Military Review

Tank "Type 99А2". Cannon revolution or ordinary MBT?

74
In recent months, photographs of a certain Chinese have repeatedly appeared in the foreign press. tank. They allegedly depicted the latest Type 99A2 armored vehicle. The existence of this tank became known a few years ago, but the photos that appeared allowed some experts to conclude that mass production began. However, information has now appeared that directly contradicts these findings. According to the Chinese news agency CNW News, the new tank is still at the testing stage, which, however, is already coming to an end.




These data suggest that over the next few years, the fleet of armored vehicles of the People’s Liberation Army of China (PLA) will be replenished with another tank. It is worth noting, according to open information, a certain number of prototypes of the tank "Type 99А2" entered into trial operation in 2009 year. Judging by the new information, the test copies of the combat vehicle had a lot of flaws, which is why the refinement and testing was delayed.

At the moment, not much is known about the “Type 99А2” tank, but the available information allows us to create a complete picture. The new “Type 99А2” is significantly different from the original “99” tank. Practically all the units of the combat vehicle underwent refinement, so the “Type 99А2” can be considered a new model of technology, and not an upgrade of the previous one. Nevertheless, even with the available data, some nuances of the project raise questions. So, there is information about the use of the new power plant and transmission. In contrast to the "Type 99", on a new tank, the diesel engine is located not along the hull, but across. This allowed to significantly reduce the length of the body. The characteristics of the power plant while remaining the same. The engine "Type 99А2" has a power of at least 1500 horsepower. With a combat mass estimated at 55-58 tons, the tank retains a good power density: about 25-27 HP. per ton of weight.

The tank "Type 99А2", as can be seen on the available photo of pre-production samples, is equipped with a torsion bar suspension and has six road wheels on board. The drive wheels are located in the rear of the case. The caterpillar engagement is a pinwheel. With such a power plant and undercarriage, the newest Chinese tank is said to be capable of accelerating on the highway to 75-80 kilometers per hour. Regarding the power reserve exact data are not available. Nevertheless, based on the well-known characteristics of the “Type 99” and information about the greater combat mass of the new tank, it can be concluded that there is some decrease in this indicator.

Of greatest interest is the tank complex “Type 99А2”. At various times, several rumors appeared, in one way or another contradicting each other. According to one of them, the new tank was supposed to receive an updated aiming complex. The armament remained the same: the 125-mm smooth-bore gun launcher, which is the Chinese version of the Soviet / Russian 2-46 gun, as well as several machine guns. According to other sources, a new 140 caliber millimeter gun was created and assembled specifically for the new tank in China. In past years, several leading countries of the world tried to create such a weapon, but did not achieve much success.

According to the Chinese media, Chinese engineers still managed to create their large-caliber tank gun, which has high characteristics. In addition, there is information about the development of an armor-piercing feathered podkalibernogo projectile with a uranium core of the appropriate caliber. On tests such a projectile punched several tens of centimeters of homogeneous armor and even coped with a certain analogue of the frontal armor of the American tank M1A2 Abrams. The plausibility of such results can be a cause of controversy, but the large caliber of the gun suggests appropriate combat characteristics.

The fighting qualities of 140-mm guns have long attracted tank builders from around the world, but such guns have a number of characteristic flaws. If China succeeds in bringing such a weapon to mass production, this will be the beginning of a revolution in the area of ​​main battle tanks. At the same time, there is reason to doubt the successful completion of this project. On the existing photos of pre-production tanks "Type 99А2" it is clear that the vehicles are equipped with smaller caliber guns. Perhaps the Chinese copy of 2А46 was refined and modernized, but the tank did not receive radically new features.

Tank "Type 99А2". Cannon revolution or ordinary MBT?


It must be admitted that the “Type 99А2” can probably get a new gun in the future. The fact is that the tower of the updated tank is noticeably different in shape from the combat module of the base "Type 99". First of all, a larger feed niche catches the eye. From this fact, we can conclude that the combat vehicle can be equipped with styling for 140-mm shots. In addition, Chinese sources mention the creation of a new automatic loader. Perhaps he will be able to perform operations with larger shells and shells. In this case, it turns out that the tank "Type 99А2" was created with the installation of a large and powerful 140-mm gun, but problems with its development and testing forced us to return to the usual caliber 125 mm, at least temporarily.

CWN News claims the development of a set of tools that increase the vitality of the new tank. According to the agency, “Type 99А2” is less susceptible to anti-tank mines. In addition, a new dynamic protection system with higher characteristics will be mounted on the armor of the car, and a radar station of the active protection system will be installed on the turret. The principle of the latter has not yet been announced. Most likely, it will work in the same way as similar foreign systems. With the help of active, dynamic and combined armor protection "Type 99А2", it is alleged, will be invulnerable to 120-mm tank shells of the NATO model and a number of anti-tank missiles.

