Levi

2 hours ago, U-47 said:

this "T-72" is interesting, it looks like some kind of T-72's hull + Type80's roadwheels. Levi, do you have any idea what it might be if it is still a Russian made tank?

Thanks for your answers and new photos, which are great, just as always. As for the T-72-ish vehicle in the backyard, it's an interesting one indeed. But I don't think it's Russian made. Judging by the splash guard and overall shape of the upper glacis plate, I'd say it is WZ123 based.

Also, going back to BK1871 you have mentioned earlier. I have only two pics of it (I think someone might have already posted them here)


Do you have any extra info? Actual vehicle seems to have T-72M turret, but judging by the schematic, something else was originally intended, different from both T-72 and later Type 90-II developments.

23 hours ago, U-47 said:

3, 120V150ZLC engine (type 80/88/96, 730hp, also called as "730" by our old tank enginers and designers) is basicly a turbocharged V-2-54, here are 2 early photos of it:

test tank ( looks like a Type69, maybe "68 revolution", according to WZ123's deputy chief designer's memoir, "68 revolution" is the frist test bed for 730 engine, it's a tank designed by a worker, yes, worker, not tank enginer, basicly a ordinary type 59/69 with some improvements, no detail info or photo ) with prototype engine under test:

4, Type99 (before 99A)'s engine is C12V150ZAL (1200hp, or 150HB), like I said before, it is basicly a new engine (with some tech from British CV12 much more than German MTU), and that's also why it's so unreliable for a very long time (unlike Type80/88's 730 engine based on V-2). Here are some photos of it:

.

(the photo above could either be 150X or 150HB, I'm not sure, sorry, I'm not good at engine. BTW, in case you don't know, 150X is another engine designed for WZ123, like F100/F110 for F-15/F-16 , but it's canceled before completed)

3. What about it's power output? Was it the same or did it grow over time? Engine compartment of 96A seems to be larger than of previous models (most likely because of larger radiator), could it be related to the power increase? Some sources claim 96A to have 1000hp engine.

3a. Could it actually be that the tank from the museum (the one that stands between WZ111 and Type 69) is actually "68 revolution"? It is a 59/69 model with turbocharged V-2 after all.

4. Photos 1 and 2 show the same engine, photo 3 is a V-2 version above Type96A. Engine from the first two pictures I have already seen before:

Just haven't paid enough attention to the photo because of the overall informational "static" around the subject (too much irrelevant information out there). But since it is the same engine, Zhu Yusheng stands next to, it must be 99s 150HB indeed. And yes, it does look neither like MTU, nor CV12 or V-2. Seems to be original.

14 hours ago, U-47 said:

Type99A has a new engine, it is said it's a whole new engine developed all by ourself, but I don't know its detail.

Type 99A 1500hp power pack was spotted several times, and it is a spitting image of MB873 Ka501, which might have strengthened the rumor of Gernam connection even further:


But it is still very different from the German pack and the engine itself is clearly not a copy. So these pictures actually disprove the claim at least as much as they may suggest it.
 

14 hours ago, U-47 said:

After it failed, in 1981, we decided to devlop a new 1000hp 12V150 engine (and we hope we can improve it to 1200hp later) , which means 83hp per cylinder, so it's more easier to made than the 8V165. With the help from CV12 ( Challenger tank's 1200hp engine, we imported from British in 1985 and made a lot of live test on BK1850~BK1871, and obviously our technology level was better in 1985 than 8V165's 1978 ) and western experts ( I know they helped, but I don't know how much ),  this one is at least more reliable and been installed to WZ123's prototype. It was declare success in 1998, here, I don't know if it achieved 1000hp in 1998 or before 1998, anyway this is 9910's engine. And Type99 (the 2004 type) installed its 1200hp version.

What kind of engines did earlier Type 99 variants had I have no idea. Many sources refer to it as "150HB" while also claiming MTU connection, but I have seen neither any photos, nor any other kind of additional detail. 12V150ZL (as well as all of it's predecessors) was clearly based on V-2-54, but whether new engine was it's knock off, or an entirely new design, it's unclear.
By the way, you have mentioned "Type 99 - 2004 type", did you mean the version that also had a welded turret? I am asking because it was only spotted in 2006 if I remember correctly, so this may be a valuable clarification.
 

14 hours ago, U-47 said:

I don't know the whole codes for Type80 and Type85 family, I only know Type85-II AP's code is BK1055, and Type90-II is BK1062. And there is another interesting thing, somehow Plant 617 has a T-72 upgrade plan called BK1041, no detail info.

