Military Review

The National Interest: Can 99 Type Beat M1 Abrams and T-90?

64
The latest Type 99 Chinese main battle tank naturally attracts the attention of specialists, the public and, naturally, the press. One manifestation of such interest is the attempt to compare tank Chinese design with modern foreign armored vehicles. The latest attempt at this time was made by the American publication The National Interest.


23 January, a new article by Sebastien Robin has appeared in The Buzz heading entitled “China’s Type 99 Tank: Could It Beat an M1 Abrams or T-90?” (“Chinese Tank 99”: can he beat M1 Abrams or T 90? ”) As the title of this article, categorized as“ Security, ”clearly shows, its author intended to compare the most modern models of armored vehicles of the three leading countries.

S. Robin begins his article with a reminder that China has a lot of tanks - about 8 or 9 thousands. And then the question follows: who else could support such a strange number of armored troops? Only the United States and Russia. Here the author draws attention to the fact that we are talking about the total number of tanks, both in the combatant units and in the storage bases. The number of "active" technology, he promises to bring later.



Despite the presence of a large number of equipment, many old cars still remain in service. Among them are tanks "Type 59" or "Type 69", which are copies of Soviet technology of the fifties. There are so many old tanks that they can be used in uncharacteristic roles. So, S. Roblin happened to see an old tank on the playground, where he served the interests of the “youth”.

However, the new Chinese tank design "Type 99" attracts the attention of foreign experts and even causes respect. In this case, the machines of this type have not yet been exported and used in battles. The reasons for interest in such a technique are simple. The manufacturer claims very high performance, according to which the tank is comparable to foreign technology. In addition, the project applied some special solutions.

S. Robin proposes to consider the Chinese tank "Type 99", as well as compare it with the American machine M1A2 Abrams and the Russian T-90А.

Before studying and comparing technology, the author makes a different proposal. He considers it necessary to determine whether China actually needs tanks. The main efforts of Beijing in recent years have been directed toward the Pacific Ocean, and therefore this question seems reasonable. It may also be relevant to the possible collision of tanks "Type 99" and the American "Abrams". In this regard, S. Robin asks jokingly: can a Chinese tank sail across the Pacific Ocean and fire at the Scarborough Shol Atoll?

If you put aside the jokes, the scenario of meeting tanks "Type 99" and M1 Abrams does not look very likely. At the same time, Taiwan is interested in American armored vehicles, and in service with Australia already consists 60 tanks "Abrams". The question of the collision of tanks of different countries is more appropriate if we add Russian equipment to the situation in question. Moscow currently maintains good relations with Beijing, but in the past, in the sixties, disagreements between the two countries almost led to war.

S. Roblin considers important the fact that Russia sells its weapon Vietnam and India, with some of the supplied systems clearly intended to fight the Chinese army. In this role can be used as missiles "Brahmos", and more than a thousand tanks T-90, deployed along the northern borders of India. The author recalls the relations of Asian states. So, in 1962, China fought against India, and in 1979, with Vietnam. At the same time, Vietnam, like other countries, is interested in the possibility of purchasing T-90 tanks.

India is a potential superpower, and therefore China continues to see it as a threat. The Chinese command is preparing the border infrastructure for military use during a hypothetical conflict. In the event of war, this will ensure the work of the army in the border mountains. In addition, China has close relations with Pakistan, including in the military-technical field. Pakistan has repeatedly fought with India.

Finally, the author of The National Interest proposes to consider the issue of North Korea. What Beijing will do in the event of the collapse of the Pyongyang authorities or the start of a civil war is unknown. However, one of the proposed scenarios involves the intervention of the Chinese ground forces in order to restore order. In this case, the Chinese army runs the risk of colliding with the armed forces of South Korea.

Potential conflict, as always with wars, is not needed by anyone and is associated with great risks. Nevertheless, there are some situations in which battles with the participation of armored forces can begin on the borders of China. In addition, Russian-made armored vehicles can take part in such battles.

At this S. Robin proposes to finish with the policy and proceed to the consideration of technical issues. This process begins with a “presentation of the competitors”.

The author calls the tank M1 Abrams a classic American design. This vehicle destroyed Soviet-made Iraqi tanks during the 1991 war of the year without casualties from enemy fire. Tank "Abrams" is not new, but the army is constantly ordering new ammunition, detection and protection, with which it is possible to maintain the state of technology at the required level.

