Arjun vs Type 99 MBT

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562878.pdf

Here is document.

BTW recently US Army get to a conclusion that tanks are more precise, have quicker response (because they are directly supporting infantry in the AO) and create lesser coraterall damage than air support or artillery even with guided munitions.

Not to mention that there is clearly visible turn back from the concept of lightly armored, lightweight platforms and come back to heavy armored heavier platforms like tanks.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
You dont have a clue ..

Do you know how tanks function on battlefield ?

Indian Arjun Mk II--58 ton, below-average operating range (450km). Heavy ground pressure.

What is it suited for? Invading Pakistan in a short, swift campaign. It outguns all Pakistani armor, but lacks the range to invade any country larger than Pakistan without lots of refuelling capacity; capacity which the Indian Army currently lacks.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562878.pdf

Here is document.

BTW recently US Army get to a conclusion that tanks are more precise, have quicker response (because they are directly supporting infantry in the AO) and create lesser coraterall damage than air support or artillery even with guided munitions.

Not to mention that there is clearly visible turn back from the concept of lightly armored, lightweight platforms and come back to heavy armored heavier platforms like tanks.
Of course a localized fire-support option will always have greater accuracy and reaction speed. But is it worth trying to force heavy vehicles through unfriendly terrain?

The paper you cited also clearly shows that tanks and wheeled/tracked carriers become road-bound and terrain-dependent quite quickly. They limit, rather than extending, the maneuver of the units in question.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Of course a localized fire-support option will always have greater accuracy and reaction speed. But is it worth trying to force heavy vehicles through unfriendly terrain?
It seems it is worth... or you want to put in question real combat experiences of several different armies with some silly theories of yours?

The paper you cited also clearly shows that tanks and wheeled/tracked carriers become road-bound and terrain-dependent quite quickly. They limit, rather than extending, the maneuver of the units in question.
And still most highly advanced armies said "screw the lightweight wunderwaffe platforms, let's go with tanks, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armored personell carriers". Even the standard Stryker APC in US Army service, that weight below 20 tons, had been eplaced on production lines with heavier than 20 tons, new better protected DVH variant.

I also read a interview with one of high rank US Army officers. He said clearly, every land combat vehicle will be heavier. HMMWV in combat will be replaced with heavier and better protected JLTV, standard Stryker replaced with Stryker DVH, M113 replaced with better protected AMPV, M2 replaced with better protected and heavier GCV IFV, M1 tanks won't be replaced until 2035 when there is considered work for new MBT, untill that moment, M1's will receive another armor modernization and other survivability improvements among other improvements. M109A6 will be replaced with a bit better protected and heavier M109PIM. And this is only US Army alone.

Look at Heer of the German Bundeswehre. Marder is currently slowly replaced by heavier and better protected Puma, Fuchs by bigger and better protected Boxer, Leopard 2's receive armor improvements.

Look at Israel, the plans before 2006 were to cease Merkava production and go with lightweight wheeled platforms. After 2006 and Lebanon war, Israelis change their minds because conclusion is clear, only tanks and heavy APC/IFV's can achieve enough survivability on modern battlefield and eventuall lighter platforms can be used only as support for them and infantry.

Same goes for Russia, "Armata" platform based vehicles will have a weight depending on variant from ~50 to ~65 tons, "Kurganets" platform based vehicles will have base weight of approx 25 tons and more if uparmored, "Boomerang" platform based wheeled vehicles also. A significant shift from below 50 tons MBT's, and very lightweight BMP's and BTR's.

UK another example, not long time ago they wanted to scrap most Challenger 2 tanks, recently they changed their mind and decided to keep them. Look at Warrior upgrade, or even FRES SV that is significantly bigger, heavier and better protected than his predecessors Scorpion and Scimitar.