Chinese tank builders intend to equip their latest development with modern sights. First of all, the thermal channel of the commander’s and gunner’s sights is noted, which will allow you to see targets at distances up to 8-9 kilometers. For navigation it is supposed to use satellite GPS system (in the first years of service) and combined GPS / Beidou receivers in the future. In the long term, all tanks will be equipped with equipment to work only with the Chinese national navigation system Beidou.

From the available data, it seems that the “Type 99А2” is a modern third-generation tank, which in its characteristics is not inferior to a number of foreign armored vehicles. Certain questions are caused by the main armament of this tank. When saving 125-mm guns, the machine will have almost no advantages over its competitors. If the Chinese gunsmiths succeed in bringing the new 140 caliber of millimeters to mind, this will bring the new tank to the leading positions in the world. A larger caliber cannon with the appropriate characteristics can level the lag in the field of other units of the tank, such as a power plant, booking or electronics.

And yet, even with the new gun, the tank "Type 99А2" has ambiguous prospects. Like any other armored fighting vehicle of its class, it is very complex and expensive. Serial production of tanks "Type 99" began in the first half of the two thousandth, but so far no more than 500-600 of such vehicles were assembled. Mass production of the new “Type 99А2” has not yet started and so far it is impossible to speak about its pace. Most likely, new and more complex tanks will be assembled at a slower rate than the already mastered "Type 99".

For this reason, over the next years, the most massive and widespread PLA tank will remain the old, less sophisticated, but mastered in the production of "Type 96". The few “Type 99X2” tanks, if they receive new 140-mm guns, in this case will get the role of a well-armed means of breaking through the enemy defenses. If these tanks remain the carriers of 125-mm guns, then they will be prepared for the fate of another type of armored vehicles, which in the distant future could become a major quantitative aspect.


On the materials of the sites:
http://cnwnews.com/
http://sinodefence.com/
http://army-technology.com/
http://militaryparitet.com/
http://janes.com/
Author:
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ars_pro
    ars_pro April 15 2013 07: 39
    16
    Waiting for our Armata
  2. luiswoo
    luiswoo April 15 2013 07: 56
    13
    In past years, several leading countries of the world tried to create such a tool, but did not achieve much success.

    Strange, at us, at the 292 facility, the 152 mm gun was successfully fired. The only problem is that it was deemed inappropriate. In the states and Germany, the increase in caliber was wrapped for the same reason, if I am not mistaken.
    1. Kommunisten
      Kommunisten April 16 2013 00: 14
      +6
      A gun of at least 140mm wouldn’t hurt us, if not 152, because in the drums the size limit of the placed shells along the length has already been reached. Without an increase in diameter, it is unlikely that it will be possible to bring penetration to a decent level that can fight modern foreign MBTs.
      In addition, in caliber 152 by any technique it is possible to fire high-explosive bombs, after the first hit in the frontal projection, the unit will lose combat effectiveness. And you can also remove the harp if you're lucky. And against buildings / infantry such a projectile is much more effective.
      However, the downside will be a reduction in ammunition, both in the drum and in the cart. But again, if you remember how much the tank lives in modern combat, it is obvious that at least Armata certainly needs to be done under 152. Nevertheless, this is MBT for the next 25 years at least. And there shouldn’t be any problems with the ammunition, because the tank should be wider than the T-72 family, at least because of the layout features. Therefore, it will fit into the drum more, if it is not at all two-level, due to the lack of a crew in the tower.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR April 16 2013 17: 15
        +3
        I don’t understand why you got caught ... The idea is not without meaning. I put a plus
      2. Retriever
        Retriever 3 May 2013 16: 07
        0
        The point in increasing the caliber is only if our missiles (and as I understand it, the main anti-tank munition is missiles launched through a cannon) cannot hit modern foreign tanks in the frontal projection. If there is no problem with this, then someone fell into childhood and demands the biggest car and the biggest gun.
  3. Rustiger
    Rustiger April 15 2013 08: 02
    11
    About the performance characteristics of new tanks, I have no right to speak, there is not enough competence, but,
    in my opinion, the appearance of new tanks with protective screens is more and more coming to the silhouettes of German combat vehicles during the Second World War. The angular forms of "Tigers", "Panthers", "Mouses" appear, the towers "rolled in" like a sea Galanian "T-34", similar to a drop of mercury "T-54", "T-72" are becoming a thing of the past.

