Chinese Armored Vehicles

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

But what actually mean "ideal conditions"? What is the context? If it was a KE round that it was fired from 50m? But what is then a purpose of such test? The goal should be rather to achieve maximum possible penetration at as longest distance as possible, in case of HEAT round ideal conditions might mean that we are firing at mild steel not RHA.

Our Chinese users here, seems to preffer to accept some dogmats and truths from their native sources without even a second thought, especially considering how fishy are all these claims.

I suggest to you all, to be more carefull and critical towards official claims of the PRC.
 

Keshav Murali

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
975
Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

@Damian,

Is my previous post correct? (I wrote from memory, and my memory is very bad in IDEAL conditions)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
Yes China was under the threat of the Soviet Union. But China never invested heavily in development or anything remotely close till the past 10-15 years. China was using Type 59 and Type 69 in the 60's (Type 69 had better electronics - This time from a captured T-62) After they realized that the 100 mm D-10 was nonsense in the 70's against USSR's T-64 and T-72A, they managed to get license for the Royal Ordnance 105 mm L7 from Austria in exchange for some technology.

PLA replaced Type 59 and 69's D-10 with L7. I don't know anything about Type 79 and 88 but still both had a 105 mm. Then China bought 2 T-72, One from Romania in 88 and the other in 80. When they realized that their guns could not penetrate T-72 even with K-1 ERA, they started smoothbore research. This was in 88. You did make some good 120 mm guns.

But the 125 was selected as did not want 4 members and could not modify AZ autoloader from T-72 properly. The 120 equipped a tank destroyer. The 125 mm ZPT 98 replaced the Type 85's and 88's gun and armed Type 90, 96 and 99.

Finally speaking, China invested in tank gun ammunition tech only from 1985 or 86. After you developed the 120 and 125, the ammunition was developed only during 199?-1999

Regards,
Keshav
Well.some of your words are right,others are wrong,as i know. In 1980s, china imported several t72 for study.but to chinese amazement,chinese found 125mm canon of those imported t72 was even poorer~performanced than china~made ones and worthless studying. At least,chinese thought those 125mm t72 cannon might be downgrade exported version and soviet domestic version t72 125mm cannon might be much advanced..however,chinese imported several sovier domestic version t72 and found that the 125mm cannon was indeed worthless studying.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
btw,it was indeed for az~loader that china t99 used 125mm,instead of 120mm,though china~made 120mm was already world class in early 1990s.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
Well.some of your words are right,others are wrong,as i know. In 1980s, china imported several t72 for study.but to chinese amazement,chinese found 125mm canon of those imported t72 was even poorer~performanced than china~made ones and worthless studying. At least,chinese thought those 125mm t72 cannon might be downgrade exported version and soviet domestic version t72 125mm cannon might be much advanced..however,chinese imported several sovier domestic version t72 and found that the 125mm cannon was indeed worthless studying.
Did China buy any KBA-3 gun from Ukraine?

2A46 125 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
120mm and 125mm Main Guns

125mm mainguns (D-81T and D-81TM; artillery department indices 2A26 and 2A46 respectively) equip all Soviet and Russian tanks starting with T-64A MBT. They were developed by the Spetstekhnika (OKB-9) design bureau in Ekaterinburg (former Sverdlovsk), and are manufactured at the artillery plants Plant No.9 in Ekaterinburg and Motovilikha in Perm.

One of the drawbacks of this gun is that a high strain on internal surfaces during firing, as well as sheer size of it demands strict manufacturing discipline which initially caused difficulties for the Soviet industry. This resulted in unsatisfatory fire consistency of original models due to all kinds of manufacturing defects, including substandard materials, poor machining, barrel drooping, and so on. It is worth noting, however, that this problem has received due attention during the upgrading efforts (2A46 mainguns), culminating in the purchase of the Western machining equipment for 2A46M/M-1. Improved manufacturing process and better stabilization and recoil equipment provided for increase in accuracy especially on the move and at medium to long ranges.

The average barrel life of production 2A26 guns, according to USSR standards, is 600 EFC. The barrel life of 2A46M guns is twice that (1200 EFC); this modernization also provided for a quick gun barrel replacement in field conditions.

Starting with T-64B, the gun has also been modified to allow it to be used as a launcher tube for ATGMs.

This main gun was developed from the early 60s and first introduced on a T-64A MBT, with the installation series of 20 vehicles delivered in 1967. The main reason for its introduction were the intelligence reports about a new British Chieftain MBT which couldn't be defeated frontally by 115mm D-68 gun originally installed on T-64.