I never heard Type85-IIA, I don't think it has been built.

Type85-III's 1000hp engine pack comes from Yugoslavia, I never heard anything about we work with Poland on any tank.

Type80's engine: Max 730HP at 2000 r/min, fuel cost 237~313L/100km ( type59 is 180~190L/100km in the same file, doesn't mention if it is on road or in the field, maybe the lower one is on road and the higher one is in the field), lubricant cost 8.5~10.3L/100km (type59 is 6~8).

Type80: Max speed 57km/h (type59/69/79 is 50km/h in the same file), average speed on road is 35~40km/h (type59 is 30~33, type69/79 is 32~35).

I think the Type80 with D10T gun is a early prototype.

I don't know where you find this early Type99's picture, but that's nice, I never saw this photo before.

I have to sleep now, it's 01:31 here already.

Thanks for all of the info.

Type 85-IIA was according to several sources a version of 85-II (with L7 and simplified engine and transmission) that Pakistan was initially going to order, before switching to 85-IIM/85-IIAP.

I have only heared about 85-III's engine as having eastern european origins, Poland was my own assumption, do not mind it.

What about Type 96 engines? 96A is equipped with 12V150ZL, right?

Can't point to the source of Type 99 prototype photos unfortunately. I have those for a rather long time already. I once used to make a lot of searches in baidu with several specific queries such as "prototype" or "test vehicle". Likely there was not much additional info, on the site whewe it came from.

New questions (since you have mentioned BK1850). What are the recognition points of WZ1224/BK1850? I have gathered that one of them had rectangular exhaust tubes, while the other - round ones, but which is which? What was the purpose of BK1850? What kind of engine did it have? And snce we have touched this, what kind of engine did WZ1224 have? Was it the same as WZ1226 or something different?

12 hours ago, U-47 said:

Not much, I know sth about what we have in that era ( specific armour and weapon performance, but it is still classified info, so I can't told you the detail, what I can share is in 1989, the lowest Chinese composite armour is a copy of early T72's UFP armour, 200mm at 22  degree, which resist 320mm VS AP and 425mm VS HEAT; the best one is also 200mm/22 degree, which can resist 400mm+ VS AP and 600mm+ VS HEAT. So we may assume that's what the first prototype has ), but not WZ123's original design's detail info.

All I have about it, is another photo of its early model, this is declassified:

Didn't see this one before, hence many thanks!
So, as we now have seen the vehicle's engine compartment, I assume it was to be powered by the same engine the final Type 99 version ended up with, wasn't it? Is it actually based on MTU MB 873 design as many articles suggest, or is it just a rumor?
I also have couple photos of WZ123 running prototype, more advanced design than what this mockup represents, but still inferior to the final Type 99:


Note that it is armed with 2A46 gun instead of ZPT-98, lacks commander's panoramic sight, and turret's cheek armor has visibly less los thickness than production variant.
Another interesting thing - unknown Type 80 prototype armed with D-10:


And another bunch of my questions:
-What were the factory codes for Type 80 and Type 85 family vehicles? Not all of them were developed out of factory's own initiative.
-What is the difference between Type 85-II and Type 85-IIA? Was Type 85-IIA ever made? I have seen no photos.
-What engine and transmission did Type 85-III have? Some sources claim it was equipped with 1000hp V-2 derivative and BKPs. If yes, then are we to assume these originated from Poland?
-Can you give a rundown of Chinese V-2 derivatives and transmissions Type 80 and 85 tanks had?

On 24.02.2017 at 11:02 PM, U-47 said:

T-72M1 and T-72A look like the same, right? I mean, could that T-72 in fact be a T-72A?

T-72A models produced from 1982 onwards can be easily distinguished from T-72M1. Those made prior to 1982 are identical to T-72M1 at least on the exterior. But there are substantial differences (see below).

On 25.02.2017 at 0:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Question here: Were the T-72A and T-72M1 given the same ammo? I've heard that T-72M1 users were given older ammo. If that is the case, can they be distinguished by their ammo selection in the FCS? Or was it the same for both?

There were two primary types of APFSDS rounds during the production period of T-72A/M1. 3BM15 was the older type, designed for T-64A and T-72. 3BM22 is a newer one, and was specific to Soviet inventory of the period, while 3BM15 was widely exported. The thing is, autoloader controls allowed only the selection between apfsds, heat and hef rounds, while specific apfsds type was to be selected in gunner's sight's presets, and the process was not exactly straightforward. And I do not know, whether T-72M1 had any artificial limitations here. But regardless whether it did or not, there is a WAY easier method of telling T-72A apart from T-72M1: those two had entirely different infrared sights. T-72A was equipped with dual mode active/passive image intensifier, not unlike that M60A1 RISE PASSIVE had:

(this is not T-72, but the sight is the same)
While T-72M1 had this:


By the way, speaking of WZ123. The most interesting (to me) version of it was the one you were talking about - "would be type 93 or 94". Here it is I assume:

How much information about this vehicle is there?

