China's Deadly Type 99 Tank vs. Russia's T-90 and America's M-1 Abrams

[Malik Alashter]

In that video YES, but the original thread's title says only "Type 99 Tank vs. Russia's T-90 and America's M-1 Abrams"

Deino

then I didn't get you right sorry.

but is there any difference between the leo and the abrams?.

 

[WhyCry]

Ur statement is full of biasness.

It's already stated that the Type 99 has the fastest speed. How is Russia being the 'most agile' when it's the slowest out of the 3. Or is it because the Arjun is an export variant of the Russian T-90 that makes u think it's the 'most agile'. Define what is 'most advanced'- advanced in what? M1 has a 120mm gun- the Type 99 has a 125mm one- yet according to you, M1 has the most firepower.

T-90 has the best protection suite of all of them and is actually improved by its advanced reactive armour.

As for comparing, M1 to Type 99, There is no comparison. Though Type 99 has a longer bore. M1 has advanced cannon with sophisticated software (battle proven), higher rate of fire, more types of artillery types, 3-4 machine guns and a survivability level way higher than anything else.

 

[Deino]

T-90 has the best protection suite of all of them and is actually improved by its advanced reactive armour.

As for comparing, M1 to Type 99, There is no comparison. Though Type 99 has a longer bore. M1 has advanced cannon with sophisticated software (battle proven), higher rate of fire, more types of artillery types, 3-4 machine guns and a survivability level way higher than anything else.

And the funny thing on that all over so much praised cannon ... it is a German one originally design for the Leo II !

 

[WhyCry]

And the funny thing on that all over so much praised cannon ... it is a German one originally design for the Leo II !

Yes for the A5's. They moved to the longer bore but US didn't because their tanks are heavy and they use ultra heavy Uranium layer during combat operations.

 

[Penguin]

US was tinkering with future wheeled tanks, I wonder if they have changed their mind?

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/general-dynamics-griffin-dont-call-it-a-tank-its-totally-a-tank/
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...ept-demonstrator-army-m1-abrams-miniature.htm

 

[Penguin]

Ur statement is full of biasness.

It's already stated that the Type 99 has the fastest speed. How is Russia being the 'most agile' when it's the slowest out of the 3. Or is it because the Arjun is an export variant of the Russian T-90 that makes u think it's the 'most agile'. Define what is 'most advanced'- advanced in what? M1 has a 120mm gun- the Type 99 has a 125mm one- yet according to you, M1 has the most firepower.

Agile means 'characterized by quickness, lightness, and ease of movement; nimble'. The Russian T-90 could have the lowest top road speed while still being having the best speed in the field, or turn rate, or accelleration, or a combination thereof, which one could call 'agility'. When comparing Leo2, M1 Abrams and Challenger I/II, the latter is often said to be the best off-road, while the Abrams and Leo2 are clearly faster on roads.

Don't attack someone on the Arjun when that person hasn't even mentioned it in its post. That is just lame.

Advanced means 'at a high level of development' absolutely (i.e. at the forefront of development or technology) or relatively (ahead of others in the same field). If you say 'advanced tank' that refers to all aspects (firepower, mobility, protection, C4I).

When comparing the relative merits of the US/German 120mm smoothbore and the Russian or Chinese 125mm, it is not the caliber that matters but barrel length and the nature of the round. So long as the Russians or Chinese use an autoloader and two-piece ammunition, the one-piece 120mm round (with a longer, heavier penetrator) will have the advantage.

All the Russian 125mm's from 2A26 through 2A46M have a barrel length of 6000mm. So, they are 125mm L48. Ukraine makes these as KBA-1, KBA-3 and KBA3K 125 mm tank guns.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://www.morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kba3.php
http://www.morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kbm1m.php

Ukraine offers a 120mm smoothbore for upgrading Russian tanks, with a bustle mounted autoloader. It is called KBA-2 and also has a barrel length of 6000mm (L50)
http://www.morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kbm2.php

The US M256 gun is essentially the Rheinmtall 120mm L44. As the standard NATO smoothbore gun for main battle tanks Leopard 2 and AbramsM1A1, Rheinmetall’s L44 tank gun proved superior to all rivals in the 120 mm arena. The German Rheinmetall 120mm barrel on Leo2 originally was L44 (5280mm) but in newer versions is replaced by an L55 barrel (6600m). A difference of 1320mm. In the L 55, a larger share of the energy resulting from a round being fired is converted into greater velocity. This leads to an enormous increase in maximum range.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...mmunition/direct_fire/large_calibre/index.php

The main armament of the T-14 Armata is the 2A82-1M 125 mm smoothbore cannon, a replacement for the 2A46. The 2A82-M1 is undoubtly much more powerful than any previous 125mm gun, it uses a full new technology and larger chamber for a new pattern of semi combustible propellant case. It's said to be 15-20% superior to the recognized king, the 120 L55. 2A46-M5 is the best and latest iteration of the 2A46, it equips T-90A, T-72B3 and some T-80U. This gun is already approaching L55 120mm performance, and outclass the L44 by a good margin, it's comparable to the French 120mmL52.