With the upgoing gun and ammo design efforts this gun managed to stay quite abreast with the armor developments in the West until the introduction of M1A1HA model of the Abrams MBT, the reliable counter to which did not materialize due to a tremendous economic and political upheaval associated with the collapse of the USSR.

Currently the ammunition for 2A46M gun still corresponds to the level of threat that existed 15 years ago, and there are certain technical hurdles, primarily the autoloader dimensions, that prevent simple solutions to the problem.

Solutions do exist. These include a complex of deep modernization measures utilising an increased-power 125mm 2A82 gun, new ammunition with 740mm battle parts, and redesigned autoloader to accomodate those. There is also the project of radical increase in main gun caliber to 152mm (2A83?). Given the current geopolitical climate and Russian defence spending priorities, any efforts in this direction are unlikely to materialize in nearest years.

In the middle of the 90s the 125mm caliber gun 2A75 has been developed for a new light airborne tank 2S25 Sprut-SD. Designed to fire all types of 125mm ounds from a much lighter platform, this gun differs from D-81 line of guns in several important respects, including the more than doubled recoil length.
 

Keshav Murali

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
975
At least,chinese thought those 125mm t72 cannon might be downgrade exported version and soviet domestic version t72 125mm cannon might be much advanced..however,chinese imported several sovier domestic version t72 and found that the 125mm cannon was indeed worthless studying.

You didn't import from SU. Original 2A46 was a promising gun with poor chamber pressure and a small autoloader. ZPT98 is indeed much superior. But 2A46M-5 is much better gun, 2A82 will be unmatched and 2A83 is a monster.

2A46M-5 with modified AZ autoloader used only in T-90A and export versions (T-90S) can already fire 3BM46 Svinets (650 mm), 3BM42M Lekalo (600 mm), Svinets-1 DU (750?? mm penetration) and Svinets-2 WHA (700-750? mm penetration) which are excellent rounds and markedly superior to 125 mm Chinese rounds. But data for all rounds except 3BM46 is double classified. We know the name and the length of the penetrator. Nothing else.

Therefore 2A46M-5 with modified autoloader is superior to ZPT98 but if China successfully modifies AZ or makes new autoloader, they can make a gun comparable to even Rheinmetall L/55.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
the data of t99 caNnon available is that it can pierce 850mm rha 2km away with tungsten~alloy round and 960mm rha2km away with du round
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
the data of t99 caNnon available is that it can pierce 850mm rha 2km away with tungsten~alloy round and 960mm rha2km away with du round
Russia Plans to Field the T-99, a Radically New Main Battle Tank by 2015 - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
The Russian Army is planning to begin modernize its armored and mechanized forces beginning in 2015, fielding a new family of vehicles comprising a new main battle tank, armored infantry fighting vehicles, and various support platforms. The MBT will be based on the new Armata, the prototype is scheduled to enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule. First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Sukhorukov said. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2,300 MBTs are expected to be supplied by 2020.

It should be remembered that the Russians are building their fighting forces not only against NATO, but more importantly, to protect their long southern borders with radical Islamic countries that may be gathering military power, and the growing dominance of China in the east. Armored and mechanized forces are key to maintaining military superiority or parity against such threats. The level of sophistication in meeting such threats is not as demanding as meeting the advanced technology fielded by US and NATO forces.
 

Keshav Murali

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
975
the data of t99 caNnon available is that it can pierce 850mm rha 2km away with tungsten~alloy round and 960mm rha2km away with du round
False my dear sir. Chinese investment in Tungsten alloys for only 10 years or so. German investment in that sector is 50 years or more. The best they can come up with is the DM63 which is segmented APFSDS which penetrates at maximum 790 mm and the DM53 with slightly higher performance. But DM63 better against ERA and composites. The best Russian WHA penetration is 700 mm.

China equals old Soviet Union (600 at max for WHA alloys and 650 at max for DU) Assuming China has long rod (which it doesn't thanks to AZ autoloader) the maximum penetration will still be around 670-690 mm. As long rod penetrator is not available, the best WHA made by China penetrates at max 650 mm of RHA. And that is optimistic claim.

As for DU, again, China does not have long rods. The best DU round is produced by USA. M829A3 has penetration of maximum 800-820 mm of RHA ( @Damian , correct me on this). M829E4 supposed to have 850 or more. China has neither experience nor long rod for more than 700 mm of penetration with DU. At maximum China can equal 3BM46 which penetrates 650 mm. Longer projectiles don't fit. Give me reliable source and I will stand corrected.

