"Chinese tank Type 99 - one of the three best in the world in terms of combat potential"

117
Interview of the designers of the Chinese MBT

An article posted on military.china.com by a network writer named Shu Zhongxing in December 2009 focused on a sensational interview with the chief designer tank Type 99 Zhu Yusheng in the television program "The Great Masters" on CCTV10. A.2 has refereed this text, which, in our opinion, may be of some interest. Shu's own reasoning is omitted as far as possible, and the quotations he cited by Zhu Yusheng and his deputy are preserved.

Zhu Yusheng’s speech in the Great Masters program caused a stir and controversy among Chinese and foreign lovers of military subjects. Simply put, the designer stated bluntly that according to the three most important indicators of the combat potential - mobility, firepower and security, the Type 99 tank ranks first in the world. In the eyes of the general designer in the 10 ranking of the best tanks in the world, the real leaders are the Chinese Type 99, the American M1A1 / M1A2 Abrams and the German Leopard 2, and the rest do not deserve even a mention. And among these three best tanks, the Type 99 could defeat Abrams and Leopard, taking first place.

Constructor says that the program to create a tank Type 99 was launched in the 1980-s. and then the Central Military Council set itself the task of only achieving parity with the world models of third-generation armored vehicles. “We ourselves thought that, of course, we can achieve a balance, but what is the use of it, if in fact our task is to destroy them utterly?” Thus, the level of development, which the general designer initially laid, exceeded the level of the third generation of Western tanks, and requirements of the Central Military Council.



Previously, it was unofficially believed that the 99 Type was the first in Asia and without any questions is among the top five world tanks, but now it turns out that these estimates were too conservative and the 99 Type is the best tank in the world! Here are some reasons.

According to the designers of the Type 99 tank, at the armament selection stage there was a serious debate, using the 120-mm or 125-mm gun, many of the participants in the discussion objected to using the same gun as on the T-72. But in fact, according to Yusheng, the western technology was worse than the Russian one in tank guns. The 120-mm gun has a throwing charge of 9,8 liters, the Chinese 125-mm gun has a throwing charge of 13,4 liters. Tests have shown that the Chinese 125-mm gun, of course, more powerful than the 120-mm guns.

Deputy General Designer Wang Zherong says proudly that tanks Type 99 is entirely designed by the Chinese. If we talk about the firepower of this tank, the 125-mm smoothbore gun, using a projectile with a tungsten alloy core with a tail stabilizer, is capable of penetrating more than 2000 mm of homogeneous armor at 850 distance m and more than 960 mm using penetrators from a special alloy. If we talk about the tank fire control system, then the hunter-killer type fire control system, which is at the advanced world level, is used. Its important feature is that the tank commander can control weapons in addition to the gunner - including shooting, target tracking, target designation, etc.

Wang Zherong stated that the American MBT M1A2 Abrams gun with 2000 m penetrates 810 mm of armor, Leopard 2A6 near 900 mm, Japanese Type 90 650 mm, so there is no doubt about the leadership in technical characteristics.

With regard to security, to ensure protection against missiles tank Type 99 has not only reactive armor, but also two other trump cards. First of all, it is the first in the world laser suppression system for enemy sights. It is installed in the sight of the tank and moves in sync with the weapons. The point is to observe the enemy, staying out of his sight. On the newest versions of the tank, the Type 99 laser device for optical suppression, glare and interference is located at the rear of the tower. The maximum range of its use is 4000 m. A system consisting of a control computer, a laser machine and a jammer is usually installed on a rotating platform in the left rear of the tower, and the gunner and the tank commander can control the system. It is estimated that the maximum laser power is about 100 MJ, which makes it possible to damage the retina of the enemy’s eyes at a distance of more than 2000 and incapacitate his optoelectronics.

The system has two operating modes. In the passive mode, it detects the position of the enemy through a detection device and marks the position of the target with weak laser radiation. Then, at the command of the computer, the radiation intensity increases dramatically and it "becomes hard." In the active mode, the system first scans the terrain in search of a target, then, upon detecting enemy observation and aiming devices, in the automatic mode opens fire for their destruction.



According to the Chinese designers, although the United States and Russia have long developed laser weapon systems, they are in the process of testing their installation on tanks. In China, the technology of laser suppression systems with the sight is ready and takes the leading place in the world.

According to the tank's general designer, none of the anti-tank missiles in use are currently capable of overcoming its passive defense; in combination with the active defense, it makes no sense to even mention the defeat of the tank. An active protection system using a computer determines the optimal distance to the projectile arriving at the tank, and then shoots a protective charge. Its deviation from the threat does not exceed a meter, and destruction is guaranteed in this radius. The system does not need to control a person. Search, target tracking and aiming are carried out automatically. Abroad, this technology has not yet been noticed.

General Designer Zhu Yusheng said openly that the thickness of the armor of the tank turret 99 Type in frontal projection reaches 700 mm, hull - 500-600 mm, taking into account the installation on the tower and the body of a new reactive armor, it can reach 1000-1200 mm. In the American М1А2 Abrams, this indicator is 600-700 mm, in Leopard 2А6 580 mm, in the Japanese Type 90 500-600 mm. Thus, the armor of the Chinese tank and its western competitors is approximately at the same level.



If we consider the complex active and passive protection, the author of the Type 99 proposes to recognize that his child takes first place in the world in terms of security thanks to two active protection systems.

With regard to mobility, the Type 99, despite the lag in certain areas, in general, reached the advanced world level.

Wang Zherong says that the tank uses a “cold-type” diesel with turbocharging power 1200 l. s., allowing the tank to accelerate to 32 km / h in 12 seconds. The lag in engine technology has turned the engine into a weak link in the 99 Type tank; however, according to the general designer, the measures taken have made it possible to compensate for this deficiency. Zhu Yusheng says that according to many, if the M1A2 Abrams has an 1500 engine, l. with. then xnumx l. with. - this is the modern level. This is a misconception, the designer believes, the mobility of the tank depends primarily on its power density. At М1500А1 Abrams it makes 2 l. with. per ton, while with Type 23,8 the power density is even slightly higher. As a result, mobility is at the same level, and the Chinese have less fuel consumption. In addition, the load on the rear services is significantly reduced. Thus, the Type 99 does not lag behind in mobility, consumes less fuel and due to this it has a greater power reserve.

Wang Zherong recognizes that the industry of Western countries has a solid foundation, the level of engine building is high, the reliability and power of engines and transmissions are also high. Now there is some lag behind Abrams and Leopard 2А6, but when will the development of a new domestic tank diesel engine with a capacity of 1500 l be completed. with., this lag will be reduced.

Zhu Yusheng notes that the 99 Type has a low silhouette - it is 400 mm below the Leopard 2A6 and 200 mm below the M12. This increases survival by reducing the area of ​​the projection affected. Reducing the silhouette of a tank is not an easy task, requiring very compact placement of mechanisms. The United States wanted to reduce the silhouette of the M1А2 Abrams, but could not, because the engine and transmission have a great height. Tank hull Type 99 is composite, many parts can be dismantled and replaced. Thus, not only was it possible to reduce the mass, but also to create a reserve for further modernization.

Although the tank is lower than the M1, its chassis is higher than that of the American tank, which contributes to the growth of mobility and maneuverability in difficult terrain. Thus, in terms of mobility, the 99 Type roughly corresponds to the Leopard 2А6 and М1А2 Abrams.

Wang Zherong said that it was not easy to reach today's advanced level in Chinese tank building - this is the result of the work of three generations of people. “We must be focused on the demands of the war of the future, we must not slavishly follow foreign tendencies, because otherwise we will be doomed to lag. What doubts can there be that the Type 99 is one of the three best tanks in the world? ”

P.2 confounded: so far, we were convinced in the editorial office that only our Palestinians use the phrase “has no analogues in the world” and its derivatives in the area mode — until all living things in the affected area lose the ability to perceive information without prejudice. about armaments of the Russian development. Now, of course, the grand prix in the 21 Century vundervaffe nomination is leaving the Chinese comrades.

The analytical department P. 2 has long wondered if there is anything in the world where the masterpiece Type 99 may be imperfect. We came to the conclusion that it makes sense for Chinese designers to introduce literally one innovation - and the world will surely gasp and freeze in awe.

In our opinion, the tank is strictly necessary to equip seats, catapults for the crew and, optionally, for the landing. One thought that China is able to take care of its tank crews, as the rest of the world cares only for military pilots, can paralyze the will of almost any enemy.