    mouse
    1. kotdavin4i
      kotdavin4i April 15 2013 09: 10
      +9
      It is more convenient to place dynamic armor on a flat surface. due to the teardrop, it is no longer possible to provide the proper level of protection;
      1. Rustiger
        Rustiger April 15 2013 09: 46
        0
        Taking into account the escalation of weapons, which prevents the development and introduction of means "violating the integrity" of this very dynamic armor into the army. In turn, the answer may be (hypothetically) the use of "force fields".
        And in my opinion, an amateurish tank is not excluded, as a means of breaking the front line, destroying the fortifications and defeating the enemy’s ZhS, it reached its logical conclusion. Aviation can also cope with the above tasks. What is the point of increasing the caliber of the barrels, range, etc. tanks?
        But as a means of delivery of troops, ammunition, "booking" the vehicle here should be given more attention. Increase protection, capacity, speed, cross-country ability. And of course the armament, just not as powerful as on modern TANKS.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 April 15 2013 16: 25
          +2
          The insignificance of the quantity of ammunition delivered by aviation, low accuracy if guided weapons are not used. Therefore, it steers and the artillery pedal, as in the Second World War, where it accounted for 80% of all losses incurred.
        2. aksakal
          aksakal April 15 2013 16: 41
          -4
          Quote: Rustiger
          And in my opinion, an amateurish tank is not excluded, as a means of breaking the front line, destroying the fortifications and defeating the enemy’s ZhS, it reached its logical conclusion. Aviation can also cope with the above tasks. What is the point of increasing the caliber of the barrels, range, etc. tanks?

          - there is still how to modernize the tank, not everything is exhausted yet. Due to the automation and intellectualization of the board, it is possible to further reduce the number of tank crew members, and hence the volume of reserved space. True, about the stupid combination that took place in the USSR, when the crew itself was also a repair brigade for their own tank (an abbreviation of the "driver-mechanic" type, which is nonsense - you are either a mechanic or a driver, and two in one - then you or a bad mechanic, but a good driver, or vice versa. There were very few good two-in-one). As soon as one crew member was reduced on the T-72, the load on the crew increased significantly, therefore, with all the merits of the T-72, it was not particularly fond of tankers. Any tanker will confirm this to you. This should not be so, but it should be so: the crew is at war, the rembrgada is restoring. Everything is like the pilots. Or let the pilot climb under his plane then. What is the logic of this combination - like "mechanic-driver"? A tank has broken down on the battlefield - do not repair it under enemy fire, but leave the car, and the special re-brigade must evacuate the car from the battlefield and repair it under special and adapted conditions!
          The active protection system is also far from complete. Airborne radars are unstable to interference, have too much reaction and recovery time, and not all shells are destroyed. The discs are sub-calibrated, in fact scrap scrap flying at a breakneck speed, but unlike construction scrap made of much more durable material, the current KAZ is too tough for them. It is unclear why, when designing the KAZ, to set the task of the indispensable destruction of blanks? But just to find a way to reject the disc from the course is impossible? Well, like a protective shell is fired towards a blank, equipped with a jet squib that develops a frantic, albeit short-term, thrust, similar to those installed in a catapult on airplanes. This shell is also equipped with several (the more, the better) balls, the balls are attached to the protective shell with very strong ropes. At the start of the protective projectile, a furious rotation is set, the balls radially fly away from the mother shell, but are held by ropes. The disc, flying into the radius of the protective projectile, naturally, is overwhelmed with ropes like a noose, and at this moment the igniter is triggered with a thrust far away from the tank, preferably up. Reject the blank flying at a height of about 1 meter above the ground, at a distance of 3-4 meters from the tank another meter up - the squib will be able to, if only the ropes can withstand. And you don’t need to destroy the blank of heavy-duty material - let it fly on! Nonsense, but didn’t offer anything unreal
          1. 101
            101 April 15 2013 20: 03
            +1
            I have my own project. When a threat arises, the tank is grouped and at the time of the arrival of an enemy projectile bounces passing it under the bottom of Stupidity but did not offer anything unreal
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 15 2013 09: 46
        +4
        Not only that the "teardrop" shape of the towers is a sign that casting was used in their manufacture, "angularity", that welding of rolled armor pieces was used in their manufacture. In terms of its protective properties, "cast" armor can be worse than "rolled" armor up to 20%.
      3. Avenger711
        Avenger711 April 15 2013 16: 23
        0
        But the T-90 is not up to date.
    2. Alexander-Tomsk
      Alexander-Tomsk April 15 2013 09: 15
      +4
      Everything moves in a spiral, after 20 years it will turn out that the angular shapes do not allow you to effectively deal with the means of destruction of tanks, and the designers will begin to lick the silhouettes intensely. By the way, I think I will allocate a lot of dough for such a cosmetic refinement-modernization wink
      1. malkor
        malkor April 16 2013 19: 47
        +2
        rounded surfaces will still show themselves, the sphere has the largest volume with the smallest surface - this is what the tank needs, just some countries go the easy way and lose in the mass of their tanks (it increases)
    3. Mikhado
      Mikhado April 15 2013 12: 53
      +2
      The angles of inclination as a provocateur of ricochets are already ineffective, the armor has long been of the "absorption" type, with the principle of sequential destruction of a projectile or cumulus. jets in the thickness of the layers.
      Angles are necessary for DZ for lateral impact on the damaging element of the container plates.
    4. malkor
      malkor April 16 2013 19: 41
      0
      the main enemy of the tank has changed now it’s not a BPS but a cumulative (including from RPG and Petr) projectile and it has fewer ricochets from various forms of armor
  4. shinobi
    shinobi April 15 2013 09: 00
    +2
    A serious bid by Chinese comrades. Actually, the Ukrainian triumph is somewhat reminiscent of it. Let's see.
  5. Patton5
    Patton5 April 15 2013 09: 09
    +8
    It is necessary to order a batch of 10 cars from them !!! and see what is there and how, shell them, drive along the ranges, all the same a likely ally)))
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 15 2013 11: 35
      0
      Or a likely occupier of Siberia and the Far East.
      1. ATATA
        ATATA April 15 2013 13: 08
        +6
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Or a likely occupier of Siberia and the Far East.

