Chinese Type 99A MBT. Best MBT in Asia.

[Type59]

Type 10 is not developed to have a first killed capabilities. And you expect a 40tons MBT to have magical armour to stand on same level as 54 tons mbt?

Type 10 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Don't be hype by just Japan has some great electronic technology in consumer sector and that translate to superior military tech. Tell me why the F-2 fighter didn't become the mainstay of JMSDF? It was the first AESA fighter and with BVRAAM developed in asia. But the tech is a utter failure. Japan end up continue using F-4J and pin their hope on F-35.

Well going by the weight logic, Arjun has the best armour in Asia. It is around 68 tons.

From global security:

The vehicle's armor consists of modular sections, providing the ability to mount varying degrees of protection depending on the mission profile and weight requirements. Vehicle weight is 40 tonnes in base configuration, 44 tonnes in standard configuration, and 48 tonnes in full configuration (fully equipped).

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Well going by the weight logic, Arjun has the best armour in Asia. It is around 68 tons.

Heavier does not mean better armor. Maus was 188 tons.

Panzer VIII Maus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jaybird]

Well going by the weight logic, Arjun has the best armour in Asia. It is around 68 tons.

From global security:

The vehicle's armor consists of modular sections, providing the ability to mount varying degrees of protection depending on the mission profile and weight requirements. Vehicle weight is 40 tonnes in base configuration, 44 tonnes in standard configuration, and 48 tonnes in full configuration (fully equipped).

The weight logic make sense with tanks from normal countries. But India and Arjun are not quite normal, therefore both can not be analyzes with normal logic.

 

[Oldman1]

Aside ego, how can you prove m1a2 is best ? fighting the ababeel low tier tank or soviet era tanks ?

Soviet Era tanks, if I remember correctly, the Abrams tanks was built to take on Soviet Era tanks when introduced in 1980s. And since its been constantly upgraded to handle newer threats, I can laugh about it.

M1A2 has much more armor and protection around top and side than 99A. Also M1A2 has better gun and ammunition developed to defeat best Russian and Chinese ERA armor upgrades. ZPT-98 like Russian guns have more energy and pressure but because of automatic loading, they cannot fire same quality armor piercing round with full length due to ammunition storage layout of automatic loading. Some advantages but some disadvantages. M1A2 is over 60 ton and 99A is around 55 ton. Just like Type 10 is too easy to destroy even from front because of very low armor, it is also much faster and if Type 10 can shoot first and manage to hit target, it can defeat M1A2 or 99A. Many things on stabilizing gun and computer to control the firing is important with this.

So it is no easy question to say which one is better. They have own advantage but Type 10 is simply too expensive.

The Abrams are over 70tons now with the addition of added armor, ERAs and APS together.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Don't be hype by just Japan has some great electronic technology in consumer sector and that translate to superior military tech.

Japan doesn't have good consumer electronics. Proof: what's a Japanese smartphone or PC?

They are good at industrial products, but even here their lack of IOT capability, garbage user interfaces and poor maintainability makes them not as good as US or Chinese products. As someone who evaluates industrial equipment all the time, I dread Japanese products and never recommend them unless forced to due to legacy reasons. US products are easy to use with amazing service, while Chinese products are cost effective and have significant IOT capabilities.

 

[Beast]

Well going by the weight logic, Arjun has the best armour in Asia. It is around 68 tons.

From global security:

The vehicle's armor consists of modular sections, providing the ability to mount varying degrees of protection depending on the mission profile and weight requirements. Vehicle weight is 40 tonnes in base configuration, 44 tonnes in standard configuration, and 48 tonnes in full configuration (fully equipped).

Arjun, Leopard 2, Challenger and Abram do not have auto loader. They need to make the tank bigger to accommodate the loader crew. Therefore its heavier but doesnt mean thicker or better armour than auto loader tank which weights 48-56 tons.

Japanese type 10 and Type 99A and VT-4 are all auto loader tanks.. 40 tons vs 56 tons vs 54 tons. You do the maths and see which is better.

 

[Constantin84]

A Chinese variant of the T 72....Good for 3rd world nations but you can’t compare it with Western designs.

 

[Type59]

Arjun, Leopard 2, Challenger and Abram do not have auto loader. They need to make the tank bigger to accommodate the loader crew. Therefore its heavier but doesnt mean thicker or better armour than auto loader tank which weights 48-56 tons.