An article from the site’s archive was posted on the "BO" in June 2010 of the year.
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. peter
    -1
    11 June 2010 01: 24
    I think that the super-tank was not preparing against USA, maybe. he is not floating through the Pacific Ocean. It is easier for tank armies of the PRC to deploy on the empty expanses of the Asian part of Russia in order to protect their shuttle traders and guest workers. With China’s ability to outweigh in all respects, the quality of the tank does not have to be excellent. They will beat us with their iron mass. Our engineers, advisers and visionary politicians have tried their best for many years.
    We remind you that in addition to the tank

    In addition to the tank, China has our more or less new SU and IL aircraft, and it has its own atomic bomb.
    1. 0
      20 May 2011 16: 19
      cartridge for the Chinese is not enough))
  2. patriot
    patriot
    +1
    28 June 2010 12: 57
    Peter seems to have really crap the Chinese ... The Chinese themselves are afraid of Us and may turn out to be "cannon fodder" for Our missiles. Because We produce the best weapons in the world !!!
    1. Phoenixl
      +1
      4 October 2011 09: 34
      "Potamu" - facepalm

      Go to school boy
      1. Alexey Prikazchikov
        0
        3 November 2011 10: 49
        Phoenixl go to the goalkeeper
  3. Egor
    Egor
    0
    29 August 2010 15: 23
    better, not better, what difference does it make if an air bomb or a rocket crashes on your Bosko, and our planes are all old, just like the whole army is actually armed with models from the 70s. T90 in our army no more than 100 pieces, and even go without dynamic protection! T72 is quite a good tank. Small maneuverable, rapid-fire, etc. you only need to train the crews, and if we have all the military schools, etc. close so at least some tank monkey let them still burn!


    Look euryugi how much money and time they spend on training soldiers!
  4. pretend
    0
    3 September 2010 00: 54
    Reliability is not a strong point of the Chinese, and this will destroy them in a real war. Reliability of technology can be improved, but the Chinese’s thinking can be fixed, I think it’s a hopeless case ...
    1. His
      +2
      17 May 2011 22: 55
      I agree. Plus poor education
  5. Igor
    -3
    3 October 2010 22: 21
    in fact, and against whom they want to fight on these tanks
    1. +1
      20 May 2011 16: 21
      first the Japs will be exterminated and then they will go to Russia.
  6. Velimudra
    +4
    5 October 2010 20: 03
    Copying, copying, copying and more beautiful words about their superiority in everything ... This is the motto of the Chinese gunsmiths. Let me remind you that China NEVER had its own tanks, aircraft, ships, or even small arms. Any Chinese tanks of recent decades are just an imitation of ours. Here we must pay tribute to the Chinese, they impartially examined the issue and came to the logical conclusion about the superiority of Russian tanks over any others. The rest seemed to them a matter of technique. We copy Russian technologies, improve individual units based on Western developments and get the best tank in the world. This is exactly how the Chinese reasoned. Only one thing was not taken into account, while they copy our technologies, we develop new ones. Perhaps their super tank will be able to compete with the modern T-90. But it will lose to promising new generation tanks, which already exist and are being tested at Uralvagonzavod, and this is beyond doubt.
  7. Uhrn
    -8
    7 October 2010 23: 09
    A bunch of woodpeckers !! You understand that Russian tanks - this is done from 25 to 39. i.e. for 10-15 years, production was established and delivered. And the Germans at that time did not have tanks or even an army. So what? Do you recall the results? There is no army in the Russian Federation. And that is, it will run away and their commanders will betray, for a barrel of honey. normally!
    1. -1
      6 July 2012 22: 45
      Quote: Uhrn
      There is no army in the Russian Federation
      , but there are Serdyukov and the hero of Russia, they alone are much more dangerous for us than the entire army of the PRC
  8. Anon
    Anon
    +7
    10 October 2010 13: 16
    Result - Russian tanks in Berlin
    1. hayabusa777
      0
      7 May 2013 12: 38
      due to Baku oil)))))) 70%
  9. mixed
    -8
    10 October 2010 15: 19
    the result-dohrena of the dead Germans we flunked our corpses
    1. +1
      21 January 2012 09: 02
      Especially YOU ..
  10. Ivan
    -4
    14 October 2010 16: 52
    Uhrn,
    Well, you’re a woodpecker .... but you don’t know what exactly the Germans came up with the first tank in the world))) and he participated in the first world war. At that time the German tank structure was already somewhere around 30. Russia, for those 10-15 years about which you speak not only caught up and but surpassed Germany. The superiority of the Sovetsky tanks is evident at least in that the victory remained with the USSR. Soldiers are also not an unimportant factor, but still.

    And in the photo the tank is oooooooochen similar to the T90 and the tower from Abrams)))

    the tower is somewhat reminiscent of a mixture of towers of the tanks of Abrams and Praise.
    a plastic tank is not afraid of anyone)) well, if the current Uhrn (y)
    1. Alexey Prikazchikov
      +5
      27 September 2011 21: 20
      Well, actually, the English google on this issue.
  11. Legi
    +6
    16 October 2010 12: 07
    Friends, the first tank is still English, huge, not awkward in World War I !!!
  12. Garri
    Garri
    -2
    19 October 2010 17: 59
    Dear, what is there to think, the Ketays stole everything from the Soviet Union and Russia, and are trying to pass off someone else's as their own, but they were not sold a license for an automatic loader, so they have a person loading the gun, as a result of this, the ammunition rack is located in the rear of the tower, so it is has such a characteristic "western profile", also their vaunted guns are not capable of firing guided missile shots, which already significantly exceed the projectile in terms of range and accuracy. All these phrases the Chinese sing to themselves in the hope that their unreliable technique can be bought by someone!
  13. gogot
    gogot
    +3
    24 October 2010 21: 43
    photo 1 shows that this is just an inflatable tank with a motor !!!

    there weren’t enough smoke bombs on the left caterpillar !!!

    "According to estimates, the maximum laser power is about 100 MJ" - well, the chief designer knows his tank ... the idea works on the fly.

    and this tank can move sideways !!! because 12 Chinese are hidden inside, and they can run sideways.

    In photo 1, the gun is dressed on the barrel. In the photo 2 there is no gandon, but there is definitely something in the trunk that should not be there ... the end of the hole !!!!

    "none of the anti-tank missiles in use are now able to overcome its passive defense"
    On the left fenestrated shelf of each tank, a trace of an anti-tank grenade launcher is clearly visible.
  14. ML
    ML
    +1
    2 November 2010 19: 37
    Ivan,

    And Merkava-4, or even Merkava-3? For the first time, an automatic transmission was introduced on a treshka ...
    In the Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs ALWAYS had 2-3 times more tanks (and aircraft, by the way, too). So what? T-55, and sometimes T-72 burned like cardboard. Therefore, it does not matter who made the first tank, and who copied from whom. Discipline, technology, manufacturing, training, and, of course, morale - these are the components of success.
    1. ri3na
      0
      2 June 2013 22: 20
      ... it’s definitely about discipline ... and it’s especially good to show morale when the enemy reads namaz
  15. Egor
    0
    8 November 2010 02: 32
    ... it’s true that it’s really plastasovy, how can it be that the armor on all sides is greater, it has less horsepower than its competitors, and at the same time, the specific power / ton is the most .....

    And even more so, I think that the anthem of China .. "not quality, but quantity" .. so there can be no question of reliability ..
  16. FDFD
    +2
    13 November 2010 05: 03
    Gentlemen, read the story; watch a film about the history of the creation of tanks in Russia; film studios; wings of Russia; then there will be no questions who where and when ............. and to the crew’s question, so again burrow into history read Napoleon and similar German authors nemony famous who and what writes about Russia and its people ............. and in extreme cases, remember the hero of epic tales Misha ........... and in the end I would like to add lines of song armor is strong and our tanks are fast ....................
  17. gwalt
    gwalt
    +2
    14 November 2010 00: 43
    A strange sensation — I read and do not believe — the thickness of the armor, the volume of the shot — even acceleration to so many kilometers in so many seconds — then I re-read the text again and stumble right there - according to the chief designer, according to the chief designer, according to the chief designer, the whole info - from the chief designer .. And the photos presented all suggest memories of the parades on Red Square - which they just don’t show us - only the new ones exist almost in the singular ((
  18. dude
    +4
    18 November 2010 21: 24
    people who are at least a little interested in military matters, not even in terms of hobbies, just reading something for fun, will see such nonsense in this article that you want to puke.
  19. Historian
    Historian
    -1
    24 November 2010 00: 16
    I hope you are right, and the Chinese have just given free rein to fantasy ...
  20. Chuyoy
    +4
    25 November 2010 16: 48
    It's not about tanks, between Leopard 2, Abrams, Type 99, modernized T64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 there is no fundamental difference, the main thing is the training of crews, which proves the experience of the Arab-Israeli wars and Germans from 39 to 42 years. In general, the experience of the First World War clearly showed that tanks will play a big role in the next war, and the 2nd experience says that the 3rd will be won or lost in the air, including in space. Helicopters, Airplanes, Missiles, Satellite, Lasers - this is the future. In the world, a pronounced trend to reduce tanks. Example, since 1992 the states did not produce a single tank, they only upgrade. In Europe, there were fewer tans somewhere in 2, and somewhere in 3 times. In Israel, it’s not just that they beat Arabs so skillfully. Firstly they serve 3 years, and then Every year they go to the training camp every year. Each house has its service weapon and uniform. In a maximum of a couple of days, the reservist will be in soybean military unit. And if he is a tanker, he has his own tank in reserve, and not like in Russia. They put Mig-23 in reserve in the early 90s and by the first Chechen one none of these aircraft could be restored ..
    1. His
      0
      17 May 2011 22: 58
      I agree learning plays a big role
  21. Ivan Chekhov
    Ivan Chekhov
    0
    4 December 2010 21: 44
    Guys, the next war will be informational. Her we are already tearing. To crush tanks, to shoot from the air and missiles - it is out of date.
  22. Bat
    Bat
    0
    8 December 2010 05: 37
    The Chinese have a tank, in all the equipment for them there is a dark forest, they only know how to copy, you already know well on the world market that ,,,
    Soon the planes will be like MiG, Su, An, Il, Yak ,,,

