LoooSeR Posted December 29, 2018 Report Share Posted December 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Molota_477 said: He said that both KE and CE protection level have exceed 1000mm RHA. KE PROTECTION IS OVER ONE THOUSAND!!! Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted December 29, 2018 Report Share Posted December 29, 2018 3 hours ago, LoooSeR said: KE PROTECTION IS OVER ONE THOUSAND!!! No idea if it is ture or fake. BUT, until now this claim by Jia Yuanyou in CCTV is the only opened official source related to 99A's protection. There is little information about 99's real protection level because its top secret. When I first heard such info, I also keep skeptic, but now IMO it is possible, according to other information implied by some official publishments (mainly China Ordnance Society), there might be some type of integrated ERA under the face plate of 99's modular composite armor(So there are 2 layers of heavy ERA if taking account the hinged ERA tiles), which can drastically increase the KE protection level.. Akula_941 and Stierlitz.Dango 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stierlitz.Dango Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 On 12/7/2018 at 5:15 AM, Peasant said: My mistake. I forget to write frontal. I mean frontal, yes, but even frontal arc, Chinese design seems unsuited! Armor array is designed in such a way that either the interior is awful or the weakness is exposed in the frontal 60* arc. I realize Russian design is only frontal 60*, NATO include the sides, but China does not. Frontal array is thick but does not cover wider aspect. Like Russian/Soviet & NATO. Thanks for kindness 3 you realize Russian design is *ONLY* frontal 60*,and NATO somehow with that thin plate count as" include the sides"?!?!? now have you realize you are deadly WRONG?! most almost all of the NATO tank who are only able to maintains protection of the frontal 30 degree cause the stupid manual loader eats extra steel and with the autoloader put in hull as the russian did they don't need that thin plate to protect the none exist loader for god sake. and the fact the frontal 60 degree maintains equal level of high protection(breech area doesn't count) and dramatically less weight is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING AMAZING THIS IS DRAWN IN SOME JAPANESE ANIME BOOKS we've been posting this years and years and you know what I FUCKING GIVE UP Akula_941 and Laviduce 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 most almost all of the NATO tank who are only able to maintains protection of the frontal 30 degree cause the stupid manual loader eats extra steel and with the autoloader put in hull as the russian did they don't need that thin plate to protect the none exist loader for god sake. trollface.jpg? Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 On 12/29/2018 at 1:53 PM, Molota_477 said: No idea if it is ture or fake. BUT, until now this claim by Jia Yuanyou in CCTV is the only opened official source related to 99A's protection. There is little information about 99's real protection level because its top secret. When I first heard such info, I also keep skeptic, but now IMO it is possible, according to other information implied by some official publishments (mainly China Ordnance Society), there might be some type of integrated ERA under the face plate of 99's modular composite armor(So there are 2 layers of heavy ERA if taking account the hinged ERA tiles), which can drastically increase the KE protection level.. For the Type 99 (A) the front armor's resistance to AP round/sabot is equivalent to 7** mm RHA, the resistance to HEAT round is equivalent to 1***mm RHA.... The top armor's resistance to HEAT round is equivalent to ***mm RHA... Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 Spoiler In other words, better base armor than the likes of T-90A, combined with comparable ERA (copy of Relikt?) equals better overall protection equivalencies. Nothing surprising there. That said, im having doubts about M829A4 being capable against this chinese tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted January 4, 2019 Report Share Posted January 4, 2019 Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 2, 2019 Report Share Posted February 2, 2019 Chinese wheeled 105 mm gun carrier during testing. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 2, 2019 Report Share Posted February 2, 2019 VPZ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 3, 2019 Report Share Posted February 3, 2019 Type 59 with mine clearing equipment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 On 2/2/2019 at 3:34 PM, LoooSeR said: Great pic...thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heretic88 Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 I cant read chinese characters, but is it possible that at the end the "99C" means Type-99C? So can it be the real designation of this tank, and not 99A? Or is it a new upgraded model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, heretic88 said: I cant read chinese characters, but is it possible that at the end the "99C" means Type-99C? So can it be the real designation of this tank, and not 99A? Or is it a new upgraded model? No, it's just a nick name of someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 On 1/2/2019 at 1:13 PM, Stierlitz.Dango said: most almost all of the NATO tank who are only able to maintains protection of the frontal 30 degree cause the stupid manual loader eats extra steel and with the autoloader put in hull as the russian did they don't need that thin plate to protect the none exist loader for god sake. and the fact the frontal 60 degree maintains equal level of high protection(breech area doesn't