesn't project any further than the L30 when fitted to Ch2?

Yeah it was a surprise to me too.



The change is now set in stone but I don't see any rush for the new armament as the L30 can, unfortunately, take the turret off a Ch2 so I don't see present Russian tanks proving a problem. Interesting also that the US seem happy with their 44 calibre gun and KE rounds.
I have read that the L55, with it heavier and longer barrel, causes a slowdown in the stabilization speed, thus the M1 would have to slow down to accurately fire on the move across rough terrain. The Army judged that the current L44 gun with M829E3/A3 is more than adequate. I think the Army also wants to retain the DU features of the sabot (cheaper, self-sharpening, pyrophoric).

[NimDod]

I noticed that both the type99 and the CH2's driver has a very narrow field of view:
http://www.jmcmtank.com/images/mil/smoothbore.jpg
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11741&d=1156620804
only one scope at the front? what about the sides? how do they drive like that? are there any cameras or do they totally relay on the commander's field of view?

[JoaMei]

Are HESH so much better than HE, especially when the HE can be used in Airburst and the HESH not?

http://www.kotsch.org/munition/120mm/120mmhe.jpg

[saigonsmuggler]

The change is now set in stone but I don't see any rush for the new armament as the L30 can, unfortunately, take the turret off a Ch2 so I don't see present Russian tanks proving a problem. Interesting also that the US seem happy with their 44 calibre gun and KE rounds.
One or more HESH round stored below in open crew area was ignited by the external impact of a round (another HESH I believe) from another C2. Either thru shockwave or fragmentation, one or more HESH 's in the turret were lit up, blow off the turret, killing 2 crew members inside. The other two were on top of the tank doing maintenance. They were blown off the tank and severely injured.

As far as blowing off Russian turrets with the L30, you might be mistaken. The T-90M with Kontakt-5 is a serious opponent with solid frontal arc armor. Open source estimates put it beyond reach of the L30 gun at 2000 meters.

[saigonsmuggler]

Are HESH so much better than HE, especially when the HE can be used in Airburst and the HESH not?

I think HESH has much more shockwave effect than HE since the warhead "squash" itself onto the target before exploding - great for destruction of fortified positions and light armors. However, an up-armored Warrior survived a HESH friendly fire attack (side hit) with just concussions for the troopers inside.

I saw a video a while back demo an M1 HEAT round impact vs. a C2 HESH impact on same target. Visually the HESH was much more impressive. :)

[jmcmtank]

@saigonsmuggler there is an old thread on Tanknet (http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15001&st=0) where this is discussed by guys still in the loop. I admit to being prejudiced towards HESH btw; on my last range period-a few years ago now-my gunner was dropping HESH rounds into hatches at about 1500m! The split ammo safety thing is more about where the bag charges are stored versus the projectiles. I have never heard of the incident you mention with the Ch2, the only one I know of was a KE engagement during a night battle? As for T-90M I'll take your word for it, any idea how many are out there or ready for export?

@NimDod
Yes the driver's view really is that bad!

@JoaMei
There is not much difference with HESH and HE, although HESH has a rudimentary anti-armour effect, but HESH is simpler, ie no fuse setting.

[AT-T]

Main effect of HESH is the spall generated on the inner side of the armor through the shockwave. However against modern soviet tanks HESH's power is significantly degraded since they are equipped with ERA and spall-liners which have more influence on HESH then on APFSDS. So it's not necessarily a T-90M, even 20 years old T-80U should be pretty safe against HESH through their CombinationK + K5 armor.

[saigonsmuggler]

jmcmtank, we are talking about the same engagement. I actually read of two versions of the event - one was that it was a HESH round, top hit, hatches were open, rounds stored below lit up. Second version has it as a KE round going thru turret side, rounds stored below lit up. In both versions, turret was blown off, two guys inside were killed. The reason I think it was a HESH is because the targeted tank was in defilade behind a bunker, thus the other tank must have been dropping HESH on it.