    It’s just like a proverb:
    Even if you put a mop on a laser sight, it still remains a mop
  23. torus
    torus
    0
    11 December 2010 19: 38
    you must always remember that on any super tank there is a super shell that will turn this tank into a banal pile of scrap metal and there will be no war between Russia and China Russia itself all that they ask will be given by China not Georgia there is a real army PS patriots do not be offended it's just a statement of fact
  24. Lex
    Lex
    0
    22 December 2010 16: 37
    Ha they created !!!! Sleep .... in Russia, but our type do not see this and sell them weapons !!!!
  25. Kadrik
    +2
    24 December 2010 16: 17
    Created or Sleep ... what's the difference?
    The main thing the Chinese have these tanks. And with their ability to set up MASS production, we need to have a much more advanced machine. But this is not observed. Quite the contrary, both in quality really operating machines, and in terms of quantity there is a significant lag.
    Yes, modern warfare is largely determined by aviation and space, but even there, the successes of the Chinese are not only significant, but very significant.
    Well, as for nuclear weapons, I had the opinion that in case of war our government would be afraid to use it, because in this case the Chinese would strike Moscow and the European part of the country. From the Far East to the Urals cities 15. Yes, and his own shirt is closer. They will give the Far East and part of Siberia and try to make peace. If only the pipe with oil was not taken away.
  26. SOLDIERru
    -1
    24 December 2010 17: 11
    What can be said about this. Most likely, this model of armored vehicles, if it exists, is indeed one of the most successful vehicles. The Chinese most likely give more or less accurate data of their offspring. Just look at the characteristics that do not look super fantastic. And they are quite realistic for the TTX model which was laid in the 80's. And all the wonders of electronic active protection, it is quite possible to hang on the basic model during development. By the way, the Chinese probably worked out the Erzets model in case of war without any frills (here they have an open anti-aircraft turret immediately from the Erzets model of humor). And what I liked so much was the modularity of the design and judging by the developed aft of the tower, the lack of an automatic loader. Take away the automatic loader from our T-72-90 and put a normal one instead of the cast antediluvian tower, just get a tank of a completely different level. At least a completely different level of stability on the battlefield.
    PS It must be admitted that some discrepancies are straining both in the photographs and in the images of this model. Which, although it can be attributed to the pre-production of the first copies. After all, the chassis, body, filling, and weapons do not immediately appear together. And last but not least, tanks are good, and now aviation wins wars.
    1. Joker
      +1
      21 May 2011 23: 57
      Take away from our T-72-90 automatic loader

