Beast from the east
- Thread starter Mr Evil
- Start date
Rogue Soldat
Mongoose
The Type-98 is a prototype Tank, the latest version is the Type-99 which is more or less on par with the Abram. However, with that said the Chinese are always upgrading their equipment these day with the influx from trade with the Americans.
Rogue Soldat said:
LMAO the T-99 on par with an Abrams HAH!!!!
the chasis is basically an upgraded T-72 with reactive armor:
http://www.excaliburarmy.cz/editor/image/homepage/Image/t72.JPG
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type994.asp
im not saying the Abrams is the best tank in the world, as it didnt handle better than any of the Leapord 2s. Challengers, or Leclercs but the T-99 aint as good as an Abrams, sorry. id provide more reference, but i have to get to class im running late as it is
crucible_orc
Mongoose
No, the Type 99 is the one he was talking about. it's design is based on a T-72 hull, although it is a fair bit larger then a regular T-72. ALL of that change has been armour. also, the Chinese use a Depleted uranium sabot round that is equivalent to it's Russian counterpart. I might dd that even western estimates place the Russian 125mm DU ABFSDS-T round with the highest of ANY modern DU APFSDS-T round.
even saying that, we know very little about the actual type-99. I'd say it could be on par with the Abrams but we just won't know any time soon. Chinese optics and stabilization are very advanced. more advanced then the Russian Federation. possibly on par with the Western militaries.
What it comes down to is that the Chinese are *very* resourceful. in the 80s, before tiananmen Square, they got a handful of NATO 105mm tank guns. they reverse engineered them, and in 5 years had a more effective version, with Ammo better then comparable Western rounds, beginning production and entering service.
As for the Type 98, it was never put into service. I believe that 12 or so were observed in a parade. however, take a look at the Type-96. it's very similar, accept the turret has more contoured edges instead of the type 98's hard edges. Apparently the intent is to have the Type 96 as the more common main battle tank and to give the Type-99 to elite front line units.
Underestimating the chinese would be a grave mistake for anyone.
now if only the BFevo chinese were compatible scale-wise with my TAG figures and vehicles.....
Steve
even saying that, we know very little about the actual type-99. I'd say it could be on par with the Abrams but we just won't know any time soon. Chinese optics and stabilization are very advanced. more advanced then the Russian Federation. possibly on par with the Western militaries.
What it comes down to is that the Chinese are *very* resourceful. in the 80s, before tiananmen Square, they got a handful of NATO 105mm tank guns. they reverse engineered them, and in 5 years had a more effective version, with Ammo better then comparable Western rounds, beginning production and entering service.
As for the Type 98, it was never put into service. I believe that 12 or so were observed in a parade. however, take a look at the Type-96. it's very similar, accept the turret has more contoured edges instead of the type 98's hard edges. Apparently the intent is to have the Type 96 as the more common main battle tank and to give the Type-99 to elite front line units.
Underestimating the chinese would be a grave mistake for anyone.
now if only the BFevo chinese were compatible scale-wise with my TAG figures and vehicles.....
Steve
mainly because it is at least 5 years out of date 
Rogue Soldat
Mongoose
The Type-99 isn’t a simple upgraded T-72, despite western perceptions of the weapon. However, a lot of this is based on Russian technology, with a lot of other indigenous development. With that said, the Type-99 MBT isn’t the Type-99 Light Tank. Not sure what exactly is your point is, as the Type-99 is a pretty modern tank approaching the M1 standard.
