Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[AprilLyrics]

No...I was talking about that gun mantled mask in Chineese tanks (and in soviet ones whit cast steel turret) is relativly thin, and without special armour.
This part can be perforated by all quite modern APFSDS and most ATGMs and hand hel AT weapons:

This area:

including coaxial MG and gun pivot this area is even thinner.
agian the same:

the same problem have soviet tanks whit cast steel turret.
Here on Ob.219 (T-80U prototype)

exatly the same problem have chineese tanks

what a pity, are these tank still using casting turrent?and,which part in your pic is the inside shield?

 

[AprilLyrics]

and the same in Leo-2A4:

and:

you got be kidding me...leo2A4? whats that big hole on the one side of the turrent? poland must not have purchased leo2a4,right?

even that shield is about 600RHA,then what?

 

[jouni]

So Leo 2:s are over engineered, just like Tiger 1s were. The Germans never learn. In last war it was 60000 T-34's against 1300 Tigers.

 

[AprilLyrics]

I heard inside shield does have a shortage:it limits the depression angle of tank.but now that seems already not a problem for chinese tank now(96A,99,99A)

 

[AprilLyrics]

Only ZTZ-98, ZTZ-99, ZTZ-99G and ZTZ-99A1 can be considered as direct "copies", however they are not direct copies, they use only some ideas and components copied from T-72 series, like general front hull design and autoloader + ammunition storage design. Suspension can also be probably considered as inspired by T-72.

Also Type 90 series from which Al Khalid and MBT-2000/3000 are derived are inspired by T-72 series.

However the ZTZ-96 series which are the most numerous tank in PLA service, should be rather considered as further evolution of ZTZ-59 series which were copy of Soviet T-54. The ZTZ-96 however use some design ideas and components from T-72, like autoloader.

And then there we have that new MBT popularly called ZTZ-99A2 although it's actuall official designation code is not known yet (I heard rumors about designation code being ZTZ-08). And this tank actually have more in common with ZTZ-96 than ZTZ-99, for example driver placement to the hull left side, not in the hull center longitudinal axis.

Of course all these tanks share some common components like main gun, autoloader, probably suspension general design, also electronics are probably common, engines are different tough, most likely reason is that PLA was disatisfied with large dimensions of the ZTZ-99 engine which was a direct copy of the German MTU diesel, thus decided that different, more compact engine will be a better sollution, thus hull can be shorter and saved weight can be used elsewhere or not used at all.

Overall these tank designs represent just limited capabilities of Chinese designers that lack experience and knowledge of other nations more experienced in designing and combat usage of armored fighting vehicles.



I am not impressed by MBT-3000. It's just like any other Chinese tank, the only novelty is remotely controlled weapon station for commander, but this is nothing special by NATO standards, RWS's are used here for a long time, they are usefull, but as I said, nothing special.


And then there is also question about quality of these vehicles. Peru I my memory serves well, choosen Chinese MBT-2000 variant as their new MBT, simply because it was the cheapest, and then they quickly give them back to manufacturer after initial tests, because quality of these vehicles was terrible.

I also seen photos of the MBT-3000 prototype interior and... seriously, a fresh prototype and rust inside?! I wonder if in China there exist such thing as quality control in factories...

you are not impressed?thats impossible.you guys should love that democracy color much!

there is no 99A1 or 99A2,they are all named by fans'.Officially only 99 and 99A(the thick one).

quality control?╮(╯▽╰)╭tell me what quality control in ur country special that china doesnt have......

well,my comments should end here,wating for another tank bill coming to china.Time to make money~

 

[Damian]

you are not impressed?thats impossible.you guys should love that democracy color much!

Yes, I am not impressed, why should I be? because you say so?

there is no 99A1 or 99A2,they are all named by fans'.Officially only 99 and 99A(the thick one).

Dunno, there is really not much info avaiable about Chinese nomenclature, and all this secrecy with vehicle codenames is just silly.

quality control?╮(╯▽╰)╭tell me what quality control in ur country special that china doesnt have......

In my country? Depends what you ask, but our military for example can and do reject products that does not meet up quality requirements, las time they rejected and ordered to do again repairs on some vehicles, and in the same time also made compaints about company which was ordered to do reiaprs.

you got be kidding me...leo2A4? whats that big hole on the one side of the turrent? poland must not have purchased leo2a4,right?

What big hole?

Poland currently have a fleet of 250 Leopard 2 tanks, we have Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5 variants + 2 Leopard 2NJ driver training tanks.

I heard inside shield does have a shortage:it limits the depression angle of tank.but now that seems already not a problem for chinese tank now(96A,99,99A)

NATO and western design tanks like Japanese and South Korean tanks have a gun vertical elevation ranging from +20 to -10, Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese and similiar designs have a vertical gun elevation of +18 and -5.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Try to put more technical inputs in your posts ..

you are not impressed?thats impossible.you guys should love that democracy color much!

there is no 99A1 or 99A2,they are all named by fans'.Officially only 99 and 99A(the thick one).

quality control?╮(╯▽╰)╭tell me what quality control in ur country special that china doesnt have......

well,my comments should end here,wating for another tank bill coming to china.Time to make money~

 

[Damian]

So Leo 2:s are over engineered, just like Tiger 1s were. The Germans never learn. In last war it was 60000 T-34's against 1300 Tigers.

Currently NATO and it's allies have largest tank fleet in the world.