Eitherway, the incidence points to the not-so-safe ammo stowage in the Challenger. Hopefully with the move to the L55 gun, they will make improvement in this area.

As for the T-90, I am sure others can make comment but Russia is exporting the T-90S, which do not have the welded turret. However, recent photos of Indian T-90S appear to have the same welded turret as the T-90M in Russian service. I think India is buying 1000(?) of these guys. Not sure how many T-90M the Russian Army has procured.

[jmcmtank]

@AT-T HESH isn't used against MBT's anymore it's just a general tool for bombardment, having said that you might find you had one up the tube that needed firing off before loading KE. I wonder what 25Kg of HE coming in at that angle would do to optics etc?

@saigonsmuggler I don't know where you get the impression that Ch2 has a safety problem with ammo stowage from the loss of one tank? I saw more than a few M1s in Gulf 1 where the bustle venting system had failed, dunno if it has been modded. There is some criticism I believe of the hull stowage in Leo 2? Ammo has to be stowed somewhere and I would suggest that propellant is the biggest danger. Anyway, there is no such thing as an invulnerable tank, you do what you can using experience and best practice. The British and latterly the Germans, avoid hydraulic turret drives because of a perceived danger from the fluid but the US don't take it as seriously. The British used to use silver paint because it powders on impact instead of flaking like white paint but they have decided now to take the risk. I doubt any turret crew would be in a fit state after being struck by a fin round?

[saigonsmuggler]

jmcmtank, can you point to to a source for a documented instance where the ammo bustle on the M1 has failed to protect the crew from ammo explosion? I have read 'Iron Soldiers' by Tom Carhart about American armored forces (1st AD and others) in GW1 and in every instance of penetrations (either by T-72 sabot directly to turret bustle or Hellfire in friendly fire) the venting system has worked perfectly, protecting the crewmen.

The turret hydraulics in the M1 is a drawback, compared to the electro mechanism in the Challenger. However I think the GDLS designers was venturing that the Halon system would be able to put out a hydraulic fire whereas ammo fire/explosion, there's nothing that can be done about that except venting the force.

Anyhow, offtopic we have gone but in my opinion the ammo stowages (hull and turret) in the M1 is the safest system in service right now.

[the_penguin]

@jmcmtank, can you or anyone else for that matter, give a description on how the main gun ammo it stored in Challenger 2, all I know is that the powder bags are stored in the turret bustle and the projectiles are kept below the turret ring, but are there any kind of blowout panels or armored door to protect the crew?.

[saigonsmuggler]

jmcmtank, correct if I am wrong here. This is what I understand the ammo stowages on the Chal 2:

APFSDS rounds are stored in the turret bustle, above the turret ring. There is no need for blowout panel here because sabots are inert rounds. This is completely safe.

HESH rounds are stored below the turret ring, at the bottom of the turret basket. This is what I have been saying as unsafe. These explosive rounds are stored in the open crew area.

Charge bags are stored below turret ring in armored and liquid containers. This is pretty safe.

The idea is that if the Chal 2 caught fire, it will be some time before the HESH are lit up. Charge bags are stored in liquid shells. So all this will give the crew time to escape the vehicle.

Another design goal of the Chal 2 is to make the armor as tough as possible so the chance of a penetrating hit is minimized.

But as demostrated in Lebanon, very well armored tanks such as the Mk3 and Mk4 can be penetrated. If penetrated and the HEAT jet or sabot manages to strike a HESH round below the turret ring, the result will be very bad.

[AT-T]

As for the T-90, I am sure others can make comment but Russia is exporting the T-90S, which do not have the welded turret. However, recent photos of Indian T-90S appear to have the same welded turret as the T-90M in Russian service. I think India is buying 1000(?) of these guys. Not sure how many T-90M the Russian Army has procured.

All T-90s received by India are T-90S (export designation of T-90A) had welded turret and 1000hp engine.

T-90 (without a letter) with cast turret and 840hp engine are only in russian army. It has about 300 of them and currently receive one bataillon T-90A (also sometimes called T-90 Vladimir) p.a.