The T-90 is the first Russian tank created after the Cold War. S. Roblin believes that this machine is not fully capable of competing with the Abrams, but it still has a high potential. The equipment was updated and received higher accuracy of fire, and also equipped with new dynamic protection. While the revolutionary T-14 tank is just preparing for service, around 550 T-90A vehicles continue to serve in the armored forces. As part of the development of the tank, the T-90AM project was created, but it did not lead to the rearmament of the troops. Similar T-90MS machines in the amount of 354 units were sold to India, which planned to deploy them on the border with China. In total, the Indian Army has more than 1200 T-90 tanks of various modifications. Algeria, in turn, plans to increase the fleet of T-90 to over 800 units.

The Chinese tank "Type 99" combines the hull, resembling the elongated chassis of the Soviet T-72, and the tower of the "Western style", giving some resemblance to the German machine Leopard 2. The first appearance of this tank took place at the parade in 1999, and then it was called "Type 98". Two years later, this machine was put into service under the designation "Type 99". Having a combat mass of 57 t, the Chinese tank occupies an intermediate position between the American Abrams (70 t) and the Russian T-90 (48 t). The Chinese industry introduced several new solutions to the project, with the result that, among other things, a modernized tank, the Type 99А2, appeared.

At the moment, the Chinese army has approximately 500 type 99 tanks distributed between the 16 battalions. Also built 124 newer machines "A2". Some technologies used in projects of the “Type 99” family were used to create the export tank VT-4. At the same time, these machines themselves are not offered to third countries.

Firepower

The T-90 and “Type 99” tanks are equipped with 125-mm smooth-bore guns with automatic loaders built on the basis of Soviet developments. During the Gulf War, such weapons showed insufficient capabilities to fight Abrams and Challenger tanks. However, later, new armor-piercing shells with tungsten elements appeared, allowing to hit the frontal armor of the American technology at short distances.

The upgraded "Type 99А2" received a gun with a longer barrel, in theory, providing the best acceleration of the projectile with a certain increase in penetrability and firing range. Also, this tank is different updated stabilizer.

S. Robin recalls reports that new versions of the “Type 99” will be able to get an 140-mm gun. The latter has already come to the test, but could not stand the load and was damaged. Russia has similar plans. Her new tank T-14 can also get a new gun with increased caliber.

The M120 Abrams 1-mm gun cannon uses “politically controversial” M829 projectiles with depleted uranium cores, providing the 15-25% greater armor penetration compared to its competitors. The production of new versions of M829, which are able to pierce armor for dynamic protection like “Contact” or “Relict”, has already been launched.

China also developed its own armor-piercing shells using depleted uranium. It is alleged that the Chinese 125-mm gun with such projectiles is capable of striking the American tank M1 at distances to the 1400 m.

The Abrams crew includes a separate loader, which is believed to provide certain advantages. American tank crews believe that such a crew is more efficient, capable of showing a higher rate of fire, and also has a spare pair of hands in case of emergency. At the same time, an additional volume is required for the fourth tanker, due to which the tank is larger and heavier.

"Type 99" and T-90 are capable of launching anti-tank missiles through the barrel, while M1 does not have this capability. In theory, the missile system can be useful when shooting at long distances or to fight low-flying helicopters. However, as S. Robin reminds, similar rocket complexes exist about half a century and are not used very often.

The author suggests that the determining factor in the context of firepower is the means of detection and aiming. In recent years, the Russian industry has taken several steps in the field of tank sights and thermal imagers, but its products are still lagging behind foreign ones. Thus, some T-90A tanks were updated using equipment manufactured in France. The T90MS tanks use the Russian Kalina fire control system.

China is known for its good electronics, and this can give results in the field of tank building. The newest “Type 99А2” supposedly has a new thermal imaging equipment. According to some estimates, the Chinese tank can surpass the Russian T-90А in its characteristics.

Protection

"Type 99" of the first version is equipped with a combined reservation and dynamic protection. The new modification A2 uses new protection, which is believed to be similar to the Russian Relikt system. This complex must use a radar to detect a threat and to undermine a protection element before it is hit by a projectile. This allows you to fight with tandem cumulative projectiles that can penetrate the dynamic protection of the old types.

