Type-99 vs T-90A

It would be interesting to see which part of the SCO has a better tank.

I would prefer the type 99 because-
faster speed

longer gun

has a bustle which doesnt limit the length of the projectile thus not having to be stuck with an ultra weak APSFDS round which has the same penetration as western designs in the mid 80s

the only advantages I could think of on the T-90A are availability of a gun launched ATGM and larger numbers

IIRC it uses the same auto loader as the T-72, the bustle is used like the one on the T-90SM, to keep the loose ammo out of the crew compartment. It doesn't have an auto loader in the bustle like object 640. The Type-99 can also use gun launched ATGM, China domestically produces a licensed copy of refleks.

I rather suspect Russian tank armour is better, but I also think "which is the best tank" discussions are meaningless.

Zivo wrote:IIRC it uses the same auto loader as the T-72, the bustle is used like the one on the T-90SM, to keep the loose ammo out of the crew compartment. It doesn't have an auto loader in the bustle like object 640. The Type-99 can also use gun launched ATGM, China domestically produces a licensed copy of refleks.

Well that makes the T-90A pretty much inferior in almost every way...

Can I get firm stats as to why the Type-99 is superior?

Because nothing indicates so.

Call me biased but I really wouldn't trust Chinese made tanks.

Here in New Zealand our government decided to invest in railway infrastructure and decided to build some rail cars. They had the choice of making them here, or buying from China and of course to save a small amount of money they spent a billion dollars in the Chinese economy to make the rail cars.

Well when they turned up they all needed repairs and corrections and several had to be returned because they were crap.

Not suggesting New Zealand workers are perfect, but at least they would have done the job right first time...

Having the highest top road speed is of little actual use in combat as it could only be achieved on flat hard road surfaces... following such a road makes you a predictable target that is much easier to hit than a vehicle that changes direction every few seconds.

German tanks of WWII were inferior to almost all the major powers it faced yet it still managed to do pretty well... at the start anyway.

China still imports/copies ex-USSR engines, suspension details, gun, ATGMs, etc etc.
The T-90 has taken part in exhaustive trials all over the world, has been massively exported.

I know which tank I would chose.

To quote Garry,i wouldnt trust chinese built tanks either..nor would i trust Russian built,invest in Chobbham armour then add the bell n whistles.

I'm sure we already sold it to them to pay the bills.

Actually I think the engines they are using are German.

The gun is a Soviet design though.

Chobham is out of date.

I believe the new stuff is called Dorchester or something.

Besides armour is optimised for the threat, so western armours will be optimised to defeat Soviet and Russian penetrators, while Russian armour will be optimised to deal with western penetrators.

If the wiki page on the Chinese Type 99 tank is anything to go by with claims of penetrators that can penetrate 850mm at 2,000m and DU penetrators that will penetrate 950mm at 2,000m I rather suspect the Russians can manage the same or better.

Of course if they couldn't then they could always go to their new calibre gun, and they aren't, which suggests they feel they don't need to for now.

They buy quite a large number of Ukrainian tank engines for a number of MBTs and IFVs.

Those Chinese wiki entries are laughable, 950mm @ 2000m? Oh boy

I know this is a late reply to this but T-90A is superior in terms of crew training, armor, weaponry. from my base we were to destroy a t-72 I don't know what it was I think it was an  t-72B. We were destroying it because it had an accident I think like rolling down hill and pretty much non-repairable,  so the colonel decided we practice. What happened was an RPG-7v was to move up to the 100 meter mark and destroy it, he had 1 shot to do so and we were on the other side where we were gonna move up to the tank and report back to lieutenant if it was destroyed when he fired the RPG-7v which had a heat explosive in it, all it did was destroy the reactive armor on the area it hit, no penetration other then it just entered it few centimeters but did not go through.

So, this proves that the T-72 had good armor and not to mention the rpg-7 shot it in its side where reactive armor is weak and can fall off easy depending on the reactive armor. Imagine the magnificent Vladimir tank   (t-90A) which has way better armor then t-72, in Dagestan t-90 got shot 7 times by Rpg and just kept moving along and i'm sure 7 rpg rounds has got to be equal to a 125 smoothbore canon. Not only that but T-90A has a way better ATGM then that Type-99 china has. overall im sure t-90A would defeat a chinese design which was based off Russian tanks.

 

VladimirSahin wrote:I know this is a late reply to this but T-90A is superior in terms of crew training, armor, weaponry. from my base we were to destroy a t-72 I don't know what it was I think it was an  t-72B. We were destroying it because it had an accident I think like rolling down hill and pretty much non-repairable,  so the colonel decided we practice. What happened was an RPG-7v was to move up to the 100 meter mark and destroy it, he had 1 shot to do so and we were on the other side where we were gonna move up to the tank and report back to lieutenant if it was destroyed when he fired the RPG-7v which had a heat explosive in it, all it did was destroy the reactive armor on the area it hit, no penetration other then it just entered it few centimeters but did not go through.