      - Do you want to work for the loader yourself?
    2. Said
      +1
      7 June 2011 14: 34
      But what’s that without an automatic loader you have to plant the 4th crew member? that is, in the event of a tank defeat, one more person dies ..... do you still have nicha women? And the rate of fire will drop .... and you don’t need to go far from the welded tower from the sheet - Ukraine has riveted 10 such pieces for a long time - take do it yourself ... only the truth is that it wasn’t the tank for 41 years. German tanks were generally weaker than the Soviet ones in terms of armor and weapons, but that didn’t prevent the Germans from reaching Moscow and also in 45 the German tanks were in On the whole, it’s better than the Soviet ones, but it didn’t stop us from taking Berlin ... One conclusion suggests itself - not tanks fight planes ships but PEOPLE ... but China counts - tanks and m really seem to be needed to fight with one of the neighbors but they are to Russia they will attack only after they have trained on someone — all the more so, it is not worthwhile to expect any success from the Chinese army — there is simply no experience in conducting large-scale military operations .... and even the entire Chinese army should not fall on nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict with China will be in Russia for and 24 hours - you won’t start bombing your territory with nuclear weapons - right? and the saddest thing is that in the Far East the army is in a deplorable state and I won’t be able to quickly transfer it - it takes weeks .......
  27. Zhorka
    0
    25 December 2010 00: 15
    Laser power of 100 MJ? Olo-lo, yes, in the tank, instead of the engine, a nuclear reactor.
    1. 0
      17 May 2016 10: 50
      not mega, but miles or micro joules)))
      just a military use of a chinese laser pointer laughing
  28. Zuhellman
    0
    4 January 2011 03: 35
    I don’t understand one thing — why should the Chinese develop any types of weapons — they will trample on any population .. and seriously, the PRC is systematically preparing to seize our territories (read resources), poorly masking its ambitions with alleged claims to Taiwan. moreover, the Chinese as aliens are already among us, and there are already many of them on Russian territory (than not advanced sabotage detachments. More than once foreign states have spoken out on the topic that Russia unreasonably and ineptly disposes of natural resources, and they want to teach us. I am simply amazed at political myopia and blindness of our rulers. now let's think about what we can counter to external threats and, above all, Chinese, with our population density of 1,5 drunk in the ass of a digger per 1000 sq. km?
  29. SOLDIERru
    0
    5 January 2011 00: 14
    Comrades, a lot of words about politics. I would like to know other people's opinions on the technical side of the issue. Personally, I do not care for what purpose the Chinese need tanks. It’s much more interesting what kind of tanks they are and how they will be used.
    PS The Chinese need tanks for what and all the rest. For the war. As if we needed them for another. (ha himself could not resist the politics climbed)
  30. Alexander
    Alexander
    0
    5 January 2011 12: 27
    All this garbage, do not believe it. RUSSIA makes the best T90 tanks in the world and they have no analogues in the world. Now there is a project T 95 but it is not finished yet but it is already known that it will surpass even the T 90 in gj dctv.
    1. STD
      STD
      0
      9 June 2011 21: 59
      T 95 bullshit and will not do it.
      Now new dreams - ARMADA.
      But we, unfortunately, know that there is nothing but a show behind this.
  31. amide
    0
    5 January 2011 20: 59
    Hello, people near me, I’m writing from Baku and I ask
    help me
    pazhaluysta amamed amid ragimovich lytsso stateless rejoiced
    the republic of Uzbekistan
    Yangiyer city
    On 09/12/1982, I was beaten by Adin, my mother, father, and they instilled me in Baku. I beat me
    prescribed up to 15 years 1998 reptile dad died and mother beat mother
    enemy yeyo 1998 reptile killed by enemies from behind the apartment so that it will take hold and here
    how grandmother was killed right away our house was taken over here is mom sister and I astalis
    on the street our whiskers from turkey gahraman marash i am writing you things
    that the Uzbek embassy
    republic in baku consul shukur raupov prompts me to see the exit
    document so
    I could go where I was happy there and create a passport for myself who calls the consul
    or pasla pamagite etumu man, he was happy with your republic and
    consul and pasol so as not to get upset
    balne
    they don’t know what they’re doing but state
    azerbaijan dazhe ombudsman elmira khanum suleimanova wrote an attack to me
    and the general migration gave me a temporary passport without
    citizenship and a passport of a stateless person is indicated
    Mom Ballet Yey needs treatment Uneyo feminine ballesn and zop and me with
    even do not give us a job even in the baku 60 65 times
    No one helped me on TV channels Nashot passport I will write you Mamena
    bang shchot room mozhet anyone nibud on treatment pamozhat azerbaijan
    Mugan Bang West Branch 3811000116usd11 babayeva sevil
    blessed be the name of god amin
    our number is 99470 307 36 01
    adin site nest name youtube.com there ishit (amid wants citizenship) listen please I am there all the mayor the problem I get the refuge
    I ask you, please, I have no skills for the winter.
    prashu va name of god and all saints amid mamedov 99470 307 36 01 [email protected]
  32. SOLDIERru
    0
    7 January 2011 11: 10
    Well, firstly, the T90 is just a hybrid of the T-72B (the chassis was taken), and the T80U (a tower with armament and a control system). So, like a T-72, when it hits a tower, it breaks down and a T90 breaks it in the same way (which is the fault of the notorious automatic loader). Turn it over, the big difference between a wrecked tank and a destroyed one. Well, etc. .. Total in the review can not be listed. Secondly, even the T90S (1000 hp) occupies only 6-8th place in the world qualification. And the T90 (840 hp) is even more modest. And in the third UVZ where the T90 was produced, and the T-95 were supposed to be almost dead (the tank production was definitely dead). Well, for a snack, even the Omsk "Black Eagle", that Tagil T-95 were developed already at the beginning of the two thousandth reptiles and where they are. But the fact is that both of these representatives of armored vehicles remained tanks of the 3rd post-war generation.
    And the Chinese are not standing still. What can’t be said about our tank industry.
    PS Get me right. I'm not talking about the fact that the T-90 is not a combat-ready machine. It’s just not a super tank.
  33. SOLDIERru
    0
    11 January 2011 23: 29
    Today I learned (January 12.01.11, 90) that the TXNUMX will not be produced. And at UVZ, only tank repair production remains. So much for scolding and our tanks are fast. We will defeat ourselves, and an external enemy is not needed.
  34. IVAN6666
    0
    21 January 2011 10: 40
    you morons here to argue there’s nothing about the best tank in the world of t 90 and you don’t even have one in the top three, but what’s wrong with you to argue with a fucker without knowing how to write easy morons
  35. Sergei
    +1
    23 January 2011 11: 20
    Well done, however, the Chinese, however, have already launched the raptor, now they will start to make tanks, and we are all scared of the world with pictures, we painted a plane, we painted a helicopter, we painted a tank
    And in arimia, all 40 years ago.
    What will we draw further ?????????
  36. Shamil
    +3
    25 January 2011 10: 29
    China China China ... Fortunately for us, it is not as uniform as we think, but nevertheless it is dangerous ... That would not exclaim that 1,5 drunk diggers per 1000 sq.m. you need to tell yourself ... Everyone exclaims to us ... Russians drink too much, Russia is drowning in terrible alcoholism and drug addiction ... etc. You need to start a healthy lifestyle, go to training, play sports. refrain from alcohol ... Help companions, friends, colleagues, etc. To create stability in our country .. "What we lost in 1991 OFFICIALLY" ... If everyone starts with himself .... then turn it over .. Stable country, Healthy society, Culture, Prosperity, Unity will personify Russia, and when all Asian, American and European countries sense this, they will start to fear .. Unity and cohesion are our weapons .. But it hurts when it wakes up in those crisis moments .. (WWII - 1812, 1941) .. And tanks this is a heap of metal! ... In Grozny, our tanks with reactive armor, not with reactive armor, were burned, and the enemy will burn them, they will burn ...
  37. sergeyomsk80
    0
    27 January 2011 10: 38
    To listen to the Chinese, they just staged a breakthrough in tank building, and if you look closely, the chassis from Russian tanks is licked, they made a gramadin, just like the Germans with Tirpitz, just a mania for hegantism, but what about the principle of low visibility on the battlefield, I would look like their miracle tank will be in an open field to reflect the attacks of several anti-tank weapons.
  38. Stas
    +1
    27 January 2011 13: 05
    Shamil correctly reminded us all that we are people and how we should behave! I want to urge you, dear Russians of all nationalities to unite in what our strength will be !!! And the more Russians will be, the stronger we will be. Nobody can defeat us and death will not be scary if we are strong in body and SPIRIT !!! Start small and stop insulting each other over a piece of iron! And how to be a man is written in the Bible, it is true !!!
    1. Stefano
      +1
      11 June 2011 18: 37
      Thanks God !!!!!! Brothers
  39. Rustam
    0
    22 February 2011 17: 51
    Is it a good tank or are the Chinese exaggerating? We will soon
    we know in our own skin. With short-sighted politicians.
    With greedy oligarchs. With young people screaming at all crossroads about their patriotism, but in fact, not wanting
    to serve his homeland even one miserable year.
    learn Chinese.
  40. Nicholas
    Nicholas
    +2
    April 1 2011 00: 07
    Hello everyone. The tank of course is beautiful. But I doubt the TTX. The frontal armor is 700mm-delirium. The photo shows the crew. Based on the proportions of a person, we get the dimensions of approximately our T72, an error on the Chinese imagination. This confirms 6 rollers from one side. Moreover, the supporting mucked rollers with T72. Now: the curb weight of the T72 is 44t. Moreover, the T72 frontal armor is only 220mm of which 100mm is the frontal armor plate then 100mm textileite (50mm two sheets) and 20mm armor plate, from the inside it is all covered with 30mm anti-radiation lining. 80mm side .China came up with aluminum armor? As far as I know, the only aluminum armored vehicle in the world is the Russian Airborne Combat Vehicle. And this is one of the nuances why the Chinese are Lying !!! T99 is the best tank in the world, it's just ridiculous. Then ask the Indians why they bought the T90? They made a test for all applicants simply unbelievable. At the request of the inuses, Russian mechanics pulled out the engine. And to the surprise of the Indians, it was dry without a single leak of oil. China can They created their own tank, but its quality can be judged by the results of a real battle.
  41. Semen
    Semen
    0
    April 5 2011 21: 05
    ?
    Here is such an opinion!
  42. 82
    82
    +1
    April 10 2011 13: 14
    I'd rather come to Siberia, I just waited already
  43. Paul
    Paul
    0
    April 12 2011 00: 33
    People do not believe in anyone or anything, or in what kind of media, you can use it only for analysis and it is only possible in conjunction with special literature, or until you personally see or feel it.
    Yes, the Chinese are copying everything, looking for the best and copying. Remember Japan, after all, the Japanese weren’t so technologically advanced, it became possible thanks to a number of internal and external factors, after the Second World War the pace of economic recovery was the lowest ... (see the history of Japan)
    Remember the gigantic military budget of China second after the United States, by the way, Russia is in fifth place only. But we are second in arms sales, in some places even Amerov is being squeezed out, it seems that they have come to cost recovery, the situation in Libya will only spur demand (foreign partners are already interested in the C400 complex in connection with the Libyan bombing of NATO aircraft)
    As for the tank tower in the photo, I can say that its geometric shape is such that it is easiest to hit with anti-tank weapons than the one that is on our new tanks, and it will tear it even faster, who does not agree, take a pen and a piece of paper and count) ))))))))
    And also analyze all the recent wars with the participation of the United States and NATO countries and you will once again be convinced: "that the devil is not scary as he is painted" In Australia, they still sit
  44. simple earring
    +2
    April 16 2011 17: 54
    I agree, Merkava 4 is better, most likely. But he has a narrow fitness for rocky deserts, a local tank, the Israelis will not sell it to anyone.
    1. 0
      17 May 2016 11: 13
      Merkava is a very controversial car. it is possible that in a city building, without a river boost, the tank is really good, but if we consider the wider application, it doesn’t seem so anymore.
      In mountainous areas, on marshy soils of the Far East or Karelia, in forests and river-crossed terrain, it will already be weakly mobile, and its size and weight in open areas is not a plus.
  45. Sergei
    +1
    April 26 2011 23: 11
    People I heard that they were talking about the death of a factory car’s urals, but this is a mistake, it is flourishing and it’s lacking orders and 65 percent are state ones! my father works on it and he’s doing T-95 affairs and said that such a tank can fight simultaneously with 20 other tanks! its stelage distance will be increased to 6.5 km! And the armor wakes up very durable and slippery due to its non-standard form! there will be modernization of the arena and curtain systems! And whoever believes in Chinese who are trying to fuck the whole world, please, I don’t hold!
  46. +1
    April 27 2011 00: 05
    In our opinion, the tank is absolutely necessary to equip with catapult seats for the crew and, optionally, for the landing. The mere thought that China is able to take care of its tankers in such a way that the rest of the world cares only for military pilots is capable of paralyzing the will of almost any enemy. + Ball lightning from the stern, and all the khan
  47. wPS
    wPS
    +1
    April 28 2011 20: 28
    I'm coming to you!
    1.
    According to the laws of WAR -
    for panic - shooting on the spot,
    for hatred - a decrease in TWO titles.
    Do you agree? !
    2.
    That's when there will be MORE Russians than Chinese -
    then we will look at them HIGHLY!
    3.
    We NEVER can make tanks bigger and better,
    than the Chinese -
    but ANYONE can answer, HOW MUCH
    do you need heavy fighter tanks AT ALL?
    As far as I remember, the "big leap" is best done NOT by increasing the quantity - BUT moving into a new quality.
    Distill - NOT catching up! ! !
    I remember Leonardo da Vinci inventing a spring (mobile) watch,
    invented "at the same time" the wheeled flintlock pistol -
    and thereby signed the death sentence to the knightly cavalry.
  48. Gur
    Gur
    0
    17 May 2011 08: 02
    I read the comments .. does not add optimism .. people are flaunting .. as it was before the war .. they say we will throw all hats ... yes hell there people .. we will waste everything like Tsushima .. if we don’t take our minds ... but what with regards to the Chinese tank .. I want to say to our ginerality .. with the words of Evdokimov "Here are you sons of bitches .. example .. Chinese .. golden hands" .. maybe from scratch .. but HOW !!!! and the planes are better .. and the tanks are stronger .. and the missiles are more accurate .. not like you .. crap .. and the armored personnel carrier we have shit and tanks, coffins and machine guns are not to hell ... freaks ...
  49. Dmitry Dol
    +4
    17 May 2011 15: 52
    I saw this car in action. At the Vostok-2008 exercises near Boychen. The tank is heavy, not very passable and dynamic. The fighting compartment of the T-72. In the tower niche, not BC, but batteries for powering the machine with the engine turned off. Powerplant from the T-72. Armor from the T-72, except mounted. This is his own. The sight was our Soviet. Cars were released in 2008. New ones. However, reliability is a big question. There have been cases of failure. But the Chinese will catch up and overtake us. And in the near future. And to read hobby-writing articles of not distant citizens is sad. It is necessary to plow, as in China. And you need to see how they love their homeland and are ready for it for a lot. And you, demagogues, are ready to plow? Or crack, like magpies, easier ??
  50. Engineer
    Engineer
    0
    20 May 2011 20: 08
    For all these 10 years, the Chinese handed over 200-300 of these tanks. Almost every one of them has been modernized.
    So it is with airplanes, everyone flies on an experimental engine (if Chinese), that is, it can fly for 1000 hours, or it can fail after takeoff.
    All recent conflicts in China were borderline or local, without breaking diplomatic relations, declaring war, etc. And Korea and Vietnam and the USSR and India. And then the Chinese will never start a full-scale war.
    But laconic wars and the strength of the whole army in a people's war are two different things.