T-90A tanks are equipped with relatively old “Contact-5” protection, while the new T-90MS for India are equipped with Relic products. Both of these systems are most effective in protecting against anti-tank missiles, and also have a certain potential in protecting against kinetic projectiles.

Chinese equipment is equipped with warning devices for laser irradiation, through which the crew learns about the enemy's attack and can take the necessary measures. Videos from Syria or Yemen show that when attacking a tank with an anti-tank rocket, the laser beam should illuminate the target for a long time. For 20-30 seconds the tank is able to escape from the shelling, which shows the importance of laser radiation sensors.

It is believed that the "Type 99" carries a laser installation to counter the missiles with infrared or laser-guided. In addition, this device can attack the enemy's optical-electronic systems or be used against the organs of vision of enemy observers. Fortunately, such equipment has never been used in combat. However, as S. Robin writes, because of this, the real possibilities of lasers remain unknown.

There is also information about equipping the “Type 99А2” with a communication complex that transmits encrypted data over a laser beam. This equipment can be used to maintain communication in the units, as well as to identify the detected machines.

The T-90 tank carries the “Blind” countermeasure system, which can suppress the radiation of the enemy's lasers or create an aerosol cloud in front of the beam. The latter hides the tank and breaks the attack. M1 Abrams, in turn, is not equipped with active or dynamic protection or laser radiation detectors. Perhaps such equipment will be installed in one of the following upgrades.

At the moment, the protection of the M1A2 tank is based on the Chobham combined armor, equivalent to 800 mm of homogeneous steel against sabots or 1300 mm against cumulative. For comparison, the protection of the T-90 tank is estimated at 650 mm. Also an important feature of the Abrams is the storage of ammunition in an isolated compartment, which reduces the likelihood of fatal consequences if a stack is damaged.

The 99 Type Combination and Mounted Armor is considered to provide protection at about M1 level. According to one of the sources cited by S. Robin, the protection of this machine is equivalent to 1100 mm of homogeneous armor. However, the actual protection figures are classified.

Mobility

Of the cars under consideration, the most agile is the Chinese tank "Type 99", capable of accelerating on the highway to 50 miles per hour (80 km / h). Machines M1 Abrams and T-90MS accelerate to 42 and 45 miles per hour, respectively (67 and 72 km / h). The older T-90A accelerates only to 35 miles per hour (56 km / h). In this case, the gas turbine engine of an American car for 240 miles of way (386 km) empties the fuel tanks. The power reserve of the T-90 and "Type 99" is higher - more than 300 miles (over 486 km). In addition, the heavier Abrams are harder to deliver to the theater of operations.

The author also notes that the tank "Type 99" is completed with modern digital tracking systems for technical condition. Similar devices are installed on M1 Abrams tanks as part of the latest modernization.

***

Having reviewed the mobility indicators, the author of The National Interest summed up its comparison. According to S. Roblin, the American combat vehicle has the highest firepower. The best defense in this case is the Chinese tank. He also wins in terms of mobility. The Russian T-90A tank, in turn, loses to competitors in a number of parameters. At the same time, its updated version of the T-90MS with new dynamic protection and improved fire control devices is quite capable of being compared to other modern combat vehicles.

However, it should be remembered that the actual characteristics of the protection, weapons and electronics of the tank "Type 99" remain unknown. In addition, unlike the Abrams and T-90, this machine has never been exported. Beijing is known for its habit of hiding real figures of technology and announcing inflated characteristics.

However, with all the special moments of the current situation, most of the data allows you to make a definite conclusion. Despite the presence of "hordes" of obsolete tanks "Type 59", China is able to develop and build modern combat vehicles. The existence of such a tank as the “Type 99” fits well with recent statements by the head of the PRC, Xi Jinping, about the need to improve the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the armed forces.


The article "China's Type 99 Tank: Could It Beat an M1 T-90 Abrams? Or:?":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-type-99-tank-could-it-beat-m1-abrams-or-russias-t-90-24185
Author:
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 1 February 2018 07: 06
    +9
    And what spread thought through the tree? Bring both of them to Kubinka on Biathlon, and we'll see! American retirees are not against even competing in the M-60!
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 1 February 2018 08: 08
      +6
      Quote: andrewkor
      ! American retirees do not mind even competing on the M-60!

      with beer on the couch, everyone is strong, the Ponte of the Merikos is the “parable of the town”, and the Chinese, well to say, well done, learn and progress very quickly, in everything, and this is a concern. if you look at our "quickness", it’s just very worrying.
    2. svp67
      svp67 1 February 2018 09: 38
      +2
      Quote: andrewkor
      And what spread thought through the tree?

