Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Khand-e
 Share

Recommended Posts

   Yuri Lyamin linked on otvaga - modernized ZBD-03. Changes on turret - looks like they added optics on gun mantlet and some sort of box on right cheek of the frontal turret armor.

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/17/2021 at 5:06 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Yuri Lyamin linked on otvaga - modernized ZBD-03. Changes on turret - looks like they added optics on gun mantlet and some sort of box on right cheek of the frontal turret armor.

image

 

  Reveal hidden contents

image

 

image

 

Fun fact: ZBL-08, ZBD-03, and ZBD-05 don't have thermal sight and dual plane stabilizer previous to this upgrade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2020 at 6:03 AM, Wiedzmin said:

 

 

fcFxswehDaY.jpg

TrHIjH76T9s.jpg

3CzMy1bnKkE.jpg

D3ETsTpmUDM.jpg

Gntdezf0xJk.jpg

some HE tests on Type99 prototype ?

Yes, there was an actual study conducted in mid 90s about the possibility to use 125mm HE shells fired from type 99 tank as an anti tank weapon. The shelling test was conducted on a modified type 69 tank (with A LOT of additional add on composite amour and ERA to represent a T-80U).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TINDALOS said:

Fun fact: ZBL-08, ZBD-03, and ZBD-05 don't have thermal sight and dual plane stabilizer previous to this upgrade

   And i though situation with our IFVs was bad regarding FCS and sights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

   And i though situation with our IFVs was bad regarding FCS and sights.

ZBD04 (not ZBD04A, I think you guys call it ZBD08?) also don't have a thermal sight. For a pretty long time ZBD04A is the only ifv equipped with thermal sight in the PLA arsenal. For tanks, ZTZ-96A and ZTZ99's sight is pretty much T-90A level (one for thermal and one for daylight, just like ESSA+1G46M on T-90A). ZTZ-99A and VT4 has something similar to SOSNA-U, a multi channel combined day/night sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TINDALOS said:

ZBD04 (not ZBD04A, I think you guys call it ZBD08?) also don't have a thermal sight. For a pretty long time ZBD04A is the only ifv equipped with thermal sight in the PLA arsenal. For tanks, ZTZ-96A and ZTZ99's sight is pretty much T-90A level (one for thermal and one for daylight, just like ESSA+1G46M on T-90A). ZTZ-99A and VT4 has something similar to SOSNA-U, a multi channel combined day/night sight.

I remember when I got personally attacked a couple years ago for stating that the majority of the Chinese IFV's were lacking thermals. 

A lot has changed on this forum since then..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, barbaria said:

I remember when I got personally attacked a couple years ago for stating that the majority of the Chinese IFV's were lacking thermals. 

A lot has changed on this forum since then..

As a Chinese myself, I can confirm "the majority of Chinese ifv lacks a thermal sight" is pretty true. Basically every ifv before ZBD04A (if you don't count export model I guess) don't have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TINDALOS said:

The shelling test was conducted on a modified type 69 tank (with A LOT of additional add on composite amour and ERA to represent a T-80U).

not very interesting test, but real tank(Tyep99) test in interesting, there was also photos of ballistic test of type 99 UFP, is there any info about this test  ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

not very interesting test, but real tank(Tyep99) test in interesting, there was also photos of ballistic test of type 99 UFP, is there any info about this test  ?

 

 

I would like to take a look at those photos, seems interesting. I never heard about that there were photos of ZTZ99's protection test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in the history behind the development of Chinese third generation tanks, I strongly recommend this article (written in Chinese):

Part one
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/x/m/show/id/2309404519105649574380?_wb_client_=1

 

Part two

https://weibo.com/ttarticle/x/m/show/id/2309404531003560690005?_wb_client_=1

 

Part three

https://weibo.com/ttarticle/x/m/show/id/2309404571464467873891?_wb_client_=1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

He pointed out the three main flaws of modern domestic tanks:

1. Low cross country speed

2. Lack of means of hard-kill active protection

3. Low commonalities (or shared characteristics?) between platforms (I'm not sure about this one, my interpretation on this might be totally off)

 

He then pointed out three positive characteristics about domestic tanks:

1. Low weight and profile (obviously, when compared with western tanks instead of Russian tanks)

2. First class protection

3. Strong fire power

 

Also, he seems quite admire T-14's design except the X shaped A-85 engine. He think that placing the crew in a separate and protected compartment is a great idea to improve crew comfort and possibility of survival. He also praised the modular design of the whole Armata family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 10:32 PM, LoooSeR said:

   And i though situation with our IFVs was bad regarding FCS and sights.