So, this proves that the T-72 had good armor and not to mention the rpg-7 shot it in its side where reactive armor is weak and can fall off easy depending on the reactive armor. Imagine the magnificent Vladimir tank   (t-90A) which has way better armor then t-72, in Dagestan t-90 got shot 7 times by Rpg and just kept moving along and i'm sure 7 rpg rounds has got to be equal to a 125 smoothbore canon. Not only that but T-90A has a way better ATGM then that Type-99 china has. overall im sure t-90A would defeat a chinese design which was based off Russian tanks.

 

What has crew training to do with tank? Is it implemented or what? Russian tank crew training is still not as extensive to USA tank crew training and only now with help of professional service, simulators and more experienced people it's getting in good shape. I agree that China might be ages behind even doctrine wise, but it has nothing to with tanks.
And Your tank story - Why the hell You had to destroy perfectly good donor. Sounds wasteful. Why reactive armor was still in? Boys in first Grozny were dying because ERA was a luxury...
And how does 7 rpg (what type of rockets?) constitute as one 125mm shot? 3BK29M with triple warhead could do very nasty wound even to best of tanks.. Not to mention newer Russian APFSDS..

Regular, It was early reactive armor and it was a old tank, it was a tank not scrapped we used it as training anyways and i'm saying that rpg-7 can destroy an m1 abrams but can not destroy a old t-72 with old reactive armor. Also crew training is needed if a trained crew comes into tank they can use it better making it more effective. Type-99 tank is a copy of Russian designs including its main cannon. Don't forget that T-90 had taken 7 RPG rounds from top buildings in Dagestan and it was still operational, do that to an M1a1 or m1a2 abrams it would be destroyed because the armor it has isn't made as good as t-90. and the new type-99 is taking Russian designs and trying to make it perfect. I would say T-90A is better then type-99.

Yes the Type-99 has a greater engine and more speed type-99 can go 80 km/h and has 1500 hp compared to the T-90A which can 60-65 km/h but it has less range 500-600 km range compared to T-90A which can go 700 km. both have high weight to power Ratio. Type-99 weight 55 tons and t-90 48 tons.
Type-99 has a 125 smoothbore weapon it can fire 4 or 5 rounds a minute with auto loader which is a fail compared to t-90A's 125 smoothbore which it can fire 8-12 rounds per minute depending on autoloader the 3bk21B and 3bk29M can disable any tank. The 3BK29M has a Triple Tandem charge which is probably one of the best tank rounds there is. Type-99 has good ones to like their depleted uranium rounds they made for the type-99 but i'm sure t-90 has a better Gun.

now on the fire control Both tanks are equal as they have a Laser Rangefinder, Wind sensor, ballistic calculator.
As for protection the T-90A's can have either a 3 "layer" protections. one of three is Shtora a jammer against infared lock ons (not used that much due to some problems) another is its ERA or Reactive armor a added on layer they use Kontakt-5 I personally believe to be one of the best because It lowers the kinetic energy of the round. the layer which it is it's normal armor is made of steel composite armor. The type-99's is unknown.

There is just a quick comparison.

Does the Type 99's 2 caliber longer gun than T-90A give it better penetration power?

What has crew training to do with tank?

I have read that many pilots find the Mig-29 easier to fly and use as a weapon than the Mig-21 even though the latter is simpler and cheaper.

If a T-90 is easier to use and maintain then that makes crew training easier... especially if the system includes fault finding and self testing equipment to assist in fixing problems.

And Your tank story - Why the hell You had to destroy perfectly good donor. Sounds wasteful. Why reactive armor was still in? Boys in first Grozny were dying because ERA was a luxury...

They didn't shoot at a perfectly good T-72... he said it rolled down a hill and was not recoverable...

And how does 7 rpg (what type of rockets?) constitute as one 125mm shot?

The 105mm RPG-7 rockets are just as effective as RPG-29 rockets of the same calibre which is a pretty effective round.

Here in New Zealand our government decided to invest in railway infrastructure and decided to build some rail cars. They had the choice of making them here, or buying from China and of course to save a small amount of money they spent a billion dollars in the Chinese economy to make the rail cars.

Well when they turned up they all needed repairs and corrections and several had to be returned because they were crap.

HA ha ha ha
That was a telling way of how Chinese economy has grown ..

Haha,, the Type-99s turret is not even designed within safe maneuvering zones, any glancing hit kills/maims either a gunner or a commander.
Also, that 1500 hp engine, close but no cigar, have fun outrunning all your support and playing battleship all by yourself. Also, prepare for bigger fuel tanks, cause nobody in their right mind would give you the latest in diesel tech. if they themselves cant an even more advance one en masse, so no dice for fuel efficiency. Also, because of that huge engine and longer hull, agility is decreased as compared to T-90.
With regards to ammo, hehe, T-90A can use 740mm long projectiles that are capable of making 700mm deep holes in real armor, not 1m deep of BS

VladimirSahin wrote:Regular, It was early reactive armor and it was a old tank, it was a tank not scrapped we used it as training anyways

I always thought ERA blocks are empty in a peace time. 
Don't You take important bits out of tank before You actually take to "polygon". I have family member who served with tanks and he said that even cables were strapped out by mechanics and only husk were left out of them. Tracks, cables, everything. That person served in Soviet Union and tanks were then relative new T-72. So I assume Russian military became wasteful as there thousands of tanks:D
But lucky You, my only targets were BTR-60 and BRDM. And they were all hollow

 Rpg-7 can destroy an m1 abrams but can not destroy a old t-72 with old reactive armor.