      Correctly
      Quote: andrewkor
      Bring both of them to Kubinka on Biathlon, and we'll see! American retirees are not against even competing in the M-60!

      It is not important. The answer to the question:
      The National Interest: Can 99 Type Beat M1 Abrams and T-90?
      It lies in the answer to the question whether buyers turn their backs on our T-90, due to recently introduced American sanctions against Russia
      1. Partyzan
        Partyzan 1 February 2018 15: 01
        0
        Quote: svp67
        It lies in the answer to the question whether buyers turn their backs on our T-90, due to recently introduced American sanctions against Russia

        partially turn away, and, as always after this, go to the striped owner
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 1 February 2018 21: 15
          +3
          Syria, partially removed some of the questions on tanks, as they say, it became more clear "who is hu." And it turned out that with a comparable contingent controlling tanks, the T-72 didn’t burn very much, after it got an anti-tank missile and most often, after that it left on its own, unlike the advertised Leopards (the closest relatives of the Abrams), who after a missile hit, combat capability was completely lost.

          And as the Chinese machine will show itself in battle, one can only guess. For example, at our biathletes, the failure of Chinese technology is very common, and the battle is a test for technology worse than competition.
    3. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 1 February 2018 13: 16
      +1
      It is obvious that on whose territory the competition is taking place, that is the winner - our people on this route know every bump by heart, they live there for months without getting out of it, and the foreigners arrived, made a couple of familiarization drives and into battle. I think if the tank biathlon will be in China, then the result may be completely different.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 1 February 2018 14: 11
        +4
        The crew of the "Abrams" includes a separate loader, which is believed to give certain advantages. American tankers believe that such a crew is more efficient, able to show a higher rate of fire,


        Brilliant logic ................, more correctly called - Anglo-Saxon, but they can turn everything upside down on a blue eye.
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 1 February 2018 21: 05
          +2
          And what logic didn’t please you? the technical rate of fire is the same for them. In principle, the abrash depends more on the crew’s experience, in principle, it can be brought up to 10 rounds per minute if the loader is negro. If the loader fails, the commander can take his place. loading most likely have to change the tank with the crew. what's wrong with the fact that the ammunition is a separate module ???
          1. 113262a
            113262a 1 February 2018 21: 39
            +1
            How is it the failure of the loader? Did it sound like that?)) 0After even the HE entered the tank (72,64,80), the crew gets a concussion, who is bigger, who is less! Sub-caliber or cumulative with breaking through the kirdyk crew! Verified by bitter personal experience of 14 years. Porsemu-critical is the very penetration, and the ability of the crew to work in battle. First of all, faster than the enemy to detect and stop emerging threats and respond appropriately. And most importantly, correctly use armored vehicles in battle. Drive one tank across the battlefield is not for long!
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 2 February 2018 16: 18
              0
              Quote: 113262
              Sub-caliber or cumulative with breaking through the kirdyk crew! Verified by bitter personal experience of 14 years.

              That's right, they skidded in a car with az. there is ammunition in the fighting compartment along with the crew. And, you know, powder charges burn very well. Often VMNSTE with the crew. Abrashi has ammunition isolated. Even 8 shells in the fighting compartment in special canisters. So when breaking through the armor in the fighting compartment, it is the crew that suffers. Look at the statistics drank abrash. Usually one or two seriously injured (less often killed) the rest are alive.
              1. 113262a
                113262a 2 February 2018 20: 58
                +1
                I saw dead carriages with a fired BC, which were set on fire when leaving the line of fire. Maaaalenky hole from the cumulative stream with closed hatches. The same thing, from a sub-caliber, where a piece of armor flew off along with a rubber lining and tore both CT and BUT.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 3 February 2018 20: 08
                  +1
                  Just a rut. A bunch of people survived after 5-7 hits by the godfathers in the tower. Read what the guys after Chechnya wrote.
                  1. 113262a
                    113262a 9 February 2018 00: 16
                    0
                    My friend, why read it, if you saw it with your own eyes? Can you see if you arrive in the LPR, on the highway in the Khryaschevatoye village is our t-64, lined with a cumulative one. The same crap with other Soviet tanks and infantry fighting vehicles!
          2. The Siberian barber
            The Siberian barber 1 February 2018 22: 31
            +4
            Those. Do you think the lack of a loader and the presence of a Negro are an advantage ???)))
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 2 February 2018 16: 20
              0
              Quote: The Siberian Barber
              Those. Do you think the lack of a loader and the presence of a Negro are an advantage ???)))