        You do not draw your inspiration from Z. Bzezhinsky?
        He is the apologist for the idea of ​​capturing Siberia by China.
        Crystal Dream of America, the war with China until the last Russian soldier.
        Do not repeat the provocations of our enemies.
        1. brelok
          brelok April 16 2013 06: 57
          +4
          The kittens are very smart. Imagine a line where on the one hand there are millions of almost impoverished people without resources and bare land with a density of 0.001 per 1 sq. Km. km and a sea of ​​unused opportunities. This will not last long. China will still begin to move in our direction.
      2. Dejavu
        Dejavu April 16 2013 06: 13
        -2
        Bullshit, dear. China, our Siberia is like a fifth leg. Resources are already bought for tangerines, it’s not good to capture snow when your steppe is empty.
      3. Diesel
        Diesel April 16 2013 21: 33
        0
        Oga occupies and will get a mace across Beijing wassat
  6. 11 black
    11 black April 15 2013 09: 16
    0
    Well, installing such a weapon on a tank is not a new idea. We had a 152 mm cannon on the "Black Eagle" MBT and it was not accepted into service only because it was a "nuclear" caliber (that is, it could be fired with nuclear shells), and this could serve as the beginning of a new arms race.
    1. bootlegger
      bootlegger April 15 2013 13: 15
      +2
      What is now obtained? Do you need to cancel all guns with a caliber greater than 152 mm?
      In my opinion there were considerations of small ammunition with such a caliber.
    2. 101
      101 April 15 2013 20: 13
      +2
      Everything is simpler. There is a ready-made munition tested, made and stockpiled, and in a quantity sufficient for a full-scale war.
  7. ATATA
    ATATA April 15 2013 09: 21
    0
    Hello! hi
    Given the lag of China in materials science, it is very doubtful that they were able to create a good cannon caliber 140 mm. Well, wait and see.
    As far as I remember from sources on the network, niches did create a fluff of 152 mm, but that would not provoke an arms race in this area until they slowed down its launch into production.
    1. Rustiger
      Rustiger April 15 2013 10: 31
      0
      Quote: ATATA
      ours did create a fluff of 152 mm, but in order not to provoke an arms race in this area, while they slowed down its launch into production.


      Not understood. That is, if we do not create, then others will not either, everything is "honestly". And if you make it, but not tell anyone about it?
      And yet, since a 152-mm cock is capable of carrying a nuclear charge, will it be "tactical"? And why not choose aviation, long-range artillery as the delivery vehicle. I don't think that aiming accuracy is so important in this case. What difference does it make whether the shell hits the window or simply "falls" on the village square. ... ...
      What don’t I understand? Explain. . . hi
      1. ATATA
        ATATA April 15 2013 11: 28
        0
        http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1519
        but this is old info.
        There are new developments with us, search the network yourself.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn April 15 2013 11: 39
        +2
        All of you correctly say, but the snag, neither long-range artillery nor aviation will be able to fully replace tanks, there are a lot of these steel chariots, it is impossible to replace them with anything like it is impossible to replace infantry with the same aviation and artillery.
      3. Avenger711
        Avenger711 April 15 2013 16: 29
        0
        We pretend that we have nothing, let them disarm. If the enemy is blown away, and NATO does just that, you should not give him a reason to take oil from the population in favor of guns. In price wars, the solution is quite frequent, when they do not agree on a price without saying a word, because they know that the competitor will answer the same and everything is in the red.
    2. Pelican
      Pelican April 15 2013 15: 36
      0
      Maybe they left room for the gun from the "Armata"?
  8. Akim
    Akim April 15 2013 09: 29
    +1
    I don’t know where the information about the 140 mm gun is from. The Chinese assembled and use a 125-mm gun in this type of tank, but increased in 48 to 52 cal.
  9. FATEMOGAN
    FATEMOGAN April 15 2013 09: 32
    +2
    It’s interesting that they themselves create a 140-millimeter one, or again slammed somewhere in the development and then knock on the chest again with the heel: “What are you, we have come to our mind in a month to what you have been developing for decades wassat
    And it is so interesting that our forum experts will say about this.
  10. ed65b
    ed65b April 15 2013 10: 21
    0
    Where is our answer to the adversary ???????
  11. Burmestr
    Burmestr April 15 2013 10: 24
    0
    Chinese tanks will never be able to compete with Ukrainian and Russian it is not given to them.
    They never had their own school of tank building, they all copied from the Soviet one, their engines and guns are also strangers.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 15 2013 11: 40
      +1
      Yeah, but they didn’t learn how to combine this whole hodgepodge.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv April 15 2013 11: 48
        0
        Well, they combined and further what you learn on the specialized tank forums, what is there and why.
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv April 15 2013 11: 48
        0
        Well, they combined and further what you learn on the specialized tank forums, what is there and why.
  12. svp67
    svp67 April 15 2013 11: 16
    +4
    Quote: Burmestr
    They never had their own school of tank building, they all copied from the Soviet one, their engines and guns are also strangers.