EDIT (this is important): since I didn't provide the clear answer to Zuk's question, I have done some searching and came up with something more solid. It turns out that unlike T-72B, T-72M1 and T-72A both lack controls to set the type of ammo used. Their FCS use the same ballistic settings for all types apfsds, heat and hef rounds. It may be possible that T-72As got retrofitted with "correction input devices" during overhauls (since it wouldn't require modifications to the sight itself), but at least judging by manuals released at the time of T-72B appearance, production T-72A didn't have them. As I said, I know little about T-72M/M1 specifics, but it is unlikely that those tanks were equipped better than their domestic versions. Still, the easiest way is just to look at the night vision sight.

3 hours ago, U-47 said:

It seems you may didn't know about Chinese T-72B's story before: yes, technically, T-72B has never been exported, but, in the early 1990s, Russian army is busy on selling almost everything to feed themself, official or unofficial, legal or illegal. And there are rumors so we smuggled some T-80U and T-72B from your far eastern military district. Now, I don't know if the T-72B part is true (some of my friends said it is true), I never saw its confirmed photos, but the T-80U part is real for sure, here is the photo:

Now, back to the photo of plant 617's testing groud, I know you are far more professional on Russian tank than me, you said it should be a T72M (or T72A), do you mean you found some T72M's  features in the photo, or do you mean it is too hard to check out the specific type of this T72 in the photo but you believe it should be a T72M because there shouldn't be any T72B outside Russia?

I always thought that T-80U deal was official. There were no such tanks in districts bordering China, so this could not have been done without government's consent. Probably they hoped to sell it, probably it was done in exchange for some other favor. But it was already in 90s. WZ-123 program was based on T-72, and as far as I know, it started before 90s (correct me if I am wrong here). That's why I thought that getting hands on T-72B in 90s would have been insignifficant.

My identification of this T-72 as T-72M1 (and not T-72M) was not just a product of deduction - features of "Dolly Parton" turret (specific to T-72A and T-72M1) are clearly apparent. It is distinctively different from both full cast turret of T-72 and T-72M, and "Super Dolly Parton" of T-72B. This is interesting because it could not have been the tank from Romania - there were only T-72Ms there. It seems that China was collecting Russian tanks from different sources at some point.

7 hours ago, U-47 said:

Most of these photos were claimed taken from T-72s (some may from other vehicles) in Plate 617, can you recognize if it is a T72B or T72M or sth else from these photos?

Most of the photos seem to be a perfect T-72 match. Just as I said before, probability of this vehicle being T-72B was very low to begin with (T-72B couldn't have been found outside of Soviet Union prior to 1990s), and some pictures here prove it. Driver's and commander's controls (on photos 13 and 10) clearly identify it as T-72A/M1 and not T-72B (again, most likely M1). Picture 12 shows driver's place of neither T-72, nor any other Soviet vehicle, I do not know what it is. Photos 3 and 4 are ranther interesting. They seem to show typical T-72 autoloader, but something is off. I for one do not recognize boxes on the right side of the turret. Other pictures are typical to T-72. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 show gun's breech, 2 - floor behind commander's seat, 8 - view behind driver's position (again, evidently this is a version prior to T-72B). 11 - transmission shift lever.

1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

I meant that the GTD-1250 transmission would have to be completely different than the GTD-1000 transmission, which does appear to be the case.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you get a sort of poor man's neutral steer with the BKP by setting one to first gear and the other to reverse?

 

Do you happen to know which transmission the Oplot has?

GTD-1250 transmission on tanks in Russian inventory is not different from GTD-1000 transmission. At least not fundamentally, probably the ranges are slightly different, I'm not entirely sure about that. Again, I should strees it that transmission with hydrostatic steering was never produced - Russian military was not interested in it, and no foreign customers have been found.

Neutral steer is possible with BKP mechanically wise, but iirc control system does not have this option.

Oplot has pretty much the same transmission setup as T-64, but with external gearset for reverse, so that the vehicle can move backwards on any range.
There is also a bizzare version with hydrostatic steering, that doesn't have any links between BKPs other than engine's crankshaft. It has two IVTs each paralleled to the mechanical part of respective BKP so that reduction can be made continuously without shifting down. But it is forever in development and was never produced. No schematics available.