              Are you surprised by this? Each constructive solution has pros and cons. You should decide which ones are important to you.
              1. 113262a
                113262a 2 February 2018 21: 02
                +1
                Do not get into the barn -Abrams-it is still necessary to try! And he’s from the fact that they walk on it!))) The same goes for 54-62 .. I described the consequences of the hit above! I can easily reach the edge of the KT t-80 hatch, with my 1760 mm height, from the ground. Same with 72 and 64.
            2. _Jack_
              _Jack_ 2 February 2018 19: 20
              0
              In the absence of an automatic loader, there is a clear plus, for example, all the sub-caliber shells the newer (and accordingly more armor-piercing) the longer, and the AZ has length limitations, so it turns out that they made a new scrap, but it does not go through the AZ in size, what to change AZ in all thousands of tanks? That's why we still have the main OBPS - Mango, which, in my opinion, is about 45cm. having pierced, no modern tank can be taken with such a bops in the forehead. And abrams has scrap with depleted uranium - a meter of armor piercing, T-90 in the forehead and will get
          3. tchoni
            tchoni 2 February 2018 05: 05
            +1
            Quote: Korax71
            And what logic didn’t please you? the technical rate of fire is the same for them. In principle, the abrash depends more on the crew’s experience, in principle, it can be brought up to 10 rounds per minute if the loader is negro. If the loader fails, the commander can take his place. loading most likely have to change the tank with the crew. what's wrong with the fact that the ammunition is a separate module ???

            You can also add to the pluses to the loader the opportunity, if necessary, to take additional ammunition (a lot, maybe it will not fit, but an additional dozen shells will fit exactly). Plus, the loader will also benefit from the great simplicity of switching to new types of ammunition (a black man is like throwing a barrel: long and thick or two short), which purely theoretically increases the modernization potential of the machine.


            In pluses to the basics, you can record its insensitivity to the conditions of movement of the tank and the stability of the work (which, as you know, is a sign of skill)
            1. neri73-r
              neri73-r 2 February 2018 14: 02
              +1
              In pluses to the basics, you can record its insensitivity to the conditions of movement of the tank and the stability of the work (which, as you know, is a sign of skill)

              Yes, yes, Negroes do not get tired, and if you get tired, you can exchange it for another Negro ... wassat In America, there are many ....
              1. neri73-r
                neri73-r 2 February 2018 14: 05
                0
                PS Yes, you still do not need to search (recruit) Negro-loaders (there are a lot of them in America), train, feed, maintain, etc.
              2. tchoni
                tchoni 2 February 2018 16: 12
                0
                Did you see why I wrote this in pluses?! -) AZ !!!! Those. automatic machine, my friend, but not a black man jo)))
            2. 113262a
              113262a 2 February 2018 21: 08
              +2
              You were present in the tower at 62 on the move? On the move, with the tower off and the stabilizer turned on? Yes, in the place of the loader? This will not be shown in the Wargaming masterpiece! The same thing in the abrash! And take an extra BC there-, and unitary shots ....
            3. Korax71
              Korax71 3 February 2018 00: 21
              0
              Well, at Abrashi this is leveled out by the preparation time for the gunner’s shooting. I’m not sure that I will find information, but there the difference between t is about 90 seconds.
              1. The comment was deleted.
            4. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 3 February 2018 22: 43
              +1
              Quote: tchoni
              You can also add to the pluses to the loader the opportunity, if necessary, to take additional ammunition

