Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

for some reason the hull looks like KV-1

676 ‘s model.

Where is the gallery now..... OK, here are some Chinese cold-war prototype tank. 1980s, Type 80 tank with welded turret,this is one of the first Chinese welded tank turrets, as you can see i

Posted Images

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..

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

 

 

 

 

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?

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
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.

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. 

 

 

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.

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. 

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.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
       
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
       
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
       
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
       
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
       
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • By phasers on stun
      Fellow fish - imagine you had some money to develop the "next generation" 20-40mm" modular architecture turret.  Of course, you could talk about sensor fusion, using AI to detect threats, better / more integrated sensors... targetting linked to drones etc... But is this the way forwards. ?
       
      What is the SOTA 30mm turret on the market ? - more importantly, what are it's attributes ?? [ no need to name the manufacturer unless you want to] 
      Built in APS ?
      intelligent Armour ?
      Reconfigurability ?
      Self Repair ?
       
      We all have ideas... what would you see as a truly game changing set of characteristics ?  
       
      I think the T2000 looks interesting and there are some nice turrets from lower profile companies (as seen at AUSA).  
       
      Alternatively, we might be at the end of the roadmap - "gun + armour + sight is good enough"
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Belesarius
      http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it
       
      New high velocity 125mm tank gun reportedly starting testing for the Chinese military.  Not surprised that the data disappeared off the university website at all.
       
      Edit: 125mm/60? oO

×
×
  • Create New...