17 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Wait, that means that on the GTD-1250 equipped T-80s the entire damn transmission is different?  Wow.

There were two types of power train for GTD-1250 equipped T-80s. First - for domestic use, and it wasn't different from any other version of T-80 (with no steering, see below). And the second one (posted above) was marketed for international customers.

Regardless of the choice of steering, BKPs on all T-80 tanks were different from those used on T-64 and T-72.

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

I'm surprised that a design that essentially duplicates the entire transmission ends up being that compact.

 

So, how does reverse work?

Reverse works pretty much the same way it does in your road car (see ZF transmission above for example) - by locking one of the carriers onto the case. Only it has to be turned on on both sides here. BKP is essentially not very different from any automatic transmission - it's a planetary gearbox with 4 planetary gearsets and 6 wet clutches. The only two things it lacks to become a proper automatic transmission are torque converter and governor - walve box is already there.
It's small size is mostly the consequence of each gearbox transmitting only the half of the summary power output. This, plus the fact that there is no steering mechanism.

I must also add that T-80 wasn't very different from T-64 and T-72 in this department. It also didn't have neither any differentials, nor steering. It's BKPs were slightly smaller with 3 gearsets instead of 4 (it had 4 ranges instead of 7). Probably along with the fact that gas turbine doesn't have many auxiliaries reciprocating engines require and occupies less space, this was the motivation behind the idea to equip T-80 with hydrostatic ivt steering. The system was developed (see schematic below), tested, but never went into production.

Not sure if what I'm writing now is needed (or wasn't posted before), but I'll make a little contribution of my own.
I always thought of Russian 2nd gen MBTs having "very special" transmission arrangement as a well known fact, but constant confusion and numerous gaffes (like wikipedia articles claiming T-72 transmission to be a synchromesh, or Al-Khalid being equipped with SESM ESM500, which are both garbage) drove me to write this.
I do not have much time and haven't been able to find any decent articles, so I'll be brief. Long story short - Soviet/Russian tanks from T-64 through T-90 (and Ukrainian T-84) do not have a transmission per se. All the shifting is done in final drive assemblies instead - so called BKPs - "half-gearboxes". There is no main clutch - when clutch pedal is pressed, clutches in both BKPs are disengaged, and there is also no steering mechanism. Steering is done by switching one of the half-transmissions to the lower gear, or braking with disengaged clutch if it already was in the first gear. It's easy to deduce that this way you get a unique turning radius on each gear.
Here's an excerpt with description from T-72A manual:





And a gorgeous picture from Rolf Hilmes' "Kampfpanzer Heute und Morgen". Unfortunately I don't have a scanner, so the quality is medicore to say at least.

The interesting part is why did they come up with such a system to begin with. BKP was originally designed as a part of Object 430 tank's powerpack, and later used on it's successor - T-64. In both of those tanks BKPs were coupled each to a different end of the "briefcase engine's" crankshaft. One of crankshafts actually, since briefcases (both 5TD and 6TD) are horizontal transversely mounted opposite piston engines. The simple schematic of this:

(and here's why 6TD-equipped Al-Khalid couldn't possibly have a SESM transmission)
All of it was done in favor of saving space - T-64 was and is easily the most compact main battle tank ever produced. And the tradeoffs were considered acceptable. The obvious downside to this is a principal inability to insert a torque converter in such a power train, attempts to introduce hydrostatic steering also didn't produce any viable results. None the less BKPs were carried onto many subsequent Soviet MBT designs, in favor of both uniformity and space saving. Here's an example of North Korean Chonma tanks model 215 and 216 I've made some time before. Transition from synchromesh to BKP was most likely made because of latter ability to handle more torque, but difference in engine compartment size is also obvious:

13 hours ago, U-47 said:

Plant 617's testing ground, there are 2 WZ122s in the right, and a T72 (T72B?) in the left.

You asked me about the different between 2 sets of photos of "Type80's welded turret" before, I just found out why:

This tank is not the "Type80 with test welded turret" at all, it is BK1851 as wrote on its turret. It's much later than "Type80 with test welded turret", it is a project started in 1985 which meant to use steering wheel driving and western engine & transmission parts.

Early T-72M1 I think.
And thanks for the clarification on BK1851 tank.
By the way, how do WZ and BK codes relate to each other?

53 minutes ago, U-47 said:

It is a mechanical vehicle, but not WZ122-2 or -3 or even WZ122s, it's a variant which designed and built by LuoYang plant (plant 704, that's why this tank is named as Product 704), you can take it as a improved WZ122 3-mechanical.