    Russian and Ukrainian, in general, SOVIET tank builders, also began by copying foreign models ... Although it is worth agreeing that the Chinese dragged on this process.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 April 15 2013 16: 30
      -3
      The point is the racial superiority of Europeans, who have great creative potential.
  13. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn April 15 2013 11: 41
    0
    In my opinion this is a Cheers-Patriotic statement com party of China in which the truth 1/3.
  14. _KM_
    _KM_ April 15 2013 11: 53
    0
    Maybe the reason for the increase in caliber is the inability to create an effective projectile?

    Something I doubt that the 140 mm gun is an original development of the Chinese. Most likely some experienced domestic development has been pulled together.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 15 2013 15: 14
      0
      Quote: _KM_
      Something I doubt that the 140 mm gun is an original development of the Chinese. Most likely some experienced domestic development has been pulled together.


      It is possible ... angry
      And we would now have a 152-mm TP on the "Armata", and even a rifled one, everyone would be "done" ...
      1. ATATA
        ATATA April 15 2013 16: 04
        0
        Quote: svp67
        And we would now have a 152-mm TP on the "Armata", and even a rifled one, everyone would be "done" ...

        And how to shoot through a rifled missile?
        And this is our main feature now.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 15 2013 16: 11
          0
          Yes, not any problems. They shoot "Krasnopolye" and "Kitalov"
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 April 15 2013 16: 31
        0
        From the rifled missiles neither bend. Although no one uses rockets in the West, well, except for Israel, but this is the East.
        1. Gecko
          Gecko April 16 2013 20: 34
          0
          Missiles even appeared on Abrams.
  15. na76
    na76 April 15 2013 12: 40
    +1
    If you put 140 mm, the mass will ride far beyond 60 tons, in Siberia you can’t drive such a thing, and where to fight on it? In Central Asia?
  16. Crang
    Crang April 15 2013 12: 56
    +1
    Damn the Chinas tanks are already more powerful than ours ... When will the T-99 finally be made?
  17. Alekseev
    Alekseev April 15 2013 13: 06
    +2
    "In the past years, several of the world's leading countries have tried to create such a weapon, but have not achieved much success."
    It is not true. recall at least object 292.
    Just no one wants to harness the race of conventional weapons.
    The United States relies on superiority in strategic weapons, aviation and precision missiles. In the geyropa, pacifism is complete and there is one hope for America.
    Russia dispersed the army.
    But China is going its own way ... And the 140-mm cannon on its tanks can appear already running.
    On Armata it is necessary to provide for the installation of a 152-mm gun. If needed, of course.
  18. Nesvet Nezar
    Nesvet Nezar April 15 2013 13: 25
    +5
    REPAIR THE SITE !!! I DO NOT NEED TANKS ONLINE !!! THANKS IN ADVANCE.....
    1. bootlegger
      bootlegger April 16 2013 00: 19
      0
      Really tired. This game climbs from all holes. When will it end?
  19. Canep
    Canep April 15 2013 15: 31
    0
    I do not think that a further increase in caliber is the right way, a larger caliber projectile is large, with the same number of shots it is necessary to close a larger volume with armor, this leads to an increase in size and visibility.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 15 2013 15: 37
      0
      Quote: Canep
      I do not think that a further increase in caliber is the right way, a larger caliber projectile is large, with the same number of shots it is necessary to close a larger volume with armor, this leads to an increase in size and visibility.


      That means it is necessary to apply "new" schemes ...
      1. ATATA
        ATATA April 15 2013 16: 05
        0
        Quote: svp67
        That means it is necessary to apply "new" schemes ...