Rheinmetall Weapon and Munition has unveiled a new 130 mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory 2016 in Paris. The new 130 mm smoothbore gun is an L/51 weapon (6630mm).
http://www.janes.com/article/61255/eurosatory-2016-rheinmetall-lifts-the-lid-on-new-130-mm-tank-gun

The new 130 mm gun is a precondition for the future tank, known as ‘Main Ground Combat System’ (MGCS) being developed by Germany. MGCS is currently being developed by Germany and France as a future replacement for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks, in response to T-14 Armata.
http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html

Both Leo 2 and Abrams in the past have trialled with 140mm cannon...

Swiss

German

with XM291

Abrams CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Testbed).

 

[CorporateAffairs]

Tanks are thing of the past.
Need missiles with accuracy and range.

 

[lcloo]

You are right, this one in below photo out range and out fight the best tank in the world.

Bear in mind though..... However, the next generation of main battle tank will have radar and MAWS and advance anti-anti-tank missile defence because spear and shield will always want to outdo each other.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Interesting article. Seems both China and Russia are outpacing US on tank design. The M1A2 Abrams is a capable tank, but US should think inducting a new tank soon. I know it's not a priority for them, but something the Pentagon should consider.

Unfortunately man portable weapons (and determined IED's) are outpacing tank defenses. Also the Iraq war shows tanks can be easily picked off from the air or nailed with long distance smart GPS artillery shells.

I think they'd be more interested in drone tech than building a tank with people in it.

 

[dingyibvs]

From the air, sure, but portable weapons and IEDs are not gonna make a difference in large scale warfare. They're good for picking off an odd tank here and there, but they're not gonna stop a tank formation from overrunning your position. All measures have countermeasures, tanks are't invincible, but smart munitions can be jammed and missiles can be shot down. You can't deviate bullets, but that's what the tanks are for, they shield all the troops behind it from bullets, which let's not forget is the primary purpose of the tank.

 

[Penguin]

Unfortunately man portable weapons (and determined IED's) are outpacing tank defenses. Also the Iraq war shows tanks can be easily picked off from the air or nailed with long distance smart GPS artillery shells.

I think they'd be more interested in drone tech than building a tank with people in it.

BS. It is well known and has been well understood for many years that in urban warfare scenarios tank are at risk. There is no magical new development in anti-tank weapons, whether manportable or vehicle mounted (wheeled or tracked vehicles with long range ATGWs aren't new either)

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

BS. It is well known and has been well understood for many years that in urban warfare scenarios tank are at risk. There is no magical new development in anti-tank weapons, whether manportable or vehicle mounted (wheeled or tracked vehicles with long range ATGWs aren't new either)

Well maybe I should have stressed the IED part more. Not many US tanks/vehicles in Iraq were destroyed by other tanks. Certainly IEDs were a big problem. Also the US wasn't going to play the same game the Soviets did in Afghanistan and drive tanks down winding mountain trails into kill zones.

So tanks have their limitations. We did the drone thing instead.

 

[Penguin]

Well maybe I should have stressed the IED part more. Not many US tanks/vehicles in Iraq were destroyed by other tanks. Certainly IEDs were a big problem. Also the US wasn't going to play the same game the Soviets did in Afghanistan and drive tanks down winding mountain trails into kill zones.

So tanks have their limitations. We did the drone thing instead.

See Grozny

 

[Penguin]

Well maybe I should have stressed the IED part more. Not many US tanks/vehicles in Iraq were destroyed by other tanks. Certainly IEDs were a big problem. Also the US wasn't going to play the same game the Soviets did in Afghanistan and drive tanks down winding mountain trails into kill zones.

So tanks have their limitations. We did the drone thing instead.

Exactly. IF you put a tank in a situation for which it isn't designed or intended, or if you put it there alone (without proper support), it will fail.