count) and dramatically less weight is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING AMAZING Autoloader isn't the reason why: Spoiler Despite having an autoloader and only 3 crew, the Leclerc's fighting compartment volume is higher than that of the Leo 2. It isn't about autoloader's, it's about internal volume and the armourweight/volume required to protect this internal volume. You forgot to point out that this means lower elevation angles for the gun, reliability issues for the autoloader, less frontal protection and a myriad of other issues. Spoiler Also, that's possibly one of the worst drawn M1 turrets I've seen so far. Even then, the M1A1 turrets are vastly better in frontal protection than the Type 90 because it's got ~270mm more LOS while also adding more weight in armour going from A1 to A1HA than the Type 90 has total for it's special inserts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Scav said: Autoloader isn't the reason why: Reveal hidden contents Despite having an autoloader and only 3 crew, the Leclerc's fighting compartment volume is higher than that of the Leo 2. It isn't about autoloader's, it's about internal volume and the armourweight/volume required to protect this internal volume. No. The Leopard-2 turret crew compartment is definitely bigger than the Leclerc one. The Leclerc auto loader is mounted very forward into the turret. Both crew members are at the middle of the ring (the largest ligne to be seated side by side). And at last, the Leclerc roof is lower. So, the turret armoured belt surface is lower with the French MBT than with the German’s one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 10 minutes ago, Serge said: No. The Leopard-2 turret crew compartment is definitely bigger than the Leclerc one. The Leclerc auto loader is mounted very forward into the turret. Both crew members are at the middle of the ring (the largest ligne to be seated side by side). And at last, the Leclerc roof is lower. So, the turret armoured belt surface is lower with the French MBT than with the German’s one. But the actual fighting compartment as viewed from the front is wider, I had some internal volume figures somewhere, I'll see if I can dig those up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 The Leclerc turret ring is very similar to the Leopard one. So, I can’t see how can the compartment be bigger. The Leclerc is not considered as a roomy tank. Because both crewmen are seated, the roof is very low. This is why there is a bulge (wich is considered as a balistic weak point). And, once more, the armor panel of the autoloader is much more forward than you can image at first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 Just now, Serge said: The Leclerc turret ring is very similar to the Leopard one. So, I can’t see how can the compartment be bigger. The Leclerc is not considered as a roomy tank. Because both crewmen are seated, the roof is very low. This is why there is a bulge (wich is considered as a balistic weak point). And, once more, the armor panel of the autoloader is much more forward than you can image at first. Perhaps because the crew are placed further apart and closer to the outside. I'm sure there's a reason why the Swedes decided to render the important area as bigger. I agree that the actual crew compartment is lower, but the gun certainly isn't and that's still counted as fighting compartment AFAIK. Still, autoloader =/= more effecient internal layout, especially not when you have silly comparisons like that M1 turret vs the Type 90 turret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 I just stress on the low internal volume of the Leclerc turret. I’m not taking part on the M1 vs T90 debat wich is nonsense. But Swedish tests were just made to select the Leopard-2, not the best candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Serge said: But Swedish tests were just made to select the Leopard-2, not the best candidate. Ah, that old story. "It's always a conspiracy if my favorite tank isn't perfect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 4, 2019 Report Share Posted February 4, 2019 22 minutes ago, SH_MM said: Ah, that old story. "It's always a conspiracy if my favorite tank isn't perfect." It really do be like that though. Buy my Merkavas pl0x. SH_MM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted February 5, 2019 Report Share Posted February 5, 2019 1 hour ago, SH_MM said: Ah, that old story. "It's always a conspiracy if my favorite tank isn't perfect." Considering that they didn't even test the Ariete I think he's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted February 5, 2019 Report Share Posted February 5, 2019 5 hours ago, SH_MM said: Ah, that old story. "It's always a conspiracy if my favorite tank isn't perfect." No, no. Swedish way of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted February 5, 2019 Report Share Posted February 5, 2019 10 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said: Considering that they didn't even test the Ariete I think he's right. Don't forget the Arjun! How dare these Swedes to not test the power of India!!! 6 hours ago, Serge said: No, no. Swedish way of life. Yeah, the mean Swedes! How could they demand their future tank to be reliable, to accurately hit targets and to drive through muddy terrain and snow. These bastards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted February 5, 2019 Report Share Posted February 5, 2019 14 hours ago, SH_MM said: Ah, that old story. "It's always a conspiracy if my favorite tank isn't perfect." Same story as the export Abrams or CR2, yet you don't see people saying that about leos, nor Leclercs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.