        You are from the category of those who know what to do, and how let the rest break their heads! laughing
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 15 2013 16: 16
          +3
          Yes, drop those you, these decisions have been practiced for a long time
          Here is one of the variants of the "Soviet" tank according to the "Hammer" project, but imagine if instead of ordinary propellants you use "liquid propellants"
  20. Canep
    Canep April 15 2013 15: 31
    +1
    I do not think that a further increase in caliber is the right way, a larger caliber projectile is large, with the same number of shots it is necessary to close a larger volume with armor, this leads to an increase in size and visibility.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 15 2013 16: 57
      +1
      The tank never became our "breakthrough" and "74"
  21. svp67
    svp67 April 15 2013 15: 33
    +1
    Quote: nae76
    If you put 140 mm, the mass will ride far beyond 60 tons, in Siberia you can’t drive such a thing, and where to fight on it? In Central Asia?

    Our managed to deliver 152 mm to 50 tons ...
  22. na76
    na76 April 15 2013 15: 47
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Our managed to deliver 152 mm to 50 tons ...

    so ours, and then a smaller mass was achieved by smaller dimensions, and what was the carrying ammunition there? Could you tell?
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 15 2013 16: 18
      0
      Ammunition can be brought to acceptable levels using "ZhMV" (liquid propellants)
  23. svp67
    svp67 April 15 2013 17: 02
    +1
    Yes, and you must admit that the "South Korean" "panzer" looks nobler than its Chinese counterpart
    1. Kars
      Kars April 15 2013 17: 53
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, and you must admit that the "South Korean" "panzer" looks nobler than its Chinese counterpart

      It looks like complete garbage, given that your photo is the first option with an 105 mm gun.
      You can even say ruder. Abrams M1 built taking into account the stunted Koreans.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 15 2013 17: 58
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        It looks like complete garbage, given that your photo is the first option with an 105 mm gun.


        Well don't like that one, so here is a photo of a newer version
        1. Kars
          Kars April 15 2013 18: 31
          0
          I would have someone else deciphered the term Nobler in relation to armored vehicles.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 15 2013 18: 51
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            I would have someone else deciphered the term Nobler in relation to armored vehicles.


            Honestly, I can’t. It just needs to be felt, but in T64 and especially in T80, this nobility is 100500, but there isn’t any in the Chinese car, which is a little bit missing ...
            1. Kars
              Kars April 15 2013 18: 56
              0
              Quote: svp67
              . You just have to feel it.

              Maybe then it should be noted that this is a subjective assessment?
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 15 2013 19: 22
                0
                Not without it...
              2. svp67
                svp67 April 15 2013 19: 29
                0
                And the "Wheel" is a pity, too nothing a tank ...
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 15 2013 18: 01
        +1
        Agree, it looks almost as good as yours
        1. Kars
          Kars April 15 2013 18: 24
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          not worse than yours

          Ours is a hundred years old at lunch, and costs six times less than the South Korean.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 15 2013 18: 37
            0
            Well, not a hundred, I'm fifty ...
            What about the price? There is probably more to be appreciated - the combat value and capabilities, and the Korean has something that yours so far, unfortunately does not have - team handling ...
            1. Kars
              Kars April 15 2013 18: 47
              +2
              Quote: svp67
              Well, not a hundred, I'm fifty ..

              If I’m not mistaken, I quoted phrasiologism.

              Quote: svp67
              price? There is probably more to be appreciated - the combat value and capabilities, and the Korean has something that yours so far, unfortunately does not have - team handling ...

              Does command control really take 7 million dollars out of the price of the Black Panther. And in terms of combat value, 6 tanks will always be better than one, and here the Korean has no special advantages even over the standard T-64BV / 80U, and if you take into account the export-oriented T-64E with full stuffing, then there are no benefits at all.

              For me, you'd better return to the topic of T-90MS and talk about CWR Cobra, Svir, Reflex and the features of AZ / MZ in relation to missiles.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 15 2013 18: 57
                0
                Quote: Kars
                For me, you'd better return to the topic of T-90MS and talk about CWR Cobra, Svir, Reflex and the features of AZ / MZ in relation to missiles.


                I T64BV \ 80UD closer ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 15 2013 19: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: svp67
                  I T64BV \ 80UD closer ...

                  but the history of Soviet tank building is closer to me.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 April 15 2013 19: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    but the history of Soviet tank building is closer to me.


                    Congratulations. But, that story ended, giving a lot of "sprouts", and which one do you prefer now?
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 15 2013 19: 37
                      +3
                      Quote: svp67
                      and which one do you like more now?

                      History does not end, it is. It was.
                      If you take it as an axiom that Oplot is the best tank (I’m not a few generals of the RF Armed Forces)
                      then the first on my list of SERIAL tanks is Challenger 2
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 April 15 2013 19: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        History does not end, it is. It was.


                        It was not in vain that I emphasized the term TA. The history of "Soviet tank building" is over, but the history of "Soviet tank building school" is not over.