T-90M does not exist. This designation is confused with T-90S.

[saigonsmuggler]

ahh thanks AT. According to Wiki, India will have about 1300+ of these guys. So I take it that Indian T90S are more advanced and have better armor than Russian Army T-90? Especially when the Indian are using French thermal sights (for the 1000 T-90 Bhishma).

Also, it also said that the new T-90 Vladimir has an all welded turret.

[jmcmtank]

saigonsmuggler I was told by some US soldiers transporting knocked out Abrams that the blowout panels had malfunctioned on some of them causing the loss of the vehicles; this was in Kuwait just after the ceasefire in '91 btw. I took this as gospel, at the time but now believe they and myself were mistaken. There is a .pdf doc here (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf), scroll down to "Protection (cont)"; the picture of the burned out ammo is exactly what I saw that evening. I was in fact looking at the aftermath of CORRECTLY functioning panels, so you have put me right after all these years.:oops:

Ref turret stowage; armoured charge bins are used for bag charges, the pressurised water/coolant bins were dropped during the build-up to Gulf 1. HESH rounds are stored all over the place, often in the bustle. I don't know whether they are still stored beside the driver as in my day. APFSDS are even clipped onto the turret wall btw!

I'm not sure what could be done about the HESH rounds; they were never really seen as a major problem. As you point out, the hope would be that the turret would not be penetrated in the first place. One of the benefits of two part ammo btw is that you can get two half-bag charges into one charge recepticle; since HESH/Smoke doesn't require the same oomph as KE. So one of the direct effects of the smoothbore upgrade will be less ammunition capacity.
Here is a pic of some "Black Death", courtesy of the UK MOD, a Chally 1 in this case;
http://www.jmcmtank.com/images/mil/qrhhesh.jpg

[AT-T]

ahh thanks AT. According to Wiki, India will have about 1300+ of these guys. So I take it that Indian T90S are more advanced and have better armor than Russian Army T-90? Especially when the Indian are using French thermal sights (for the 1000 T-90 Bhishma).

Also, it also said that the new T-90 Vladimir has an all welded turret.

Yes, T-90S are more advanced then original T-90.

T-90 Vladimir (or T-90A) is identical to T-90S except: No air conditioner, belarussian Agava-2 thermal sight instead of french Catherine.
Anything else is the same including turret and armor.

[saigonsmuggler]

Thanks jmcmtank. I didn't know that they dropped the pressurized liquid containers for the charge bags prior to GW1. So the Chal 2 does not have it then?

[jmcmtank]

Correct, however you will notice that British loaders still do not wear gloves; the original reason being to check for wet bag charges as the system sometimes leaked. (Mind you they had to be VERY wet not to burn....ahem...). The old charge bins took up a lot of space and it was decided there was more safety in armoured bins. Eventually the UK MOD might relent on interior pics of Chally 2, you never know.

[RedStormRising]

All T-90s received by India are T-90S (export designation of T-90A) had welded turret and 1000hp engine.

T-90 (without a letter) with cast turret and 840hp engine are only in russian army. It has about 300 of them and currently receive one bataillon T-90A (also sometimes called T-90 Vladimir) p.a.

T-90M does not exist. This designation is confused with T-90S.

It seems that the early batch of indian T-90 still had the cast turret :
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/386/0430my1.th.jpg (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0430my1.jpg)

[AT-T]

No, it's the welded turret, notice the sharp edge behind the outer ERA-brick and the flat area round the gun mantlet. Cast turret is much smoother rounded in these areas.

[Mangusta CBT]

The launch charges magazines of 125 mm shell is in the hull without protections like other Soviet tanks ?

[somedude]

http://www.jmcmtank.com/images/mil/qrhhesh.jpg

Interesting, it looks surprisingly roomy in that Chally turret!

[AT-T]

The launch charges magazines of 125 mm shell is in the hull without protections like other Soviet tanks ?