Japanese type 10 and Type 99A and VT-4 are all auto loader tanks.. 40 tons vs 56 tons vs 54 tons. You do the maths and see which is better.

Read that I stated its modular. Armour can be upgraded. Weight ranges from 40t to 48t. Japanese can always add ERA, Ukraine Duplex ERA is available or make home grown variant.

 

[sha ah]

According to Google
Armata costs 3.7 million USD
while VT-4 costs 4.9 million USD
That can't be right can it ?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

A Chinese variant of the T 72....Good for 3rd world nations but you can’t compare it with Western designs.

China never operated T-72 considering China and Russia were enemies until after 1991. Type 99A has nothing to do with T-72.

 

[LeGenD]

Arjun, Leopard 2, Challenger and Abram do not have auto loader. They need to make the tank bigger to accommodate the loader crew. Therefore its heavier but doesnt mean thicker or better armour than auto loader tank which weights 48-56 tons.

Japanese type 10 and Type 99A and VT-4 are all auto loader tanks.. 40 tons vs 56 tons vs 54 tons. You do the maths and see which is better.

Ammo storage is also separated from crew in modern NATO standard tanks including Abrams. This design contributes to turret size but also enhances safety of the crew.

NATO standard tanks are heavily armored on average because Western countries tend to value protection over sheer numbers in this matter. British and Americans in particular although the latter have numbers as well.

This is authentic information:

The afore-stated levels of protection are PLAIN BODY only (ERA and the sort excluded), and established against two different types of (modern) rounds that are optimized to penetrate very high levels of body armor from good distance. You can notice how those figures vary for one type of round to another type of round. ERA and the sort will enhance those figures subject to where they are applied.

The latest M1A2C is relatively better protected and heavier than the M1A2 SEP (considering PLAIN BODY only) - classified information nevertheless. Word is that the M1A2C is the most heavily armored tank in the world in the present.

Americans are developing another variant of Abrams as well which will be a substantial leap from the already very impressive M1A2C. Imagine this.

Therefore, gross tonnage can be a predictor of protection levels in tanks that are of the same generation or fielded in the span of one decade. Now which country is developing the tanks in question and how it is marketed in potential disclosures - these are important considerations as well.

Heavier does not mean better armor. Maus was 188 tons.

Panzer VIII Maus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Potential comparisons should be (logically) with same generation of tanks fielded around the world in the span of one decade, and not across different generations of tanks rolled out over a span of century. Body armor advances should be accounted for, and industrial bases of relevant countries can be predictors in this regard.

Maus was better protected than Tiger II which in turn was better protected than any other in times of World War II. Therefore, gross tonnage can be a predictor of protection levels in tanks that are of the same generation or fielded in the span of one decade. Of-course, industrial capacity and experience of the developer is also instructive in this matter.

 

[Beast]

A Chinese variant of the T 72....Good for 3rd world nations but you can’t compare it with Western designs.

Another ignorant statement. It's not even derived from T-72. The dimensions are totally wrong between these 2 tanks.

 

[sha ah]

I think its fair to say that Chinese tanks have been heavily inspired by Soviet designs. Especially early on there's no doubt that Chinese tanks, like the type 59, were copies of Soviet models. The captured T-62 also inspired Chinese tank designers. However as time went on Chinese tanks have more or less deviated enough from Soviet influence to be classified separately.

Another ignorant statement. It's not even derived from T-72. The dimensions are totally wrong between these 2 tanks.

 

[IblinI]

I think its fair to say that Chinese tanks have been heavily inspired by Soviet designs. Especially early on there's no doubt that Chinese tanks, like the type 59, were copies of Soviet models. The captured T-62 also inspired Chinese tank designers. However as time went on Chinese tanks have more or less deviated enough from Soviet influence to be classified separately.

this can be said to all Chinese defence sector but we have found our own path now, it wouldn't take too long before we can hear ppl talking about rus/us/chi design style.

 

[Beast]

this can be said to all Chinese defence sector but we have found our own path now, it wouldn't take too long before we can hear ppl talking about rus/us/chi design style.

You know then there are idiots who claim Type 055 destroyer is copy of AB destroyer....

These idiots need to get their head and eyes check.