All penetration data given on 270 HB steel and at 2 km.

@W.G.Ewald sir, he means Type 99's propaganda. Not Armata.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
I think that Chinese users, should learn one thing, Chine is not a best experienced manufacturer of armored fighting vehicles and anti armor ammunition, China is not even capable to designa jet engine on it's own. And there is no shame in this, knowing what morons (including Mao Ze Dong) rulled their country for several decades, and how much traitors from communist party of China destroyed China in every possible way (culture, economy, scientific base), it will take time to rebuild and keep up with the better prospering part of the world.

But the only way for China and Chinese is to destroy their communist party, integrate with rest of the world, open up to the world, resign from imperialism, and build up a peacfull relations with their neighbours and other countries.

World without China will solve it's problems, China without world will not, and if Chinese will let these criminals from communist party of China, further rule their country, it will mean only further isolation and hostilities between China and rest of the world, and this will harm only Chinese really.
 
Last edited:

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
290
False my dear sir. Chinese investment in Tungsten alloys for only 10 years or so. .
A source will be nice. Nvm:

http://www.tungsten-alloy.com/

With 20 years experiences, Chinatungsten Online has been being the leading tungsten heavy alloy manufacturer and top tungsten heavy alloy suppliers in China.

It took me 2 mins to google. Maybe you should try it next time.
 
Last edited:

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
I think that Chinese users, should learn one thing, Chine is not a best experienced manufacturer of armored fighting vehicles and anti armor ammunition, China is not even capable to designa jet engine on it's own. And there is no shame in this, knowing what morons (including Mao Ze Dong) rulled their country for several decades, and how much traitors from communist party of China destroyed China in every possible way (culture, economy, scientific base), it will take time to rebuild and keep up with the better prospering part of the world.

But the only way for China and Chinese is to destroy their communist party, integrate with rest of the world, open up to the world, resign from imperialism, and build up a peacfull relations with their neighbours and other countries.

World without China will solve it's problems, China without world will not, and if Chinese will let these criminals from communist party of China, further rule their country, it will mean only further isolation and hostilities between China and rest of the world, and this will harm only Chinese really.
Well,860mm piercing with tungten one and 960mm with dp one is old data of t99 at least 3~4years ago. In fact,if necessory,china cound have set 140mm cannon for its new tank,but chinese engineer think 125mm cannon can pentrate all other tank already and it is unnecessory to use 140mm one.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
I think that Chinese users, should learn one thing, Chine is not a best experienced manufacturer of armored fighting vehicles and anti armor ammunition, China is not even capable to designa jet engine on it's own. And there is no shame in this, knowing what morons (including Mao Ze Dong) rulled their country for several decades, and how much traitors from communist party of China destroyed China in every possible way (culture, economy, scientific base), it will take time to rebuild and keep up with the better prospering part of the world.

But the only way for China and Chinese is to destroy their communist party, integrate with rest of the world, open up to the world, resign from imperialism, and build up a peacfull relations with their neighbours and other countries.

World without China will solve it's problems, China without world will not, and if Chinese will let these criminals from communist party of China, further rule their country, it will mean only further isolation and hostilities between China and rest of the world, and this will harm only Chinese really.
well, jet engine is the crown of industry ...if one country were able to manufacture top jet engine, the the country would be top tech-leader in the world....so it is normal that China-made engine can not match USA or EU,when CHina is not world tech leader,yet.

without Mao zedong, CHina would be as weak as India and has not its own industry chains.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
well, jet engine is the crown of industry ...if one country were able to manufacture top jet engine, the the country would be top tech-leader in the world....so it is normal that China-made engine can not match USA or EU,when CHina is not world tech leader,yet.
Wrong, jet engine from mechanical point of view is one of the simplest engines ever made, the problem is quality, Chinese products are famous for their, actually non existing quality.

without Mao zedong, CHina would be as weak as India and has not its own industry chains.
So you actually support man that inspired genocide of your own nation? Interesting, maybe you should ask yourself if you are a patriot, or even Chinese, or you are just like that bunch of criminals from CPC that is rulling your country, and just like Mao, didn't hesitate to attack their own nation when there was even a single sign of different opinion between citizens and goverment.