The autoloader is hermetically separated from the crew compartment by a fireproof floor. Additional rounds are stored below the rurret ring inside a combinated fuel tank/charge stowage. Here's a picture which show T-90s fuel system, and fuel tanks with cells for charges.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5519/0000000lpgw5.jpg

It's not optimal protection but better then nothing, since diesel fuel tanks offer significant protection against HEAT and also protect the rounds from fire in crew compartment for a short period.

[Mangusta CBT]

Because Russian use shell with launch charges and penetrator (or HEAT warhead) separated ?

[AT-T]

Yes. They also have HE-FRAG shells (T-90 can even use Ainet-fused shells) and missiles.

[jmcmtank]

Interesting, it looks surprisingly roomy in that Chally turret!

Not really, I'm 6ft and my neck was always bent in that position, so his is either short or bending his knees! Remember that breech comes all the way back on firing. It gives you a good idea of the size of the HESH round. The Stryker MGS will use HEP (HESH) btw, originally a WW2 anti-structure munition.

[saigonsmuggler]

Interesting, it looks surprisingly roomy in that Chally turret!
If you think that's roomy, then an M1 will feel like a motel room then.. :)

[saigonsmuggler]

The autoloader is hermetically separated from the crew compartment by a fireproof floor. Additional rounds are stored below the rurret ring inside a combinated fuel tank/charge stowage. Here's a picture which show T-90s fuel system, and fuel tanks with cells for charges.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5519/0000000lpgw5.jpg

It's not optimal protection but better then nothing, since diesel fuel tanks offer significant protection against HEAT and also protect the rounds from fire in crew compartment for a short period.
So I think I was right in stating that the Chinese Type 99 does store fuel in its sponson tanks (above the tracks).

AT-T, the M1 series also uses internal fuel tanks as spaced armor by design so it seems that it is a well-known concept.

I read that the Halon fire extinguishing system can put down an internal fuel and/or hydraulic fires. It's the ammunition fire/explosion that need to be vented to be on the really safe side.

[jmcmtank]

If you think that's roomy, then an M1 will feel like a motel room then.. :)
The original M1 with the 105mm was like a Ballroom!:)

[somedude]

So I think I was right in stating that the Chinese Type 99 does store fuel in its sponson tanks (above the tracks).

AT-T, the M1 series also uses internal fuel tanks as spaced armor by design so it seems that it is a well-known concept.

I read that the Halon fire extinguishing system can put down an internal fuel and/or hydraulic fires. It's the ammunition fire/explosion that need to be vented to be on the really safe side.

That's correct, external fuel can be carried in the sponsons, however, doctrine is probably to eject them before entering a battle I would imagine... And that thing was a fire truck/tank, so it probably carried water in lieu of fuel.

[saigonsmuggler]

That's correct, external fuel can be carried in the sponsons, however, doctrine is probably to eject them before entering a battle I would imagine... And that thing was a fire truck/tank, so it probably carried water in lieu of fuel.
I don't think the tankers can easily eject these tanks - they are integral from what I can see. However, there may be a switch to allow the engine to use up the external tanks first before going for the internal tanks, just my guess.

[SY_FIRE]

http://bbs.cjdby.net/attachments/month_0609/OTm2pcrTzbw=_ZCnCGOg5RU8G.jpg
http://bbs.cjdby.net/attachments/month_0609/99_fWbKg15rXIy3.jpg

[Heron]

double post,dude
you don't have to post these pics in each Type99 thread...lol

[soldier20]

the type99 is a good tank but i never seen it compete against the M1A2

[eATS]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6663/333335dr7.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6032/333336sz0.jpg

[Satellite Weapon]

nice looking tank

[CanadianStormtrooper]

Nice. Is it a completely independent Chinese design or built on some Russian tank?



The autoloader is copied from Russian as well as some part of the body.

Autoloader Russian copy says Pave Hawk.

Electronics and other systems, body, and armor are completely Chinese though. Not sure about the chassis.

Friends dad in China, helped develop and design the Type 99 Battle Tank

Found out today...interesting, some sort of engineer.