"im not saying the Abrams is the best tank in the world, as it didnt handle better than any of the Leapord 2s. Challengers, or Leclercs but the T-99 aint as good as an Abrams, sorry. id provide more reference, but i have to get to class im running late as it is"
Chinese technology has been rapidly advancing in the last twenty years. The Abrams is a tested design, perhaps not the best; but perhaps one of the best- that is something unarguable. However, the Chinese design is something that’s relatively new and untested; it isn’t a T-72, the Chinese without a doubt had to address this issue after witnessing the Gulf War. Most of its features are classified, along with the fact that the system itself is unproven in combat. I doubt some kid that can’t capitalize somehow has a magical ball that has all the specs about the systems ;D On many publications, the Type-98 was speculating to be approaching the Abram level; hence I said that the Type-99 is more or less near the Abrams level. However, since there are many here that are either more or patriotic than I am, or skeptics of Russian technology- especially after the magnificent failure of the snapped on scrap models of Type-72s; I’ll merely end with this: All of these models are expected to be updated again within five years just as seen with the 99 models, if it isn’t more or less ‘on par’ now it should be by the next update.
Now before I get bombarded by useless articles stating how crappy the T-72s have done, by people who don’t even know that the newer Russian T-90/80 models evolved from them, and that they are different- I’m going to get back to reading for my political science class.
"im not saying the Abrams is the best tank in the world, as it didnt handle better than any of the Leapord 2s. Challengers, or Leclercs but the T-99 aint as good as an Abrams, sorry. id provide more reference, but i have to get to class im running late as it is"
Chinese technology has been rapidly advancing in the last twenty years. The Abrams is a tested design, perhaps not the best; but perhaps one of the best- that is something unarguable. However, the Chinese design is something that’s relatively new and untested; it isn’t a T-72, the Chinese without a doubt had to address this issue after witnessing the Gulf War. Most of its features are classified, along with the fact that the system itself is unproven in combat. I doubt some kid that can’t capitalize somehow has a magical ball that has all the specs about the systems ;D On many publications, the Type-98 was speculating to be approaching the Abram level; hence I said that the Type-99 is more or less near the Abrams level. However, since there are many here that are either more or patriotic than I am, or skeptics of Russian technology- especially after the magnificent failure of the snapped on scrap models of Type-72s; I’ll merely end with this: All of these models are expected to be updated again within five years just as seen with the 99 models, if it isn’t more or less ‘on par’ now it should be by the next update.
Now before I get bombarded by useless articles stating how crappy the T-72s have done, by people who don’t even know that the newer Russian T-90/80 models evolved from them, and that they are different- I’m going to get back to reading for my political science class.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Personally I reckon the out of the tanks mentioned in decending order of 'goodness' I would rate:
Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II, Challenger I, T99/M1A1 (about equal)
Cant comment on the Leclerc as I know nothing about it.
Incidentally the reason I rate the Abrams over the Challenger is mainly down to the Abrahms being SLIGHTLY faster and more small arms firepower. As a tank hunter the Challenger is better due to its rifled barrel simply being more accurate (though the Abrhams smoothbore gun is pretty damn accurate anyway and I daresay is less prone to malfunctioning....)
Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II, Challenger I, T99/M1A1 (about equal)
Cant comment on the Leclerc as I know nothing about it.
Incidentally the reason I rate the Abrams over the Challenger is mainly down to the Abrahms being SLIGHTLY faster and more small arms firepower. As a tank hunter the Challenger is better due to its rifled barrel simply being more accurate (though the Abrhams smoothbore gun is pretty damn accurate anyway and I daresay is less prone to malfunctioning....)
Rogue Soldat
Mongoose
Sounds just about right, although certain people would argue one or the other would lose a place up or down. In the end, tank developments as with military development come with economy. Can’t have a modern tank in twenty years without the backbone of economic development!
Rogue Soldat
Mongoose
“To accommodate more equipment and ammunition, the Type 99's turret is slightly larger than that of the Type 90, resulting in a gap between the turret and hull in the front. This could be a major disadvantage in battle as it acts as a shot trap (much like the overhang on the German Leopard 2 and Israeli Merkava) and exposes the turret ring, increasing the likelihood of hits from the front jamming the turret.”
Seems to be a common tank issue
Seems to be a common tank issue
