Talk:Type 99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Why go to template

Why go to template: AFV over template: tank? Also, what's the source for 70 km/h road instead of 65?

Template:AFV is the "new improved" version; see template talk:AFV for the details and development. I don't know where the figures came from. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 17:01 Z

Since Template: AFV doesn't appear to automatically add 'mm' to armour values, would a description of armour composition [the old 'thought to be similar to the T-80'] in the absence of an explicit RHA value work in that field? Hrimfaxi 08:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It would definitely work; this kind of thing is one of the reasons template:AFV was created for. But "thought to be..." sounds like a weasel term, which doesn't generally work in an encyclopedia. "[secret]" is appropriate for unknown armour type, or "[composite]" if that can be confirmed by a respectable reference. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 09:08 Z

[edit] Inaccurate information

After purchasing one hundred T-80 tanks from Russia, the decision was made to incorporate some of its features into China's next-generation MBT, because the current generation of Chinese tanks were inadequate. The result was a new tank with a chassis similar to T-72 or T-80.

--------The PLA had never purchase T80 From any countries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaumanto (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

That is not true, it was widely reported that PLA purchased several hundred T80U in Janes 1998 I think


I doubt the no. of T80U purchased anyway. I didn't hear anything about several hundred T80U serve in PLA in mainland China's military forum nor media.


There was the rumor of the T-80U purchase and the subsequent deployment in the 38th Group Army. But now looking back, nothing ever came out of it from China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuethemighty (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length inconsistencies btwn articles

General comment for several MBT articles; sometimes the length provided is the GUN FORWARD length rather than the actual chassis length. I find this irritating, and I feel all lengths should be that of the chassis (e.g. 7.7m for Leopard 2). In this case, 11.0m is clearly the gun forward length. Otherwise, both lengths could be provided, although (in my opinion) the gun forward length seems redundant. The length of the gun barrel IS important as is chassis length. Agreed? Lokster 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I can't see the problem with calling it a smoothbore 'cannon.'

I can't see the problem with calling it a smoothbore 'cannon.' 'Tank cannon' is a commonly used term, at least in British-English. Also have no idea of the source of the RHA figures, but they're in the article [new subdivision 'armour'] so I moved them into the sidebar.Hrimfaxi 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannon is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to large artillery pieces or tank guns in popular writing, but please read "cannon". Today the term only refers to medium-calibre automatic cannon ("autocannon"). —Michael Z. 2006-01-1 05:05 Z
Cannon#Modern_cannon 'A cannon generally refers to a high velocity, low trajectory, direct fire weapon such as the main gun on most modern main battle tanks.' US Army Field Manuals also call them 'tank cannon,' see section 7-11. Hrimfaxi 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
So they do, and that seems to prove legitimacy for this usage. Tank gun still seems to me to be favoured by most publications, and it sounds right to me. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 05:37 Z

[edit] Armor

The article says adding ERA would boost the armor protection from 500mm to 1000mm RHAe. 1000 RHAe? Against what? Kinetic energy or chemical energy rounds? Modern composite armor offers different levels of resistance to kinetic and chemical energy. Resistance to chemical energy is invariablly higher to that of kinetic energy. If the equavalent given is kinetic, 500mm increase seems quite fantastic. The highly regarded Russian K-5 adds 250mm RHAe against KE weaponry. I don't see 500mm extra kinetic energy protection is likely.

-Chin, Cheng-chuan
I find such precise estimates of secret information to be dubious, anyway. Perhaps it should be removed. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 19:48 Z
Indeed, especially as the article later states that the armored composition remains unknown. Even assuming advances in HERA [Heavy ERA], which is possible considering testing, especially that done in China, I really doubt a 500mm increase in rolled homogenous equivalency against kinetic energy projectiles, and if that number is for chemical energy projectiles then the armor ratings should have both estimates and it should be specified. Right now it says 500mm & 1000mm... which doesn't make any sense at all. Invariably, ceramic armors generally reap higher resistance against APFSDS. IMO, this article needs to be revised... maybe I should do less complaining and more writing. JonCatalan 19:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the last comments. There is no cited source, anyway, and it shouldn't be even there. Mack. 04:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


"However, this tank is actually better armed and protected than the American M1/M2/M3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, as there are public photos of experimental Chinese composite armors, specficially Al2O3. "

 Have there been side by side tests done? or references that this is true?

[edit] How many have been made so far?

How many have been made so far? (Jaymano 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

According to the article on the tank from Sinodefense.com, more than 100 are in service with the PLA. But that article seems to be several years old and I've heard there are 200 - 500 tanks in service now. Sch614 20:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

The Type 99 is generally regarded as being comparable to the T-80 and T-90, and approaching the capabilities of the Challenger 2, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

Can this uncited passage be backed up? —Michael Z. 2006-08-29 20:37 Z

I doubt that it can be backed up. Sounds like opinion to me. God forbid the Chinese ever build something remotely comparable to western tanks. At least it is 'approaching' godly western technology...which seems to be advancing exponentially every year beyond the comprehension of inferior eastern humans, which are genetically incapable of reaching technological parity. Just ignore the Japanese and their state of the art robotics industry, after all they are 'western'.

[edit] Wedge

"The Leopard 2A5/6 also features this "wedge" on the turret front, which is (on the Leopard, anyway) deliberately designed in such a way as to subject an incoming APFSDS round to yaw forces. This places the penetrator under enormous stress, so much so that it may shear, thus preventing its penetration of the turret. The projectile still imparts its kinetic energy on the turret, but not in a fashion that will penetrate the armour."

Sloping the armour that way does improve protection,but I doubt it would not be possible for modern APDS and APFSDS to penetrate it. Dudtz 6/17/06 8:52 PM EST

[edit] Picture

We should get a picture of the Type 99 up, this one is a Type 98. -- Yuri

I've changed the picture to a Type 99 -- warset

Sweet! ;) -- Yuri