              Abrams has 165 cm from the floor to the ceiling of the tower. The charger works half-sitting and half-sitting. And where is there to put additional ammunition? under your feet?
              Here is the loader's place:
            5. Sckepsis
              Sckepsis 9 February 2018 17: 52
              +1
              Well, what are you talking about, a reasonable person?
              There is no advantage in rate of fire, charging both automatic and nominally something on the same level. But in real combat there is fatigue, there is pitching on the go, there are people. a factor that in a stressful situation leads to an increase in the likelihood of an error - for example, putting the wrong shell. About add. ammunition is not funny at all. This is a question of the size of the car, if you want more - increase the volume, but is it worth it?
              Then no. The charging has no pluses. But AZ allows you to reduce the armor volume, maintain a stable rate of fire. It’s also a quarter smaller lich. composition, a quarter less than the cost of maintenance, a quarter less than the cost of training. Well, not to mention the fact that in the worst case, grief will come in three families, not four.
              Okay, the Americans firmly believe in their propaganda machine, but so that its paws reach the top audience ... I did not think that she was so strong ...
    4. Megatron
      Megatron 1 February 2018 17: 34
      +3
      I happened to see the old tank in the playground, where it served the interests of "youth".


      It’s a pity that there wasn’t such a tank on our site!
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 February 2018 08: 01
    +9
    Even the Chinese, who was specially prepared for biathlon, "didn’t blow up", although they removed the armor from him and added fans to the engine compartment ... Why should the unknown t-99 be radically better? Yes, and about the Abrams. The fact that they shot everyone in Iraq without loss - so what are they so burning in Yemen? Indestructible ours?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 1 February 2018 08: 10
      10
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Even a Chinese man who was specially prepared for biathlon “didn’t”, although they removed the armor from him and added fans to the engine compartment ..

      but there’s nothing to be proud of, they are testing tanks, but we are competing, we are looking for crews, they are solutions ... is that clear? they don’t give a damn about “first place”, they look for “rational grain”, they check “in deed”. while we rejoice at the victory of the crew, they correct mistakes.
    2. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 1 February 2018 14: 52
      0
      Abrams for urban battles is as poorly suited as our tanks, so they burn.
      1. romanru4
        romanru4 1 February 2018 19: 10
        0
        The "hung" T-55 in Syrian city battles and its accurate 100 mm cannon looked much more preferable than the T-72.
      2. Korax71
        Korax71 3 February 2018 00: 24
        0
        For a long time, a special kit for urban fighting-tusk has been produced on the abrashka.
  3. Lenivets2
    Lenivets2 1 February 2018 08: 06
    +8
    Some guesses and cliches.
    Not a single fact.
    And is that analytics? what
  4. Strashila
    Strashila 1 February 2018 08: 29
    12
    Compare business is certainly necessary, but sometimes stupid. Russian and American tanks take part in hostilities ... sometimes it’s not ideal, the experience of the crews is being accumulated, application solutions are being found, China really doesn’t have such experience, they are trying to learn from the experience of others .... but war is the most incorruptible examiner. A tank is not a single unit, it is only one of the participants in the battle ... it is important between military interaction
    1. romanru4
      romanru4 1 February 2018 18: 35
      +2
      And what to look for application? The article clearly states “who will win”? That's how they come out in the open field and how they start to bullet into each other! We’ll look at tady, who’s who! Tanks must fight with tanks - the main indicator! We further develop the thought - sappers must fight with sappers! Probably fencing on sapper shovels. The signalmen will fight with the signalmen - fencing on the handsets !!!
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 February 2018 09: 33
    +6
    T-90 is the first Russian tank created after the Cold War. S. Roblin believes that this machine is not fully capable of competing with the Abramsbut she still has high potential.

    After this phrase, I did not read anymore. Where did the T-90 meet in real combat with Abrasha to talk such nonsense?
    Type-99 showed itself at biathlon and showed even in comparison with the T-72B3 not from the best side.
    But with all this, we must pay tribute to the Chinese, they are developing their school of tank building and I won’t be surprised if in 10 years they will have a completely Chinese tank (I’m about solutions and technologies) that is not inferior to either Western tanks or ours.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 1 February 2018 09: 44
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Type-99 showed itself at biathlon and showed even in comparison with the T-72B3 not from the best side.