                        Quote: Kars
                        the first on my list of SERIAL tanks is the 2 Challenger


                        Serious "animal". It's hard to disagree with you, he is a "Ferrari" of the tank community ...
                      2. Kars
                        Kars April 15 2013 19: 57
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        knowingly accentuated the term TA. The history of "Soviet tank building" is over

                        Well, how can it end? When there is still so much secret. Maybe the Soviet tank building, but not history.
                        Quote: svp67
                        he is the "Ferrari" of the tank community

                        Not in car comparisons, we’re better off a non-slugger, otherwise Challenger is a Bentley, and Ferarry ---- (I won’t give a comparison to Russian and Ukrainian tanks)
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 April 15 2013 20: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, how can she end? When there is so much more secret


                        I always liked purposeful knowledgeable and smart people. Good luck in KNOWLEDGE.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars April 15 2013 20: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Good luck in KNOWLEDGE

                        drinks hi
                2. Diesel
                  Diesel April 16 2013 21: 39
                  0
                  And what is it about? The gun is not good I argue, but huge, not a tank but a tank destroyer with a turret))
                3. Kars
                  Kars April 19 2013 16: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Diesel
                  oh huge, not a tank but a tank destroyer with a turret))
  • Crang
    Crang April 15 2013 18: 10
    0
    No no more noble. Chinese is better.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 15 2013 17: 03
    0
    And cooler than the "North Korean" counterpart
  • Kars
    Kars April 15 2013 17: 56
    +1
    Believe the Chinese,))))
    So far, their serial model is not as bad as many people prefer to think.
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 15 2013 18: 16
    +2
    It is worth paying attention to one caveat - the side armor of the tower of a Chinese tank is not thick enough. One thing is an uninhabited tower, another is the presence of a crew tower. With this configuration, the tower simply does not have enough volume to fully protect the lateral projection.
    1. Kars
      Kars April 15 2013 18: 29
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      - the side armor of the tower of the Chinese tank is not thick enough

      Compared to whom?
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      With this configuration, the tower simply does not have enough volume to fully protect the lateral projection.

      how does it differ from the standard box tower of the same Leopard in this characteristic.
      1. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov April 15 2013 22: 57
        0
        Compare with Abrams.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 15 2013 23: 24
          0
          Can't you do with a Leopard?

          Quote: Ivan Tarasov
          Compare with Abrams

          How? And do you have a Chinese cut? While placing the DZ on the bulwarks of the Chinese tower is superior in efficiency to boxes with spare parts for abrams.
          1. Kars
            Kars April 15 2013 23: 27
            0
            ____________________
          2. Ivan Tarasov
            Ivan Tarasov April 16 2013 22: 07
            0
            In the "Chinese", the width of the side of the tower is approximately equal to the shoulder strap.
            The "American" has a shoulder strap of 2160 mm, the width of the side of the tower is 3300 mm.
            So draw conclusions ...
            1. Kars
              Kars April 17 2013 00: 55
              0
              Quote: Ivan Tarasov
              So draw conclusions ...

              What are the conclusions? That the Chinese have two people in the tower, and the abrams have three people?
              or what is the abrams in the stern downstream all the ammunition stockpiled?
              Quote: Ivan Tarasov
              In the "Chinese", the width of the side of the tower is approximately equal to the shoulder strap.

              They themselves understood what they wrote? What is the width of the side of the tower? And how can it be equal to the shoulder strap? The width of the Chinese body is 3372 (Abrams 3653), and yes it already has a tower, but why did you decide that its internal mechanisms are equal to American? And the width JUST the tower and not the side, accounted for with ZIP boxes? And in the wide lower, or narrow upper part?
              Maybe it’s worth remembering what it is and what they eat with it?
  • family tree
    family tree April 15 2013 19: 52
    +2
    Track engagement - pinion.
    Damn, and now what else is on heavy gusli? Grebnevoe has long since receded.
    Chinese engineers still managed to create their own large-caliber tank gun, which has high characteristics. In addition, there is information about the development armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectile with a corresponding caliber uranium core

    Fuck! The OFS chumadan, of this caliber 140mm, will reliably, if not move, then jam any turret, any modern tank, and will provide a complete "amazement" of the crew with its incapacitation, even lethal. Where to store the boom cartridges?
  • de klermon
    de klermon April 15 2013 20: 37
    +1
    The most beautiful tank in history - T-34 !!!
    Because he is the winner tank!
    He is generally alive, it is different and impossible to perceive!)))
  • de klermon
    de klermon April 15 2013 20: 44
    +1
    By the way, the most superficially attractive tank of our time in my opinion is the T-90MS!) It looks like a sports car in general!)))
  • pinecone
    pinecone April 15 2013 21: 05
    +1
    Quote: Avenger711
    The point is the racial superiority of Europeans, who have great creative potential.