    And nobody canceled the expansion, especially if it will be supported from far away by modern tanks and aircraft.
  51. CARTRIDGE
    +1
    21 May 2011 15: 14
    Why boast about the modernization of Soviet tanks? After all, in essence, all the technical characteristics are the same. I also disagree with some comments about the use or not use of nuclear weapons in the event of military operations. It will be much more profitable for us to use nuclear weapons than narrow-eyed ones due to population density! namely destruction I consider the enemy population to be the main priority of nuclear weapons! There are high-precision weapons to fight military forces and strategic targets
  52. 0
    21 May 2011 22: 17
    Firstly, remembering that the Chinese tank industry is based on the T-72, we can say that this masterpiece (lol) is also a modification of the T-72 with all its shortcomings.
    Further, despite the declared super-advanced active protection, it is not visible, we see only a laser illuminator, which is not much different from a laser ballistic rangefinder, which can also blind a person and optics, and was recognized as ineffective as a weapon by developed countries 20 years ago, and the intensity laser beam in the atmosphere decreases tens of times with distance and fog and other phenomena.
    Secondly, knowing that China does not have Chobham technology, apparently the armor is, at best, layers of steel and aluminum, because China does not even have ceramic armor plates yet, so the armor protection of this vehicle is apparently measured using the methods of the Second World War war, which is both funny and demonstrates the attempts of Chinese propagandists to impress at least someone. Then they should weld a meter of cast iron and declare that they have armor protection of 2 meters. Perhaps Paraguay will buy it.
    Thirdly, every child knows that now electronics are much more important than millimeters of cast iron. To believe that China has at once overtaken the leading tank-building countries, which have been developing and improving the electronics and components of their vehicles for decades, while having mountains of real combat experience behind them, is, to say the least, stupid. Let us recall that almost half a century after manned space flight, China was able to carry out its own. Only those people had tube computing circuits, and China had silicon processors copied from the American ones.
    The achievements of Chinese industry are a repetition of the old concepts of Soviet tank building from the 80s. This is of course cute, but they could just as well boast of millions of carefully copied T-34s with which they would flood everyone. China does not show us any technological or ideological breakthroughs; all we see is modified junk to varying degrees, passed off as new technology. And the way they brag about their reactive defense is just a circus for people with even a little knowledge of military equipment.
  53. 0
    21 May 2011 22: 18

    The remark about the Abrams engine is, of course, interesting, only this very engine has been in production for many years, its design has been worked out down to the smallest details and it itself has been tested, including military tests, in almost all climatic zones of the world and everywhere demonstrated fairly high performance along with with acceptable reliability and the highest quality production. Personally, I strongly doubt that the Chinese took and at one time surpassed years of systematic research and testing and created an engine superior to the American one in terms of overall size and fuel characteristics and at the same time just as reliable
    Remembering the “achievements” of the Chinese in other areas, most likely the engine is semi-working garbage.
    China really wants to become a great power, but there is nothing great in China other than its numbers. There is only repetition without a scientific and technical basis.
    1. Joker
      0
      13 June 2011 13: 53
      and everywhere demonstrated fairly high performance along with acceptable reliability and the highest quality of production

      - what do you mean by acceptable reliability? Is it when 1x1,5 meter filters need to be cleaned every once in a while from 0,5 to 2 hours maximum? No country has voluntarily purchased tanks with gas turbine engines. Abrashs were purchased with American money, which was issued on credit for the purchase of their weapons.
      1. 0
        13 June 2011 14: 21
        So what? And sometimes tanks also need to change their tracks! What a horror!
        And refuel!
        1. Joker
          0
          15 June 2011 08: 36
          Trucks are changed every 5 - 10 thousand, refueling with a tanker is not a very labor-intensive process, and Abrasha’s reliability is still very low (the word acceptable allows for a very high variation in the concept of reliability).
          I won’t rant if the question is really interesting and I don’t want to chatter
          You will find the information yourself, there are topics including on this site.

          In war, the reliability of a weapon is not only an opportunity to complete a given task, but also an opportunity to survive.

          A quote from a Pindos officer before landing in Iraq, it seems, was shown in the first interview:
          reporter - and finally, the last question, what will you do first upon arrival in Iraq
          officer - I'll exchange the M-16 for Kalashnikovs.
      2. Redfox71
        -2
        4 July 2011 02: 56
        Strange... But what about the T-80 of various modifications. Egypt, Yemen, Cyprus, Korea...
        What, they bought it at gunpoint?!
        1. Joker
          0
          4 July 2011 17: 50
          The number of T-80s is a drop in the bucket from the total number of T-72s (T-90s)

          Egypt - 14 T-80UK and 20 T-80U, purchased in 1997
          Yemen - 31 T-80, as of 2005
          Cyprus - 41 T-80U, as of 2010
          Republic of Korea - 80 T-80U, as of 2010

          About 186 tanks scattered across 4 countries.

          Let's look further, Pkistan alone has 320 diesel T-80UD, and to this we can add the presence of the T-72 (T-90):


          Azerbaijan - 220 T-72. According to other data, 220 T-72, as of 2010. Of these, 48 T-72AG
          Algeria - 325 T-72, as of 2010 (of which 88 T-72AG).
          Angola - 50 T-72, as of 2010
          Armenia - 102 T-72, as of 2010
          Belarus - 1465 T-72, as of 2010
          Bulgaria - 362 T-72, as of 2010
          Hungary - 30 T-72, as of 2010
          Venezuela - 92 T-72M1M units ordered in 2009. Deliveries should be completed in 2011
          Vietnam - delivery of a batch of 150 T-72M1 has been carried out by Poland since 2005
          Georgia - 41 T-72AG[21], as of 2010
          India - 1950 T-72M1, as of 2010
          Iraq - more than 77 T-72, as of 2009
          Iran - 480 T-72, as of 2010
          Yemen - 60 T-72, as of 2010 (of which 32 T-72AG).
          Kazakhstan - 980 T-72, as of 2010
          Kenya - 110 T-72AG[21], as of 2010
          Cuba - About 50 tanks
          Kyrgyzstan - 150 T-72, as of 2010
          Lebanon - 31 T-72M1 units ordered in 2010, deliveries due in 2011
          Libya - 200 T-72, another 115 in storage, as of 2010
          Republic of Macedonia - 31 T-72AG, as of 2010
          Morocco - 40 T-72, as of 2010
          Myanmar - 50 T-72, as of 2010 (Of which 14 T-72AG)
          Poland - 586 T-72, as of 2010
          Republic of Abkhazia - about 40 T-72, as of 2008
          Serbia - 13 T-72, as of 2010
          Syria - about 1500-1700 T-72 and T-72M, as of 2010
          Slovakia - 245 T-72M, as of 2010
          Tajikistan - 30 T-72, as of 2010
          Turkmenistan - 670 T-72, as of 2010
          Uganda - 10 T-72, as of 2010
          Uzbekistan - 70 T-72, as of 2010
          Ukraine - 1032 T-72, as of 2010
          Croatia - 3 T-72M, as of 2010
          Czech Republic - 175 T-72CZ, as of 2010
          South Ossetia - 75 T-72, as of 2008


          India - more than 320 T-90S, as of 2010, the total number is planned to increase to 1657.
          Algeria - 2006 T-187S were ordered in 90, as of 2010, the contract for the supply, according to various sources, of 180, 185 or 300 tanks by 2011 was concluded in March 2006.
          Libya - 180 T-90C tanks, as of 2010
          1. Redfox71
            0
            5 July 2011 02: 27
            But I don’t need these statistics! I can print it myself.

            "No country has voluntarily purchased tanks with a gas turbine engine (gas turbine engine)." - your statement?! Or have you already forgotten that you yourself posted here three weeks ago? wink
            So I want to make it clear - were they all forced?!...
            1. Joker
              0
              5 July 2011 09: 02
              Whether they were forced or not, it’s better to ask them, also ask how satisfied they are.
              Two hundred tanks - well, some morons came along and bought them.
              Well, I'll get better ALMOST NOBODY I didn’t buy tanks with gas turbine engines (we don’t take Abrash, I already wrote the schedule for them.
  54. Joker
    -1
    22 May 2011 00: 01
    For SOLDIERru

    So, just like the T-72’s turret was torn off when hit, the T90’s turret is torn off in exactly the same way (which is the fault of the notorious automatic loader).