      gusli and the engine is not a reason to discount Andrei, everything is decided.
    2. Bumper
      Bumper 1 February 2018 10: 10
      +4
      The biathlon had an older Type 96.
    3. romanru4
      romanru4 1 February 2018 18: 43
      +8
      Hto will answer me the only question - "Why should a tank fight a tank?" In 2006, Hezbollah did not even have a single moto league. Why are there motorcycle racers! They did not have a single armored bike! And what? Merkava came to fight them on anti-tank tanks. And there is no one to fight - the enemy has no tanks. But, having “fought” for less than five days, the IDF lost 50 units of tanks and 32 tankmen fell asleep forever. Of course, Hezbollah’s warriors only began to get a taste of it, but not stupid Jewish fathers-commanders quickly stopped the business and withdrew their tanks from active clashes. Now they are still thinking. Ah nah. Do we need this business at all?
  6. Check
    Check 1 February 2018 10: 44
    +4
    Well, for him, charging the tank rather an advantage over the automatic))) says Abrams can’t shoot rockets, but yes, this is not so scary the expert says. Stupidly trying to somehow get the abrams out of shit.
  7. Kars
    Kars 1 February 2018 12: 12
    +1
    The question is rhetorical. There is no real data on Chinese tank shells, if the armor is similar to that of the joint Pakistan-China al-Khalid, then it looks like cardboard there. And so in Syria and 55 are fighting.
    1. romanru4
      romanru4 1 February 2018 19: 22
      +4
      T-55 fight and fight well. An analysis of the use of old Soviet tanks in Syria made several important decisions. According to the federal target program “Industrial disposal of weapons and military equipment for 2011-2015 and for the period until 2020”, it was planned to destroy about 10 thousand units of “obsolete” Soviet-made armored vehicles. But today, according to the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, Lieutenant General Alexander Shevchenko, this decision has been revised. Recycling is subject to no more than 4 thousand units. The rest was decided to be restored and transferred to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or transferred / sold to the countries of the Allies for modernization and use, taking into account the experience of the war in the SAR.
  8. Pacifist
    Pacifist 1 February 2018 13: 26
    +3
    Statements like “T-90 is not fully prepared to resist Abrams” are always encouraging. A little look at the Syrian statistics? Or forward to Alabino, they invited the same. We’ll figure it out there.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 1 February 2018 14: 54
      0
      And what to look there? there already two or three of them fought, this is not statistics - the sample size is too small. Or did the T-90 confront Abrams there?
      1. romanru4
        romanru4 1 February 2018 18: 58
        0
        Straight shot at each other? To knock out an enemy tank do you need (need) your own anti-tank tank? Otherwise, we can not?
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 1 February 2018 19: 06
          0
          I answered this -
          Statements like “T-90 is not fully prepared to resist Abrams” are always encouraging. A little look at the Syrian statistics?

          look is not fate? or the main thing is to be smart and nothing is off topic?
      2. romanru4
        romanru4 1 February 2018 19: 17
        0
        But what else? They must go out into the open field and begin to bullet at each other, competing with whom there is something longer and thicker! And why do we need a tank at all, if it is not an anti-tank?
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 1 February 2018 19: 56
          0
          hypothetically and this is possible, and by the way, in a clear field and at a great distance the T-90 has little chance against abrashas, ​​but from the real threat - ATGMs they burn equally well
  9. andrewkor
    andrewkor 1 February 2018 14: 07
    +1
    I recalled from my childhood: “Who will win: Whale or Elephant?” - Ioska, “Conduit and Swamp”, Leo Kassil.
  10. klm-57
    klm-57 1 February 2018 16: 44
    +1
    As for the Abrams, with its depleted uranium armor, the oldest Soviet RPG-7 hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher “flashes” it like a cake knife, that is, comments are unnecessary. With the "Type 9" a little better, but not so much that he could compete with at least the T-90. Weak chassis and power, low reliability, insufficient booking. At the biathlon, breakdowns often happened to him.
    1. romanru4
      romanru4 1 February 2018 19: 19
      +2
      Well, of course, it does not flash, but simply strikes the back hemisphere of the tower of Abrams. He has a weak spot there.
  11. Cynic
    Cynic 1 February 2018 16: 50
    +3
    Which crew ...
    Romanians during the NATO exercises, the oncoming battle, “Abrams” (M1) were multiplied by zero, using their modernized T-55 (TR-85-M1 “Bison”) ...
    1. romanru4
      romanru4 1 February 2018 18: 59
      0
      Counter tank battles are engaged only in computer toys. This is awesome! Tanks do not fight with tanks in war!
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 1 February 2018 21: 26
        0
        Quote: romanru4
        Tanks do not fight with tanks in war!

