Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Khand-e

Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!

Recommended Posts

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?!

fsUVtMt.jpg

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

DZEgl40.jpgTHIS

IS DRAWN IN SOME JAPANESE ANIME BOOKS

we've been posting this years and years and you know what

I FUCKING GIVE UP

nik39sP.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

 

SjN7ON8

 

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

unknown.png

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

DZEgl40.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scav said:

Autoloader isn't the reason why:

  Reveal hidden contents

unknown.png

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!! :ph34r:

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×