    - Can you be more specific about this point, where did you get this information from?

    - as far as I know, the turret of any tank can be torn off with a high degree of probability, an example of one of the Arab-Israeli wars, the T-72 ran out of PBS, hit the Merkava with a land mine, its turret was torn off.
    1. Redfox71
      0
      18 June 2011 02: 24
      Due to the fact that the ammunition in the AZ is located under the floor of the fighting compartment, the T-72 (like 80 and 90) is a coffin for the crew, because if the armor is penetrated, the ammunition detonation occurs and the crew does not survive, but from the tank two parts remain: the hull and the turret! Separately!
      In contrast to the same Leclerc, where the AZ and ammunition are located in the turret niche and isolated from the commander and gunner.

      It's funny how many "tank enthusiasts" here don't know basic information...

      (about the T-72, which “by standards was a landmine, its turret was blown off” - no comment at all wink )
      1. Joker
        0
        18 June 2011 15: 57
        Quote: RedFox71
        (about the T-72, which “by standards was a landmine, its turret was blown off” - no comments at all wink)

        Quote: RedFox71
        It's funny how many "tank enthusiasts" here don't know basic information...

        - I won’t be puffed up, you’re just wrong.


        Quote: RedFox71
        because if the armor is penetrated, the ammunition detonates


        - detonation occurs if it hits the ammunition rack, and in the 72 it is located below the level of the undercarriage rollers (that is, it is shielded from the sides by them). In the event of fire from anti-tank grenade launchers, the fire extinguishing system operates. In Grozny, in the second company there was a case when, even without a refilled system (it had been developed before), a burning tank reached the location of its troops (the commander led it, landing mechanical water and the gun operator), where it was successfully extinguished.

        If the tank cannot be restored, it makes no difference whether the turret is on it or to the side.

        If you don’t take my word for it, here is the link, there are many articles about the combat use of our tanks, including.
        http://btvt.narod.ru/2/2.html

        In any case, the ammunition is in the tank, and comparing the T-72 with a Leclerc is incorrect, if you compare at least with the T-90, and its ammunition rack is covered with a screen.
        1. Redfox71
          0
          3 July 2011 01: 25
          Not right?!
          Then, please - in more detail, with the names of the units that allegedly opposed each other on Merkavas and T-72s. I am especially interested in the information about the “turret torn down by a high-explosive shot”...

          Can we imagine the difference between a unitary shot and a charge in AZ?! What is most likely to detonate when the armor is penetrated?! Hint: a direct hit on the ammunition rack is not necessary for detonation!

          For recovery - no, but for the crew - a VERY big difference - whether it is possible to leave the damaged tank, or whether it has already been torn into two parts!

          Why is this not correct with Leclerc?! And with whom then? Which of the main potential opponents still has MBTs with AZ? (Please do not offer the Swedes, with their crazy tank)

          What kind of screen is used to cover the ammunition rack on the T-90?! Combat squad policeman or what? :) So it hasn’t changed since the days of the T-64...
          1. Joker
            +1
            5 July 2011 09: 04
            Take it higher, nothing has changed in tanks since the creation of the MS-1 (T-18). Armament: cannon and machine gun, tracks + transverse engine arrangement, I agree with you, tank building is marking time.


            By the way, there is such a point, 45 mm ammunition does not detonate, in principle, it is unitary (and you are very much in favor of it, as I understand it), let’s switch back to forty-five, + it’s easier to load the ammunition.
            1. Redfox71
              +1
              6 July 2011 00: 41
              Stop!!! I’ll ask for a link to my words, where I ADVOCATE for a unitary shot!

              Otherwise, this is not a conversation - but irresponsible chatter.

              If you are such a fan of armored vehicles, and not just an Internet babble, then it’s strange that you don’t understand a simple thing: in technology there are no ideal solutions, but there is always a compromise! No sane person will say that the AZ is good and the loader is bad. Everything is considered as a whole.
              IMHO: at the moment, the layout of domestic tanks has COMPLETELY outlived its usefulness! In principle, there are few options: either we leave the AZ, but take the BC into the tower and isolate it! One of the obvious disadvantages is the problem with long shots (although the tank builders vaguely stated that the problem was being solved)
              or we introduce unitary and loader. Accordingly, a larger booked volume is needed, with all the attendant...
              1. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 08: 28
                For long shots, yes, it can be decided, as far as I know, the AZ has been modified, and can also be modernized on existing vehicles (by installing a new one or by modification - no details).

                As for the AZ - is it good or bad and the fact that the equipment must be considered as a whole - yes, of course, and as a whole the T-90 has a number of advantages, I think it’s not worth explaining which ones, the same, in my opinion, applies to the layout as a whole.

                Regarding the leclerc - you just shouldn’t pull this expensive toy by the ears, you’ll probably get tired of it yourself. But I think it is correct to compare machines like object 195 (future Armat(d)u, etc.) with it.
                1. Redfox71
                  0
                  6 July 2011 20: 38
                  Again, I’ll ask for a link to the modified AZ! (especially interested in the POSSIBILITY of modernization on existing machines)

                  From what is known so far, this is only a DEVELOPED T-90M with ammunition in the turret niche... (the turret is very different)

                  But I think that is incorrect! Because Leclerc (with its pros and cons) is there, but everything else, a paper-based one-off miracle, is NOT! We've already heard about the "black eagles", T-95, and now the "Almaty" ...
                  However, apart from CUTTING THE DOUBT, the domestic military-industrial complex has not yet impressed us with anything!!!
              2. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 08: 51
                Quote: RedFox71
                Stop!!! I’ll ask for a link to my words, where I ADVOCATE for a unitary shot!


                Quote: Joker
                Can we imagine the difference between a unitary shot and a charge in AZ?! What is most likely to detonate when the armor is penetrated?! Hint: a direct hit on the ammunition rack is not necessary for detonation!


                - or did I misunderstand you?
                1. Redfox71
                  0
                  6 July 2011 20: 11
                  Wrong. I am about the difference between unitary and separate, but not for unitary AT ALL.
          2. Joker
            0
            5 July 2011 09: 34
            By the way, this is precisely the fact that they only had AZ in the Leclerc, and in tanks of the same generation as the T-64/72/80, it is simply absent.

            I agree that there is a disadvantage to such a placement (under the floor), but if you look at the actual use of equipment (tanks in that area), the survivability of the crew and the reliability of the equipment, often even after being hit by several RPGs, are at a very high level.

            And the Leclerc you praised is a very unreliable thing in terms of electronics, a fact.
            1. Redfox71
              0
              6 July 2011 00: 21
              After actual use, the level of crew protection in “T” tanks became clear. So much so that even the domestic generals now do not want to purchase dozens of times modernized "masterpieces" of the military-industrial complex of the Soviet era, but demand something more modern...

              And once again: Where did I PRAISE Leclerc?! Link, please, to my words!
              1. Joker
                +1
                6 July 2011 08: 38
                Any tank can be disabled, we both understand that.

                For example, let's take Abrash (just the entire BC behind the partition in the tower).
                Even despite the presence of a partition (during intense shooting, it is apparently not closed by the loader), it sometimes remains open and precisely at the moment of possible return fire (they are probably not shooting at haystacks), and accordingly, during detonation, the turret remains in place, but the tank with its crew cannot be restored.

                As for our Ts, I agree that in the future it might be worth moving away from this arrangement, but based on the fact that everything is learned by comparison, I would not criticize it so much.

                Perhaps you have statistics on flying turrets, but as far as I know there are not many such cases compared to the total number of hits, while at the same time there are quite a lot of irretrievably lost abrams.
                1. Redfox71
                  +1
                  6 July 2011 20: 20
                  If you are really interested in the statistics of irreplaceable Abrams (and not the screams of assholes, like “there are packs of them from RPGs”), I can try to get it...
              2. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 08: 53
                Quote: RedFox71
                In contrast to the same Leclerc, where the AZ and ammunition are located in the turret niche and isolated from the commander and gunner.
                1. Redfox71
                  0
                  6 July 2011 20: 09
                  Here we’re actually talking about Leclerc’s DIFFERENCE, and not about PRAISE...
          3. Joker
            0
            5 July 2011 10: 09
            Quote: RedFox71
            Then, please - in more detail, with the names of the units that allegedly opposed each other on Merkavas and T-72s. I am especially interested in the information about the “turret torn down by a high-explosive shot”...


            - listen, I read this article in TIM (Equipment and Armament) about five years ago, if you want, look at btvt.narod.ru, maybe you’ll find something similar there.

            Quote: RedFox71
            For recovery - no, but for the crew - a VERY big difference - whether it is possible to leave the damaged tank, or whether it has already been torn into two parts!