Think about this, because all these actions are based on real life experiences, not some fancy theories.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,002
Likes
8,503
Country flag
Wrong, I seen analisis from US Army, Soviets had inefficent tactics, it was not fault of tanks. And the problem with elevation of main armament was in case of BMP-1 and BMD-1 IFV's, not tanks.
The corner of rise gun of the BMP-1 almost twice exceeds the same corner in the T-62 So the tanks in the mountains have also problems with the shooting.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
The corner of rise gun of the BMP-1 almost twice exceeds the same corner in the T-62 So the tanks in the mountains have also problems with the shooting.
However there was nowhere criticism with the vertical elevation of the main armament in tanks. IFV had that problem and was seen as a more serious. Besides this 2A28 is awfull weapon. I still wonder why they wanted such weapon on BMP-1 instead of some automatic cannon, be it even something like a single gun from ZU-23-2.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,002
Likes
8,503
Country flag
However there was nowhere criticism with the vertical elevation of the main armament in tanks. IFV had that problem and was seen as a more serious. Besides this 2A28 is awfull weapon. I still wonder why they wanted such weapon on BMP-1 instead of some automatic cannon, be it even something like a single gun from ZU-23-2.
Gun 2A28 «Thunder» allowed to fight with tanks in the distance, where there was a dead zone for Malyutka ATGM (up to 500 m). It is not needed to compare intensity of battle actions in Afghanistan 79-88 and the current time. That war anymore looked like civil war in Syria, where there is a supply of insurgents modern weapons.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Yes I know why 2A28 was used, but in the same time, BMP was designed to closely cooperate with own tanks, so, the question is, if there was really a nececity for such armament.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,002
Likes
8,503
Country flag
Yes I know why 2A28 was used, but in the same time, BMP was designed to closely cooperate with own tanks, so, the question is, if there was really a nececity for such armament.
Then why IFV generally ATGM's? Do not forget that the BMP-1 a founder of the machines in this class. The military wanted such conception at the beginning. Then according to the results of experience, she has changed.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
But you know, ATGM generally is far more accurate than 2A28, also it's penetration capabilities are higher. In fact hiting something beyond 300m with 2A28 would be rather difficult task. Not to mention that vehicle lacked stabilization for it's turret and main armament. BMP-1 was indeed one of first IFV's (but not first), although a problematic design.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,002
Likes
8,503
Country flag
But you know, ATGM generally is far more accurate than 2A28, also it's penetration capabilities are higher. In fact hiting something beyond 300m with 2A28 would be rather difficult task.
Armor penetration Malyutka ATGM and grenade PG-9 to the end of the 60-ies fully satisfy the military . ATGM of course more precisely, but he is not perfect and had a number of drawbacks, which compensated for the 2А28.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well I have different opinion, let's agree that we disagree. :)
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
10,002
Likes
8,503
Country flag
You think modern categories, not making amendment at a time. It's like comparing Fiat 500 57-year of the Fiat 500, 2007. Nothing in common.

 
Last edited:

idk no more

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
1
Likes
0
Country flag
I wonder how long it take you, to understand that both Arjun and ZTZ-99 are MBT's, and as I said, MBT is universal tank concept, which means it is designed to fight in any conditions.

The weight of tanks is mostly based on it's internal volume, and the overall size, and have nothing to do with protection.

In fact ZTZ-99 is awfull design. I still can't understand why they used a basic T-72 layout, and then get idea to put there bigger engine, which in the end means unnececary bigger internal volume, bigger size of hull, bigger weight and no increase in protection.

In fact compared to many newer T-72 variants, like T-72B, ZTZ-99 is less protected.

Especially interesting is a fact that Chinese designers never bothered to provide sufficent protection for hull sides. These silly thin sheet metal/rubber side skirts, does not offer any significant protection, and the side hull armor is as like in most designs, max 80mm thick, which in the end means that in possible conflict with India, the Indian infantry teams, might be very dangerous in ambushes with Carl Gustav 84mm RCR's. The best tactic would be to aim in the side hull directly beneth the turret and side hull sponson and slightly above road wheels, to hit ammunition storage and autoloader.

Also the turret sides of ZTZ-99 are weakly protected, and due to turret geometry are not that well hidden behind front turret armor, so hitting them will be easy.

Another hint is the exposed edge where ZTZ-99 front turret armor meet side armor, this is also exposed weak zone. And there are many, many more.

The newest ZTZ-99A2 is also not that better.
the ztz99a is considered to be one of the greatest tanks in the world right now, you can't even compare it to Arjun. the hull sides of every tank is weak so there is no point of debating of that since no tank wants to get shot from the sides. that goes towards nato tanks, and Russian tanks and all nations. but include that the ztz 99a has era protection on the side turret. swell in a Russian study its actually a lower chance of hitting the ammo since its in the bottom but a higher chance of hitting the turret ammunition.

swell include that the ztz99a has a 3rd generation for both commander and gunner thermals. and the protection is pretty reliable since it has newer composition than the t72, and a newer era package. and the good icing on top is that they adde a active protection system could be a soft kill or a hard kill (still classified information). with a gun that can cut through a Abrams hull including the leopards at 2km its really impressive.

on the other hand the type 99 is swell a decent contender in the modern day battlefield and can be comparable towards the Russians t80, t72s and somewhat t90s. with its 2nd generation for both commander and gunner thermals it has a pretty reliable fire control system. the armor is a much newer armor package than the 20th century t72s and t80.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top