        And why do they put a smoothbore gun on almost all modern tanks? shoot at the birds with a shot?
      2. Nehist
        Nehist 1 February 2018 21: 39
        0
        That is, 1965, 1973 and 1991 you completely deny? Tanks do not fight tanks, this concept was before WWII, but during it it turned out that there is no better means against a tank than a tank!
      3. Cynic
        Cynic 2 February 2018 10: 29
        0
        And they say that you can’t argue against the facts ...
        Yes, no arguing, and why? They are easier to ignore ...

        Moreover, you perfectly understood what was said ...
        1. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 9 February 2018 11: 30
          0
          I don’t know how you are in the WB (judging by the flag), but we immediately found an error in the formula. when switching from kopecks to rubles
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 9 February 2018 14: 42
            0
            Quote: Rey_ka
            in your WB (judging by the flag)

            France is registered in software ... I will specify wink

            As in the post, the results were said EDUCATIONAL oncoming battle ...
  12. Santor
    Santor 1 February 2018 20: 16
    +4
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    The fact that they shot everyone in Iraq without loss - so what are they so burning in Yemen?

    During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and after the United States entered into battle in the area of ​​Kuwait’s 9 airport, the T-72 dug in for 15 minutes and set fire to 22 American Abrams, which the Americans prefer to forget ... The entire history of the Iraq war is written in Hollywood, while they already vehemently believe in the Hollywood version.
    1. karish
      karish 1 February 2018 20: 23
      0
      Quote: Santor
      In the area of ​​Kuwait’s airport, 9 dug up T-72s set fire to 15 American Abrams within 22 minutes, what Americans prefer to forget about...

      How do you know about this?
    2. Korax71
      Korax71 3 February 2018 02: 02
      +1
      Read less Spasibukhov and Kolontaev. Both write about one event, only the numbers are different. The most interesting is that the photos of all the wrecked abrash netuti. The propaganda is great. although their calculation methods are not entirely accurate, they are certainly much closer to the truth than those 2 scribes. why they don’t talk about m1a1 with seven shells received, but without a single penetration. take 33 tanks to the first company and two thirds they were rebuilt. and most of the irretrievable losses from friendly fire. one tank crew was not completely destroyed. 80 were damaged in the second company and 63 were maintainable. In the same company, the only crew was killed. When crossing the Euphrates, the tank fell from the bridge and sank, lay down on the tower.
  13. tchoni
    tchoni 2 February 2018 05: 25
    +4
    Appeal to the "tank biathlon" as a non-measure of truth touches))) Good fish, let's not forget that the "biathlon" is pure in the form. The commander does not need to SEARCH for the disguised target on them - it already hangs out on the target field, the position of which is KNOWN. At the "biathlon" everyone does not care about the armor of the tank because the response from the target will not surpass. At the "biathlon" the driver has NO dilemmas how to go - there is a clearly defined route for which you must not fly out, he does not really need the commander's prompts. and other, other, other. And you say biathlon. Well, we’re not comparing fireballs, but tanks ... They, you know, are a little not for racing ...
  14. Streletskos
    Streletskos 2 February 2018 13: 27
    15
    Only in battle
    All points are placed above and
  15. IQ12NHJ21az
    IQ12NHJ21az 4 February 2018 19: 30
    +1
    Abrams was compared with the T-90 a bunch of times. "Tip-99" is a "dark horse", information from the Chinese is almost one advertisement. In general, the Type-99 is an interesting machine - a sort of middle ground between the Abrams and the T-90 (they mixed the Abrams with the T-90 and divided in half), though our gun and the chassis were modernized but the Chinese did. How "Type-99" will show itself in the war and not at the training ground - no one knows - and this is a fact.
  16. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 9 February 2018 11: 21
    0
    The concept of the tank was formed at the beginning of the last century: maximum protection of soldiers from defeat by high-energy objects; suppression of machine gun and gun crews and overcoming wire fences. The anti-tank battle was reduced to the armored defeat of tankers or a critical defeat of the mechanical part of the vehicle to a complete stop and preferably without the possibility of a quick recovery. In the case of unmanned control of a tank, there is no threat 1. And there remain tasks only for disrupting the control of an unmanned vehicle or also critical damage. And it's time to move on to new concepts of war. The concept of physical capture of administrative control centers in connection with the development of remote access and communication goes into oblivion.