            - I said that in the event of detonation of ammunition, it makes no difference whether the turret is on the tank or lying to the side.
            1. Redfox71
              +2
              6 July 2011 00: 04
              Oh, so our magazine “Equipment and Armament” is the most authoritative source on the Arab-Israeli wars?! Well, then, doubts aside!... Maybe we can also bring in television, a program like “I am an eyewitness”?! There will also be witnesses who personally fired at Merkavas from Syrian T-72s... wink

              Once again, slowly: In the event of detonation of ammunition in the AZ, the crew does not survive.
              If the ammunition is separated from the crew by an armored partition, and there are knockout panels, then the chances of survival are quite high!
              In all T-type tanks, the turret plays the role of a knockout panel!
              Do you understand the difference now?
              1. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 08: 19
                The article made reference to the area and period of hostilities.

                As for the authority of the source - in many ways, yes, although nonsense can come across everywhere.
              2. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 09: 01
                Quote: RedFox71
                Do you understand the difference now?


                - No, damn it, I discovered America.

                Do you have statistics: have they always worked properly? The question is based on the presence of irretrievable losses of Pindos in Iraq.

                As for the example with the forty-five - and the unitary shot - I will repeat once again until this caliber, the shells do not detonate, the rest can explode, and as far as I understand, the larger the caliber, the more.
          4. Joker
            0
            5 July 2011 16: 16
            Quote: RedFox71
            What kind of screen is used to cover the ammunition rack on the T-90?!


            - read more books, good and different.
            1. Redfox71
              +1
              6 July 2011 00: 08
              Is there really nothing to answer?!
              Where are the charges in the core? Do we have any idea? Or will we refer to good books?

              And where did you see the screen?! Or are you confused with the on-board screen?! :)
              1. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 09: 28
                When I have time, I’ll find the source and post a link, but to be honest, I didn’t think that such an expert as you want to seem doesn’t know about this.
                1. Redfox71
                  0
                  6 July 2011 20: 06
                  I would like a link!!!

                  Because even on the T-90A, alas, there are no armored partitions insulating the equipment from charges.
              2. Joker
                0
                6 July 2011 12: 49
                By the way, apart from exclamations of a flying tower and detonation, there were no specifics.

                The sufferer will find it, if you want to find information that the T-** family is at the level of the third world war, you will find it, but if you look objectively, as it was noted, any solution has both minuses and pluses, our tanks have more pluses and they are more significant.
                1. Redfox71
                  0
                  6 July 2011 21: 08
                  The fact of the matter is that the disadvantages have long outweighed! And this is not just my personal opinion!
                  We can compare:
                  The first MINUS (and in my opinion the most important) is the poor survivability of the crew
                  The dense layout comes from this: the charges in the AZ are not isolated and are located in the fighting compartment. The rest of the ammunition is not isolated - in the same place; the tank rack is NOT ISOLATED and is also located in the fighting compartment (this is generally beyond good and evil...)
                  Will we continue with the BIUS, control system, and engine?...
                  1. Joker
                    0
                    27 July 2011 15: 30
                    For RedFox71

                    I can’t find the source on the AZ screen now.

                    According to the modified AZ of the T-90
                    http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w7_2010/0045_t90.htm

                    Rolled armor plates provided, with equal strength of protection, lower metal consumption and, accordingly, lower structural weight. In addition, the internal volume increased slightly, which subsequently allowed the use of new longer sub-caliber ammunition with 20% increased armor penetration.

                    As for the developed niche as a modernization option, this is precisely for placing those same shells with increased armor penetration, while the main AZ remains under the floor.

                    The question of the number of standard activations of the ejector panels remained open, because the number of irretrievable losses of Abrams in Iraq, given the lack of resistance from the Iraqi army, is quite large.