I have seen most of these photos before, but didn't know the context. So I just dismissed them as "more pictures of WZ-122-2/3" because of the strong visual similarity. Now I notice that this tank's turret has rather developed elongated bustle, previous versions didn't - this is something new. It's a good thing this thread exists in other words

22 minutes ago, U-47 said:

Do you know WZ122's variant "product 704" ?

If you know it already, then I won't need to upload its picture anymore.

I may have seen it, but name "Product 704" is unfamiliar to me. Is it a Three-Mechanical vehicle? If yes, then I of course have seen all the searchable photos of it (accessible from google and baidu). But from time to time I accidentally stumble across new ones, some of which still cannot be found via image search. Besides, others may not be as involved in this topic as I am, so I's say it's safe to post anything which haven't been posted in the thread.

5 minutes ago, U-47 said:

The RHA turret is Type80's stuff, not Storm-1 or Storm-2's. The photos above showed Storm tank turret's composite armor pack welded to the turret.

It has composite material on it's cheeks, but the rest is RHA. When saying "RHA welded turret" I meant welded turret with composite armor as opposed to cast turret with bolted-on welded modular armor packs typical to WZ-123. The turret on Storm-1 from Beijing museum is actually cast despite the angular shape.

5 minutes ago, U-47 said:

For other parts, yes, Storm-1 uses 730hp engine and planetary gearbox, Storm-2 uses 800hp engine (and the engine part is a little bigger in size) and hydraulic gearbox, basicly that's all the difference.

Thanks, this was the clue I was looking for.

2. I have probably seen every single photo available on searchable internet, including Chinese segment (and yes, I have seen this Storm-2 from the park too). However you have a tendency to post a lot of unique content like these photos of WZ-122-6 engine and driver's compartment that probably would have been lost if not for my request. I just wanted to make sure there isn't anything unposted left where the last bunch came from.
Thanks a lot for what you do anyway. I do not know if you realise it, but for some time already, you have been the only source of new information on historical experimental Chinese armor for the large portion of internet community (mostly western I suppose).
3. So, you're saying that all the differences Storm-1 and Storm-2 had, were in the power pack, and originally they had the same turret? (rha welded one, with Type83A gun (long L7)) I can work with that if it's the case.

Didn't want to sign up, but it seems I have no choice but to step in to clarify some things. All of the questions were mine.
Hello, everyone, by the way!

1 hour ago, U-47 said:

2, These tanks are in Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Corporation (plant 617) 's museum, only who were invited may visit there.

That's a shame. I was wondering if there are more photos of those specific vehicles, sitting in the 617 plant's museum, where these came from, not any photos in general. Specifically, I am interested in seeing engine decks of 122 vehicles. But you have already partially provided this, thanks a lot.

1 hour ago, U-47 said:

Here are more photos of WZ122-6:

This is golden.

1 hour ago, U-47 said:

About WZ122-1, we call it "三液样车" (in English: 3-hydraulic prototype, meaning hydraulic control + hydraulic transmission + hydraulic suspension), here are its photos:

It's a good thing you have gathered I was asking about WZ-122, not WZ-111
But I've made a mistake. The vehicle standing behind WZ-122-6 is WZ-122-2, not WZ-122-1. It can be easily identified as Three-Mechanical, but for some reason I thought that Three-Mechanical was built first, and Three-Hydraulic after, not the vice versa. I was wrong. So it is WZ-122-2 aka WZ-122B in the museum. And of course I was asking about never-seen-before photos (such as from this museum), not those two we all have surely already seen.

1 hour ago, U-47 said:

otvaga questions:

The turret is its original turret, the gun isn't, this displayed vehicle didn't have any gun in the early years, the current gun is installed by the museum. BTW, Storm-1's original gun is 105mm.

No, the turret it not original either, It just was installed earlier than the gun. It is clearly evident that this turret was built to house 2A46, since it has large round opening for commander's cupola on the right side (1) and typical gunner's hatch on the left (2). This constitutes for the crew of 3 (autoloader is present). And if this is not enough, it also has the case ejection window (3). This kind of setup is unsuitable for 105mm.

1 hour ago, U-47 said:

I never heard of "type59 with  turbocharged engine and 1-piece cast turret", the only Chinese "1-piece cast turret" we know about is WZ122's turret.

Here it is, sitting next to WZ-111 hull:


There is a name plaque in front of it, but nobody bothered to make a photo of it yet.
I suspect that this may be pre-1969 WZ-121, but it's only a hunch.