Abrams tank family is known to be able survive multiple hits as well. There are records of tanks getting hit more than 20 times by RPG and still be operational. And there other instances where single RPG knocks them out cold. Russian tanks in first Chechen war was same too. Some of them survived many hits and some of them were destroyed by one hit. There are so many factors involved so I wouldn't be too quick to judge.
I've heard about T-90 used in Dagestan, but never heard about it being hit from roof top. With 7 hits from above You could even take best tank out of action. Multiple hits from above means ERA layer can be compromised.

armor it has isn't made as good as t-90

We don't know much about it's composition of armor as like with T-90 tanks - it's a secret. We know it's not same armor as chobham and it went through couple modifications already so tanks who were rolling in Iraq might not have same armor as they used to.
In general Abrams aren't bad tanks, their TUSK kits are not bad too. We will see if they will get new diesel engine and later probably new gun, auto-loader. Who knows, maybe they will bring ATGMs back.
There are only few countries in the world who can actually design and produce (!!!) good tanks. Russia, USA, Germany are the ones who are on the frontier, technological edge and bring new technologies in field. Those countries make tanks who can technically match each other. Interesting times are coming as Russia is about to do big step forward.

Bad tanks(IMHO) still used today are some of those below -
Zulfiqar III, Arjun, AMX-30, Panzer 68, Pokpung-ho, "Brave Tiger", All Chinese knock-off tanks in service and so on.
Not to mention new tanks who look good on paper but how good they are in steel?

GarryB wrote:They didn't shoot at a perfectly good T-72... he said it rolled down a hill and was not recoverable...

I was talking about donor not repairable tank. I've seen some tanks who rolled down the hill in Georgian war. I hope the crew survived.
Human body is weaker than tank itself. I've heard stories of crew men actually getting killed by mistakes of driver-mechanics while tanks suffer no damage.

collegeboy16 wrote:Haha,, the Type-99s turret is not even designed within safe maneuvering zones, any glancing hit kills/maims either a gunner or a commander.
Also, that 1500 hp engine, close but no cigar, have fun outrunning all your support and playing battleship all by yourself. Also, prepare for bigger fuel tanks, cause nobody in their right mind would give you the latest in diesel tech. if they themselves cant an even more advance one en masse, so no dice for fuel efficiency. Also, because of that huge engine and longer hull, agility is decreased as compared to T-90.
With regards to ammo, hehe, T-90A can use 740mm long projectiles that are capable of making 700mm deep holes in real armor, not 1m deep of BS

I see nothing wrong with powerful engine if it is 
1.) Reliable
2.) Reasonably economical
Russians already have engines like 12N360 with power ranging to 2200 HP with amazing fuel consumption. 
China is strong on paper. From economy, to army.
Russia has bigger experience in tank building, with long standing traditions. Technical decisions, quality, ability to produce sophisticated parts all goes in favor to Russian construction bureaus. From engines to guns, from FCU, to munitions. 
 

Regular I didn't know you served, And my mistake my Russian patriotism kicked in the t-90 was not shot from top but it was shot at from buildings around sides and front not just front and it kept going on. And the tank crew from the tank that rolled over 1 got wounded really badly but I heard he is good now rest made it with no injury.

VladimirSahin wrote:Regular I didn't know you served, And my mistake my Russian patriotism kicked in the t-90 was not shot from top but it was shot at from buildings around sides and front not just front and it kept going on. And the tank crew from the tank that rolled over 1 got wounded really badly but I heard he is good now rest made it with no injury.

I didn't serve in Russian army, but I'm from a family who served in Soviet army for generations, so most of the stuff I know is from people from first hand experience. But You can't trust them blindly, for example my uncle still knows how to take T-72 apart, but doesn't know that AK-74 exists as they still used AKMs. Even people who been to Afghanistan don't know some stuff You think it's basic knowledge in the age of internet.
I grew up in military "rayon" too so most of the times I've spend among people who talked about service in Soviet military next to the dinner table. To be all fair it was easier to pursue military career back in the days than it is now.

There is nothing wrong with patriotism, and T-90 is one of the best tanks in the world and I would be proud of this tank myself.

ofcourse t-99 is superior , the russians even copied the wedge shape of the turret in their newest t-90.

If you talk about T-90MS, many features on it were actually copied from Ukrainian T-84

etaepsilonk wrote:If you talk about T-90MS, many features on it were actually copied from Ukrainian T-84

so the russians are copying ukranians then?
no wonder its better then , china got many technologies from ukraine and incorporated some of their own. many foreign experts and workers from europe went and worked in the inner mongolia.
t-99 was clean sheet design ,unlike t-72 endless modifications...