                    In terms of control system and engine, the latest modifications of the T-90 are in no way inferior to the latest modifications of Abrams, and in terms of reliability they are significantly superior.
          5. Iskander73881
            0
            21 August 2013 12: 23
            Here is about the collision of the T-72 with the Merkavas, and about the torn off turret:
            "Lebanon, 1982
            The first tanks of the new generation to take part in real battles were the T-72 of the Syrian army and the Israeli Merkava Mk.1. On June 6, 1982, the fifth Arab-Israeli war began. In Operation Peace for Galilee, the Israeli army, supported by heavy air strikes, invaded southern Lebanon and began advancing towards Beirut, smashing the Syrian-backed Palestine Liberation Organization camps.
            For the first two days of fighting, the Israelis were opposed only by the Palestinian brigades "Ain Jalut", "Khatyn" and "El Qadissiya", armed with outdated Soviet weapons (in particular, T-34 and T-54 tanks). The main forces of the Syrian group in Lebanon - three divisions in the first echelon and two in the second - were in reserve areas at the beginning of the Israeli offensive. In the defense zone, only covering forces remained, as well as decoys - inflatable “tanks”, “guns” and “anti-aircraft missile launchers” camouflaged to match the color of the terrain, covered with metallic paint and equipped with thermal emitters simulating the operation of engines.
            Therefore, the first air and artillery strike of the Israelis before crossing the Zahrani River fell on practically nothing.
            The main tank battle unfolded on the morning of June 9: overnight, Syrian troops moved out of reserve areas and occupied pre-equipped defensive zones. At dawn, four Israeli divisions on a front more than 100 km wide - from the Mediterranean coast to the Garmon mountains - moved towards the enemy. About three thousand tanks and infantry fighting vehicles took part in the battle on both sides. The battle lasted all day and did not bring any clear success to any of the opponents. On the night of June 9-10, the Syrians carried out a powerful artillery counterattack on the enemy’s forward positions, and at dawn the Syrian barrage of fire fell on the second echelon of the Israelis. On June 10, their offensive practically ran out of steam along the entire front.
            During these battles, Syrian ground forces destroyed more than 160 Israeli tanks. A significant contribution to achieving success in the battles of June 9-10 was made by the T-72 tanks, which only recently entered service with the Syrian army. They were opposed by modernized M60A1 tanks (some of which were equipped with Israeli-made Blazer reactive mounted armor), as well as the latest Israeli Merkava Mk.1 vehicles (at the beginning of hostilities, Israel had 300 tanks of this type).
            As a rule, tank battles began at ranges of 1500-2000 m and ended at the line of approach to 1000 m. According to the chief military adviser to the Syrian Ministry of Defense, General G.P. Yashkin, who personally took part in directing the fighting in Lebanon, T- tanks 72 showed their complete superiority over enemy armored vehicles. The greater mobility, better protection and high firepower of these vehicles had an effect. So, after the battle, up to 10 dents from enemy “blanks” were counted in the front plates of some “seventy-twos”, nevertheless the tanks retained their combat capability and did not leave the battle. At the same time, 125-mm T-72 shells confidently hit enemy vehicles head-on at a range of up to 1500 meters. So, according to one of the eyewitnesses - a Soviet officer who was in the battle formations of the Syrian troops - after a D-81TM cannon shell hit a Merkava tank from a distance of approximately 1200 m, the latter’s turret was torn off its shoulder strap.”
      2. Iskander73881
        0
        21 August 2013 12: 09
        Teared down the T-72 turret on the Merkava. And the explosions of ammunition in Merkavas and Abrams are no less common than in the T-72. If the T-72 does not expose its side, then you will explode its ammunition. But for the Merkava, even in order to shoot you have to expose your side - the heat from the running engine interferes. Merkava - T-72 thing!
  55. 0
    22 May 2011 09: 48
    It's funny that to fire an anti-aircraft machine gun, a man climbs out of a hatch.
  56. amv.70
    0
    23 May 2011 20: 19
    It seems to have a turret from an Israeli Merkal, a platform from a T-72, and rollers that seem to be from a T-64.
    1. Joker
      +1
      26 May 2011 11: 09
      This is a “clone” of the T-72, including the chassis, even the turret has a lot in common (for example, the hatch for ejecting spent cartridges has a completely similar design and location). Something else moved.
  57. Superduck
    0
    7 June 2011 17: 09
    The engine and transmission are from Kharkov, they are happy with it. It looks like there is a modern thermal imager. Further, this laser is quite an interesting piece of crap as an addition to AZ, but it’s not a panacea, of course; however, no one else has anything like this anymore, and I personally wouldn’t want to lose my retina from this crap; however, it’s not clear how it reacts to false targets, for example, broken glass and window, won't he go crazy? The shape of the tower doesn’t mean anything now, usually there is a classic teardrop-shaped tower, then AZ and other shielding on top, what is located on top according to different principles against homogeneous armor. The chassis from the T72, well, is considered one of the most oak ones, but it is shaking, the stabilizer will not save you from shaking when shooting, but you can live, cheaply and cheerfully, the main thing is to be reliable. Those. The result is quite a high-quality upgrade of the T-72, this means that the platform is reliable, apparently there is remote sensing, which is also good, electronics are also present, it is not clear what is true at the tactical level. The armament is similar to the T-72, although remote control of an anti-aircraft machine gun is now in fashion, although no one can say how effective it is, but if it is tied to a control system, it is better than a shooter on a turret.
  58. arxi07
    +1
    12 June 2011 23: 12
    Why in this interview, the Chinese designer does not compare their type 99 with our T-90, except for the barrel caliber, it’s somehow strange))))
  59. Odessa
    -1
    2 October 2011 02: 18
    Unfortunately, for certain objective reasons, I won't be able to write you a lot of interesting things, but I have something to do with the topic of non-intrusive "Chinese Kharkovites". In short, the Chinese learn very quickly and have learned to copy almost everything smartly. Moreover, they are very successful in “diluting” worn-out copies with local “flavor.” Type 99 has significant differences from the T-72 and, no offense to the Russians, it is a cut above it, including the latest modifications. And the T-90 (with the T-90S it can also easily compete), and the T-84 - there.
    The main topic was: aerosol and laser optoelectronic suppression and warning systems, a mechanical transmission, a gun (we were closely considering the possibility of installing another 120 mm gun), a Chinese version of the engine (at that time completely crude) and something else. From Ukraine there were several groups of specialists in different areas. It was the gun that caused the greatest difficulties. The Chinese made a good control system and new power supply units for it (the new thermobaric power supply unit was especially good, instead of the long-outdated T-72-90 HE), although initially it came with a regular o.- high-explosive. No matter what some comrades write, the control system of the T-84 (including the T-80 and T-90) and the “restyled” T-64 are the stone age against the Type 99. It’s better not to write about communications at all - one thing frustration. We can learn and learn from the Chinese in this. But the gun is problematic. The Chinese barrel is enough for almost three times fewer shots than even the 2A46 T-72 (the T-90 also has an improved gun). And after 3 firing a rocket (redesigned by the Chinese Reflex) through the barrel - you can immediately scrap it (the Chinese prefer to keep quiet about this). After firing rockets it gives a significant distortion for conventional power supplies. And the wear of the barrel is almost catastrophic (on the T-72 it’s also not a standard, but better) Fortunately, it can be changed quite easily. One of the difficult problems to solve was the transmission (borrowed from the T-72M). The car is much heavier than the T-72, and the wear and tear on the chassis is an order of magnitude higher. And the maximum speed characteristics stated on the website do not correspond to the real ones (by 10 km/h they are definitely overestimated). Well, unless from a high hill or towing a tank behind an airplane .This is true. The tank is noisy. But the special coating makes it unnoticeable to the radars of the same attack aircraft, and even in a thermal imager already at 1000 m it is practically “not visible”. The Chinese have an excellent thermal imager. They either ripped it off from the Israelis (they also took some part ), or the French. Aiming at a distance of 2000-2500 m does not cause any difficulties (depending on the size of the target), and target detection occurs at a distance of 4-5 km at night or in bad weather. Active protection clearly works against ATGM 2 -3rd generation Bassoon, Competition, Tou-2, Javelin, etc. (note: there was an emphasis on protection against Russian ATGMs. Why is a good question. Maybe because the neighbors have a lot of them, for example, the Vietnamese, or maybe...). The protection worked well against laser-guided ATGMs, such as Hellfire There were also good results in disrupting the guidance of missiles, guided cluster bombs or air-launched bombs with laser and satellite guidance. They learned how to make excellent GPS jammers (by the way, I strongly suspect that in the Russian Federation the technology was either stolen or bought. Although in Russia MBT I have never seen such technologies).
    There is more space for the crew in the fighting compartment than in any Ukrainian-Soviet-Russian MBT (well, the Chinese themselves are not Gullivers, of course). The turret roof is better protected than that of the T-72, but still weak, although according to the Chinese, it must withstand cumulative damage from the Smerch class RZSO cartridge. I doubt it. I wrote for the gun. Another significant shortcoming I can note is the weak resistance to medium electronic warfare electronics (they continue to work on this), as well as the vulnerability of the crew to the partition from the ammunition (although not a panacea) as on the T-72, a rather vulnerable “body kit” of means of observation, communication, active protection, guidance even from small-caliber weapons fire - the configuration of the turret was not entirely successfully changed, taking all the same weak points as in the T-72, and shells often They either go under the tower (a very weak place) or ricochet at a slight angle, “combing” all the bulges. Although I can’t say anything specific about the reservation at all (I wrote about the roof of the tower). What have the Chinese screwed up and screwed up, it’s closed behind seven locks. I know for sure that the combination machine is very different from the T-72, but what exactly and how many, and where - sorry. I don’t really know anything about the standing “killer” generator (they weren’t installed on the experimental machines, although there were enough additional connectors and “free” fasteners), allowing you to fix the direction of the attack and blind the enemy gunner operator. It indicates the direction (with the help of our system, which has already determined it), but for the rest of its capabilities there are a lot of questions and it’s not clear at all, how to do it through a bunch of filters and so on. Is it possible to blind someone and disable the optics?! In most modern tanks, even the driver mechanics no longer look through the triplexes, not to mention the gunner or tank commander. Although maybe, again, against the T-34-85, which are still The Vietnamese have these things and they work. Although, as for me, either the Chinese are not telling something or the effectiveness of this device is greatly exaggerated.
    In general, the car is not bad, with its own “bugs”. A number of shortcomings of the machine can not be eliminated in this already shattered hull configuration and base (base T-72!). Type 99 is a strong opponent for the T-90, Abrams M1A2 or Leopard A4, but has horseradish protection of the bottom from mines (like T -72) and is not integrated for conducting, for example, a setentric warrior (not included in the integrated information network) like M1A2SEP or A6. The system is good for leading a previous generation warrior. The Chinese understand this. Therefore, most likely, they limited themselves to a fairly limited party. Yes, and it turned out to be not cheap.
  60. coast
    -1
    24 December 2011 01: 43
    ahhhhhhhh, China T 72 has been modernized
  61. Oskal
    0
    15 November 2012 19: 14
    The Type99 cannot be called the best tank, much less a completely new one. What immediately catches your eye is how similar it is to the T82 T90, etc... After all, the Chinese have been copying our tanks for a very long time. And tanks are not the main asset in modern warfare. Russia's nuclear potential is the largest in the world. Even if the Chinese or Americans shoot down a poplar missile flying at them (and I’m generally silent about Satan), then a blast wave will reach them.
    The Russian army does not have a large number of T90s since the peace treaty limits the number of military equipment and army. In the event of war, the treaty loses its force and then the army and weapons will be in huge quantities in Russia. As for the US Abrams tanks, the Afghans destroyed them with old Soviet RPGs, then judge for yourself.
  62. ri3na
    0
    2 June 2013 22: 16
    Quote: ML
    Ivan ,

    And Merkava-4, or even Merkava-3? For the first time, an automatic transmission was introduced on a treshka ...
    In the Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs ALWAYS had 2-3 times more tanks (and aircraft, by the way, too). So what? T-55, and sometimes T-72 burned like cardboard. Therefore, it does not matter who made the first tank, and who copied from whom. Discipline, technology, manufacturing, training, and, of course, morale - these are the components of success.
    1. Iskander73881
      0
      21 August 2013 11: 40
      They try not to allow the vaunted Merkava 4 to reach the front line; they are used mainly as self-propelled guns - losses are high on the front line. (From old stuff like T-72) Didn’t the Merkavas burn? Is everyone so young and skating?
  63. Iskander73881
    0
    21 August 2013 11: 38
    These are all words. A true assessment can only be given in real combat conditions. Abrams and Merkavas were also promoted as the best, but the result? Abrams are generally going to be removed from the assembly line, Merkavas have stopped being released to the front lines, they work almost like self-propelled guns. And the T-72, slandered by all Westerners, fought and continues to fight!!! So which tank is better?
  64. 0
    17 May 2016 11: 07
    The type 99 tank is not bad - it has good fire control system, power, SIZE of frontal armor, silhouette, however...
    the gun is a generation lower, the service life and endurance of the vehicle are in question, reliability also raises questions.
    As for the armor, there are also questions here. This is not English designer armor. This is CHINA. And they said the thickness is geometric, but in reality there is spaced armor, oriented towards cumulative and the real thickness there is not so high. In general, the durability of Chinese armor is in question. I think that the new 125mm guns, which are now installed on the T90 and armata, have a chance to penetrate the turret simply in the forehead, not to mention the hull.
    Let's go further. For some reason, I have confidence that a tank on board, even equipped with remote sensing, will not hold the new tandem anti-tank missiles. The active laser illumination system is interesting, however, if others have not installed it, it has significant disadvantages. Active protection against missiles. I'm sure it's far from perfect. These are not the Japanese, who pour wine using a superbly tuned gun stabilizer. This is CHINA. Looks good, but crumbles when tested. I think that BlackPanther2, Armata and Carrot have active defense that is much more effective.
    Separately, I would like to touch on the layout - in my opinion, with the Type99, not everything is smooth in the turret.
    Conclusion: the tank is certainly serious and dangerous, however, in no case is it better than others. I don’t believe that a tank created using technologies 20-30 years ago will be superior to modern vehicles like the Leopard-3, T90, Black Panther, Armata, Leclerc.