I mean... Russia managed to get 3rd generation thermal imager (Catherine XP) into production and installed on their tank (T-72B1MS's commander sight), while Chinese tank is still using 2nd generation thermal imager... For wepaon stablizers, the current Chinese one installed on tanks is a hyrdoelectrical stablizer similar to 2E42-4, while Russia already managed to produce 2E58 electromechanical stablizer and install them on T-90M (I might be wrong). For fire power, Gen 2 and Gen 3 Chinese 125mm sabot's performances are largely similar to 3BM59. Imo, the advantage of Chinese tanks is their built-in C4I capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TINDALOS said:

I mean... Russia managed to get 3rd generation thermal imager (Catherine XP) into production and installed on their tank (T-72B1MS's commander sight), while Chinese tank is still using 2nd generation thermal imager... For wepaon stablizers, the current Chinese one installed on tanks is a hyrdoelectrical stablizer similar to 2E42-4, while Russia already managed to produce 2E58 electromechanical stablizer and install them on T-90M (I might be wrong). For fire power, Gen 2 and Gen 3 Chinese 125mm sabot's performances are largely similar to 3BM59. Imo, the advantage of Chinese tanks is their built-in C4I capability.

   FCS situation improoved quite noticeably in last decade, for sure, but still we have plenty of problems. Majority of our tanks are T-72 Budget cuts 3, which mean that majority of our armor forces are not on the highest level of tech avaliable in Army service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TINDALOS said:

Also, he seems quite admire T-14's design except the X shaped A-85 engine. He think that placing the crew in a separate and protected compartment is a great idea to improve crew comfort and possibility of survival. He also praised the modular design of the whole Armata family.

It does come with its own drawbacks though IMO. What about the repearability after penetration of the ammo compartment? Wouldn't an internal ammo cook-off destroy the turret beyond any cost-effective repair, seeing how the turret contains all the sensitive and expensive parts.

 

Of course for this to happen the APS needs to run out of interceptors or malfunction. So I guess the chance of the aforementioned problems to play out seems very slim though.

 

IMO, there seems to be a clear cut-off for when at least an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is a necessity in a tank and that is when the shells are becoming too heavy for a human loader to handle. I think this is what we are going to see when we go beyond the 120/125mm caliber, both for the western and eastern tank designs. Anything less than that is manageable by a human loader and thus an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is not necessary IMO. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZTZ-99A is bigger than west tank like K2 and type 10,may be taller than abrams and leopard 2.It is not a really compact tank.Which makes it lighter than M1A2 and leopard 2A6/7 are smaller powerpack and weaker side armour.

 

The poor protection of both turret and hull side is the really problem,i think it is a compromise for weight .

 

When ZTZ-99A came into service in 2010s, it was a nice tank for PLA,but now it needs MLU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 9:44 PM, HAKI2019 said:

ZTZ-99A is bigger than west tank like K2 and type 10,may be taller than abrams and leopard 2.It is not a really compact tank.Which makes it lighter than M1A2 and leopard 2A6/7 are smaller powerpack and weaker side armour.

 

The poor protection of both turret and hull side is the really problem,i think it is a compromise for weight .

 

When ZTZ-99A came into service in 2010s, it was a nice tank for PLA,but now it needs MLU.

Yes, that is mainly the PLA's issue (they actually want that turret because it looks "cooler", however there are not much of an improvement in protection values between this new turret and ZTZ-99's old turret), not the designers'. The huge turret of ZTZ-99A has been actively criticize for years in China. Also, technically speaking, ZTZ-99A itself can be considered as a MLU of ZTZ-99. Today, the most advanced main battle tank in China is VT-4P (Pakistan variant) instead of ZTZ-99A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 9:44 PM, HAKI2019 said:

ZTZ-99A is bigger than west tank like K2 and type 10,may be taller than abrams and leopard 2.It is not a really compact tank.Which makes it lighter than M1A2 and leopard 2A6/7 are smaller powerpack and weaker side armour.

 

The poor protection of both turret and hull side is the really problem,i think it is a compromise for weight .

 

When ZTZ-99A came into service in 2010s, it was a nice tank for PLA,but now it needs MLU.

Didn't all Asian 3rd generation tanks have thin side armour? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TINDALOS said:

Yes, that is mainly the PLA's issue (they actually want that turret because it looks "cooler", however there are not much of an improvement in protection values between this new turret and ZTZ-99's old turret), not the designers'. The huge turret of ZTZ-99A has been actively criticize for years in China. Also, technically speaking, ZTZ-99A itself can be considered as a MLU of ZTZ-99. Today, the most advanced main battle tank in China is VT-4P (Pakistan variant) instead of ZTZ-99A.

   What features makes VT-4P better than ZTZ-99A?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • 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


×
×
  • Create New...