Chinese Armored Vehicles

Discussion in 'China' started by Kunal Biswas, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    31,120
    Likes Received:
    40,272
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    We have seen the photos, ERA are installed in very poor manner with huge gaps in between unlike Chinese understood the issue and act accordingly though still need a better designed turret..

     
  2. Dazzler

    Dazzler Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    281
    different configurations have been tested, what we usually see is for display purposes and you dont need ERA for that. However"


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  3. Dazzler

    Dazzler Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    281
    gaps can be spotted here as well

    T-90
    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  4. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    This is not T-90 but modernized T-72 with Kontakt-5 ERA (seems that Kontakt-5 cassettes are on turret and hull seems to have Relikt modules), how to find a differences between the two? First commander cupola, T-72 series have simpler without remotely controlled machine gun mount, second is lack of TSzU-1-7 Shtora-1 system.

    Aside from that, T-90A compared to T-90 have much better ERA coverage, actually Indian T-90S have even better ERA coverage than Russian T-90A.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  5. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    31,120
    Likes Received:
    40,272
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    No ERA to cover exposed part ? I am sure PA have logic to put those on first place..

    Regardless many config, the turret roof inclined over front is not well protected well ..

     
  6. Dazzler

    Dazzler Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    281
    Thats exactly my point :)

    Different ERA configurations can be implemented if the need arises.
     
  7. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Well the problem with Al Khalid and overall Chinese tanks is that their turret geometry makes proper ERA installation problematic, just like cast turrets of T-xx tanks make it more problematic than in case of welded turret.

    This is not that easy to solve, for example Indian T-90S or Algerian T-90SA have better ERA cover compared to Russian T-90A only because they lack Shtora active protection system IR dazzlers.

    And for example Ukrainian tanks can still have tight ERA cover and Varta IR dazzlers only because Varta dazzlers compared to Shtora, are fixed in one place and do not have mechanism connected to main gun, permitting them to move with gun in vertical plane.

    So the whole problem is not that really simple. You should also remember that Al Khalid predecessor, Type-90-IIM was never designed with ERA in mind and thus Al Khalid inherits this characteristic.
     
  8. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    well, pls check the picture and fighure how thick the steel armor is .....which is tested by CHinese-made armor-piercing shells(exported downgrade version)
    in fact, it pieces 1000 MM steel armor
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    badguy, China's APFSDS are not even comparable to German and American rounds which have a penetration of 790 mm at maximum. China's tanks have AZ autoloader which prevents the rounds from having long rod penetrators which are essential to penetrate more than 700 mm.

    1000 mm claim is pure crap. Also no modern tank uses pure steel. 1000 mm of roof armour is impossible considering the dimensions of any turret.
    @Damian @methos @militarysta, please put this guy in his place.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  10. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    This Chinese photo of penetrate steel does not mean anything.

    First question is, what type of steel it is, it is a mild steel? RHA? SHS, HHS, DHS, THS? How this steel was made, it was a older metallurgy process or perhaps ESR?

    What was hardness and other characteristics of this steel block?

    What is it's real thickness, I can also make some photos of steel in my garage and claim "hey this one have a lenght of 1,000mm", but is it truth?

    What was the distance of firing to this steel block? What was angle of inclination of this steel block?

    Finally what really hit it? It was APFSDS? Or perhaps a HEAT round? ATGM maybe with capability to penetrate x thickness of steel.

    What I find is that Chinese are very good at making different claims about their superiority, but none of these claims can be explained and supported in any logical or rational way by them, this is a typical talk "we are superior" of a country that have a goverment with it's inferiority complex towards rest of the world, and desperately needs to proove how superior they are... which is kinda silly.
     
  11. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    3 or 4 years ago, when T99ztz roled out , the chief engineer declared that its new 125 cannon can pierce 900MM already.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  12. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    The proof ? ZTZ99 still uses ZPT98 125 mm gun which is not known to be top of the line. I can also take a block of plastic, paint it grey, use a knife to cut an uneven path and claim that my home made potato gun penetrates 300 metres of RHA. Nothing in it badguy. Back up your claims with proof or atleast links. The whole world knows about China's claims.

    Type 99 can use maximum 700 mm penetrator length which is poor by any standard. Unless China found a new element or have a long rod that can fit in a modified AZ autoloader, penetration upwards of 650 mm is impossible. Also China always exaggerates their tech. The Type 99 is no exception. China has invested in ammunition development only for past 15-20 years.

    How will your short research and little investment compare to USA's 35 years research in smoothbore rounds and 60 years in APFSDS technology, Germany's 80 year tests for smoothbore technology and 50 years research in munitions, France's technical expertise in barrel technology and British Army's unparalleled usage of APFSDS (from 1942).

    Regards,
    One who doesn't believe propaganda
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  13. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Which are bollocks for anyone who have even the basic knowledge about tanks design.

    It is immposible to achieve such penetration levels, simply because physical dimensions of the ammunition and autoloader as well as it's design do not permitt such high penetration capability.

    This is pure propaganda, of course you can believe in such propaganda, but this is not making you any way credible partner to any kind of discussion.
     
    Kunal Biswas likes this.
  14. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    well,according to CD, it is one 125 heat round penetrating 1100MM RHA
     
  15. CCTV

    CCTV Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    North America
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Those pictures contain enough information for experts.
     
  16. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    @badguy2000, First you claimed that those were AP rounds, now you claim that they are HEAT. I suspected that it was a hollow charge jet but didn't voice my suspicions then.

    125 mm HEAT rounds can at MAXIMUM penetrate 6 to 7 times their caliber on RHA. @militarysta will explain. And China still doesn't have a first grade plastic explosive, so we can say that the 125 mm HEAT can penetrate 750 mm to 875 mm, of which 875 will be a very optimistic claim as the best 120 mm HEAT rounds can penetrate only 800 mm.

    Also HEAT rounds penetrating steel doesn't mean they will be effective on Composites. In general, Composites with ERA or NERA reduce the penetration by 30 to 50% quite easily. This specific one should be good at bunker busting (still won't destroy it) and general purpose use. But anti-armour use is still far-fetched.

    Regards,
    Keshav

    P.S: Read about tank rounds before giving wild claims here
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  17. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    17,689
    Likes Received:
    17,879
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    how you guys test it on that metal ?

    [​IMG]

    BTW is that armor plate ?
     
  18. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    That 'plate' looks like a hollowed out steel cylinder which was melted under extreme heat. HEAT rounds don't use heat to melt through the armour and crap like that. It produces a jet that forces a tiny hole. This "evidence" was made in a furnace. That was not done by tank rounds in the least. Most likely used welding equipment to create a uniform plotted path.
    @Damian, provide pictures of HEAT penetration please. I don't have them
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  19. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    31,120
    Likes Received:
    40,272
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Have seen this, But 1100mm penetration via a HEAT round is no special..

     
  20. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    :bs:

    HEAT rounds can penetrate at max 6 to 7 times their diameter.

    125 x 7 < 1100. No way unless the gun was 155 mm artillery.
     

Share This Page