    It is for this reason that a war is going on with the aim of completely destroying the White race and transforming the planet's population into a gigantic herd of consumers, against the background of which the "God-chosen" rulers of the world should remain the only carriers of intelligence.
    1. Rustiger
      Rustiger April 16 2013 01: 03
      +3
      Alexei! I would like to ask you not to use the word God-chosen in relation to those who are waiting for the arrival of God's antagonist, even in quotation marks. stop I will propose for consideration - "Unselected", or rather "Unchosen".
      Yours faithfully! . . . hi
  • Argon
    Argon April 16 2013 02: 20
    0
    In the context of the article, it can be assumed that whoever is the first to install the weapon of the "new step of calibers" will open the Pondora's box. These are agreements on tactical nuclear weapons and the creation of certain stocks of ammunition of a given caliber. And the entire structure of the tank forces of this state will have to be changed as you want If you don't want such pencils, they will fit less than 120-125x. So it is necessary to change the regulations and means of delivery of ammunition, to adjust the "autonomy" of tank subunits. sell tanks with them must be reckoned with. They were the first in the world to adopt a complex of active protection of the tank (racial inferiority did not prevent), for example. I think they have a 140mm gun, German, they rubbed with them a lot lately, well, the engine slammed. But knowing their mentality, they are unlikely to be the first to put it.
  • Old warrant officer
    Old warrant officer April 16 2013 06: 01
    0
    And if to eliminate active armor use a multi-barrel aircraft gun paired with the main gun? When aiming at a target, a queue from an aircraft gun occurs, and then a shot from the main gun. Of course, not all cells will detonate, but still the protection will be weakened, especially when using high-explosive high-explosive charges. And an additional bk to the cannon can be placed outside the tank.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ April 16 2013 10: 41
    0
    ZHMV ?! They still need to be worked out. Yes, and the supply of iron ore in the gun carries a lot of surprises.
  • Maximus
    Maximus April 16 2013 16: 05
    +1
    The Chinese even 50 years ago, they went on firewood, and now they fly into space, so they will "bring their tanks to mind." As they say, they will catch up and overtake all sorts of Merkavas, Leopards, Abrams, and even more so the T-90 ...........
  • Ilyukha
    Ilyukha April 16 2013 19: 32
    0
    The article is so-so. Talk about the 80 mm tank gun battered since the end of the 140s, which will penetrate EVERYTHING))
    And the current 120mm (west) 125mm (east) breaks through everything.
    Such a caliber is not needed, since it is redundant for all kinds of purposes.
    And the Chinese fellows, perfecting our ideas)) And we can enjoy this observation)
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 18 2013 15: 29
    0
    In my unenlightened view, a tank, as a combat system, has long reached the peak of its perfection and its further improvement will take place mainly in terms of increasing the efficiency of its electronic and optical means providing a higher probability of detecting ground and air targets and their destruction, providing the possibility of data exchange online, increasing the crew’s protection against anti-theft equipment, including anti-tank systems, improving their living conditions, etc. The existing caliber of MBT guns (120 125 mm) is more than enough To perform the tasks that should be decided by the tank, especially as the emphasis today is not on the caliber of the gun and on the range and effectiveness of ammunition as well as the use of high-energy beam weapon directed action in the future.
    An increase in the length and caliber of the guns will certainly lead to the appearance of the next "mouses" on which the designers and customers of Nazi Germany have already been burned.
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun April 19 2013 16: 14
    0
    It comes to mind the end of the thirties - the beginning of the forties. Then they considered the caliber 57 mm redundant, but in the end, remember which calibers the 2MB ended with. I think it’s worth a try. No need to be limited to one prototype. Build at least 10 machines and fully experience. Then we can draw conclusions.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 April 19 2013 18: 53
      0
      Then there was a completely different situation, when the role and place of the tank were still not clear to everyone and there was a competition between armor and a projectile. But already the Middle East events of the late 60s and early 70s showed that in the competition between armor and anti-tank weapons, the armor lost and a further increase in its thickness or replacement of single-layer armor with a multi-layer "chobham" type, etc., gives little. Accordingly, there is no particular sense in further increasing the caliber and length of the tank's cannon. such an increase gives more disadvantages than advantages (the total weight and dimensions of the tank increase, the number of shots in the ammunition rack decreases, the gun loading mechanism becomes more complicated, the tank's maneuverability decreases, the requirements for engine power increase, etc. its visibility for enemy reconnaissance means increases). Those. one pulls the other, then the third and so on ... ad infinitum.
      And in the design of the tank, as in any other design, there is a "golden ratio" and its violation is fraught.
      Finally. The tank is designed primarily to support the infantry and break through relatively weakly fortified enemy lines of defense, where "super duper" guns do not play a special role. Against powerful fortifications there are more solid means than tanks. Tanks, on the other hand, were used as a means of fighting tanks and will most likely continue to be used as an exception, and not as a rule.
  • olosors
    olosors 3 June 2013 20: 39
    0
    the Chinese are doing worse in Russia