USA alone as a single country operates largest tank fleet of ~7400-8000 M1 Abrams tanks in various variants, US Army operates ~2000 M1A2SEP, Army National Guard operates ~2000 M1A1SA/M1A2SEP and USMC operates ~400 M1A1FEP + there is still ~3000 different variants of M1 tanks in long term storage, ~2000 in Sierra Army Depot, ~500 at Anniston Army Depot and rest in some other military facilities.

Australia operates 59 M1A1's.

Canada operates around 100 Leopard 2's in various variants.

Germany operates 225 Leopard 2A6.

Greece operates 353 Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2HEL.

Norway operates 52 Leopard 2's.

Poland operates ~250 Leopard 2's.

Portugal have 37 Leopard 2A6.

Spain 327 Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2E.

Sweden 120 Leopard 2S.

Finland will operate around 230 Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2A6.

Denmark 57 Leopard 2A5DK.

Austria around 56 Leopard 2's.

Switzerland 380 Leopard 2's.

Turkey 354 Leopard 2's.

That gives in total 2541 Leopard 2 tanks in NATO/EU.

United Kingdome will have around 250 Challenger 2 tanks.

France will have around 240 Leclerc tanks.

Italy will have around 200 C1 Ariete tanks.

South Korea will have 1027 K1/E1 & 484 K1A1/A2 + planned 206 K2 in the first production batch.

Japan will have 341 Type 90 + 66 Type 10 (more can be manufactured in future).

Israel have 2020 Merkava tanks in variants Mk2, Mk3 and Mk4, production of Merkava Mk4 is continued.

So for NATO and it's close allies this is 14834-15434 modern tanks of the 3rd generation, I did not counted older vehicles.

For comparrision.

PRC have 2500+ ZTZ-96 + 700-1000+ ZTZ-99.

Russia have ~2000 tanks in service + some reserves, most numerous tanks are old T-80BV and T-72B supplemented by some relatively small numbers of more modern T-80U, T-80UE1, T-72B3, T-90 and T-90A.

 

[methos]

Does anyone have estimation of Leopard 2 Revolution add on side armor thickness? (especially militarysta, could you do it?)

It's hard to find the actual thickness, but it's thicker than the original turret side armour (300 mm without backplate) and thinner than the track's width (635 mm). Based on very inaccurate scale measurement, the modules covering the hull sides should be at least 350 mm thick, the turret modules seem to be close to 450 mm thick.
Please note that the thickness of the armour is no direct indicator for it's protection level.

Well IBD armour is rather lighweight solution, in fact IMHO Leo-2 Revolution is not trully better then KMW version's. Polish army had decide do mods our Leo-2A4 isung KMW mads (2A6,2A7) couse better "duel" abilities.

IBD has also supplied armour for some of the later Leopard 2 tanks, I wouldn't say that that the duel abilities of the Rheinmetall/IBD upgrades is necessary worse than the Leopard 2A5/Strv 122. It's probably very similar (except for the armour at the gunner's sight), just lighter on the more modern models with IBD armour.

So Leo 2:s are over engineered, just like Tiger 1s were. The Germans never learn. In last war it was 60000 T-34's against 1300 Tigers.

You call it over-engineered based on the fact that it has thicker armour at the gun mantlet? Are you kidding me?

 

[jouni]

@Damian. I heard rumours that Finland has even more Leo twos, with separated hulls and turrets that you do not have to publish officially. Germany has really disarmed herself with 200 Leo twos.

 

[hitesh]

[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIpj97PA08[/video]
Question : Is it possible if some one lob a grenade into the the gun tube will lead to the catastrophic turret cook off

 

[Damian]

[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIpj97PA08[/video]
Question : Is it possible if some one lob a grenade into the the gun tube will lead to the catastrophic turret cook off

Depends on vehicle but... if the gun breach is opened and ammunition is scattered inside crew compartment it is possible... if ammunition have fully combustible propelant charge cases.

However take a note that this incident is staged propaganda stunt.

 

[militarysta]

 

[militarysta]

and "brillant" Type-96 hull protection:

and here on Type-96A:

(main armour only of course, not ERA placed on this armour)


max 150mm slopped at 20. = 440mm LOS.

mucht better turret:

More or less - Type-96 is primitive and weak armoured tank. Hull armour is in BEST case only 440mm (maybe 150mm) thick, mostly RHA plates.
Turret is better protected, but still - no expecting mirracle here.

This tank is not protected even on T-72B model 1989 level. Rather something between T-72M1 in hull thema and T-72B in turret (in best case)...

 

[militarysta]

for compare Polish Leopard-2A4:

tank was moving of course



and needed accuracy when tank is not moving:

polish 120mm trening munition APFSDS-T-TP disprencion on 1000m:

Used on M1 Abrams 120mm ammo tested on Leopard-2:

 

[militarysta]

And again Poland - "fresh" crews after basic trening and their first in life shooting.
Tank not moving, target not moving, distance 1000m:

anybody can compare whit chineese Type-96A "accuracy"...

 

[Broccoli]

T-72 B3M has to go "walking speed" while shooting stationary targets? What FCS it has, anyone?

 

[Dazzler]

supposedly a newly developed fire control system with Sosna-U sights, panoramic sight as an option, should have done better than other participating t-72s but it didnt, particularly while on the move.

 

[Damian]

Maybe because there is no new fire control system or stabilization?

The only really new element is new sight Sosna-U and commander paronamic sight, nothing else.

 

[Damian]

Maybe because there is no new fire control system or stabilization?

The only really new element is new sight Sosna-U and commander paronamic sight, nothing else.