Tired of explaining why China can't make penetrators with more than 650 mm penetration. @methos, @militarysta, @Damian, @pmaitra, Read my previous posts and please back me up.
But we back you up. It is obvious for any sentient life form, that due to physical dimensions, it is not possible or incredibly difficult with existing technology, if someone is not capable to understand it, consider he might actually not be sentient life form. ;)

Well,860mm piercing with tungten one and 960mm with dp one is old data of t99 at least 3~4years ago. In fact,if necessory,china cound have set 140mm cannon for its new tank,but chinese engineer think 125mm cannon can pentrate all other tank already and it is unnecessory to use 140mm one.
And again bollocks.

Let's clear here some things.

First question, can you think rationally and with use of logic? Yes? No?

Second question, do you understand that claims of some people does not mean they say truth? Yes? No?

Because how Chinese engineer can think his ammunition can penetrate (or properly perforate) all other tanks, if he never actually tested them against such ammunition? China never had the same capabilities like NATO to purchase many different weapon systems across the globe for tests, especially USA do it regularly if and when possible.

Third question, do you understand that penetration capabilities of APFSDS ammunition, greatly depends on penetrator lenght, diameter, ratio between both, if you can't place long enough penetrator due to hull and autoloader physical dimensions, you can't achieve such penetration levels. It is simple, really simple... at least for sentient life form.

As for installing 140mm or bigger gun, again you completely do not understand what it means for vehicle itself.

It is possible that vehicle will sustain recoil of such gun? It is possible to place such big gun inside of turret? Will stabilization system handle such gun?

And also take in to consideration dimensions of ammunition and where you will place it, in autoloader? Ok but it is designed for 125mm ammunition, it can't handle much bigger 140mm or 150+mm, so you need new autoloader, but if you will place inside existing hull, it means ammunition quantity reduction.

Bigger gun and bigger ammunition also means more weight, more weight means that vehicle might loss it's mobility characteristics, and to retake them, you need a stronger engine, new transmission, probably suspension modifications.

In the end it is immposible and not cost effectiv to place such gun in existing design, and it will become more and more obvious that it is nececary to design completely new vehicle.


Just admitt it, you have absolutely no idea about tanks or AFV? Do you?
 
Last edited:

Keshav Murali

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
975
I think Chinese penetration claims are given on reverse engineered Krupp mild steel made back in 1940 for Neubaufahrzeug prototype.
 
Last edited:

shiphone

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
1,921
Likes
1,909
Country flag
Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

@shiphone,

Don't attack the poster at start.

Very informative post. I don't know much about Chinese APFSDS and I have never criticized it. NEVER. We don't show double standards. Also there is also another reliable source but it's for Russian ammunition. Vasily Fofanov. But he has not updated the site for the new Svinets-1 and Svinets-2.

Also I didn't mean 270 mm thick steel. I meant 270 HB. That's tensile strength.

Also do you have info for Chinese rounds exported to Pakistan?
right...the posts were moved here...
1. I don't know whether labeling someone as a troller is some kind of personal attact after my very first post in the original thread ...LOL...

2. normally we can see 150mm ,180mm, 220mm, 250mm RHA targets at our shooting ranges....,in those academic papers of early 1990s we could find many test results on 150 or 180mm target...nowadays, 220mm and 250mm targets appear very often ...many other composite armor targets are also used , for example:204mm thickness Type681 composte armor target(80mmRHA+20mmRHA+glass fiber-reinforced plastic+corundum)....

the RHA targets in the range...it's not a pic of ours,but no much difference.


in china national standard ...standard RHA target is 380HB


3. more than 10 years ago, the China Norinco group provided such export version AFPSDS rounds along with MBT2000 tank which was based on the DTW-125MM Block 2 rounds in PLA Army service...



-------------------
BTW , those baseless comments were quite funny as well....such as: 1. china has no good plastic explosive..2. china didn't invest in Tank gun and shell technology heavily...would you give us your source and the exact figure of such chinese investments? ...........that's just some personal guess from those even couldn't read Chinese. and this also reminds me those arrogant comments by someone from european country which is not a key player in these fields.

why not have a study on the chinese 105mm Depleted Uranium ammunition projects in 1980s by yourself?

-------------------

I just explained the Static armor penetrating TEST of HEAT Warheads...did I mention the KE rounds tests before?
does KE rounds need the Static armor penetrating TEST ? obvously no...at least in China we have no such test item in National test.

this is a result of 'Static armor penetrating TEST'
the data (1100mm?) is a result under ideal condition:
1. no rolling disturbance
2. Zero longitudinal velocity
3. best height of burst setting
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top