Talk:Type 99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Type 99KM[edit]

this info is suspect. the link has nothing about a 2100 hp engine that is claimed. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2100 hp figure is there, but the three sources are dubious copies of each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talkcontribs) 07:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why go to template[edit]

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

Inaccurate information[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Indeed, many believe the purchase was simply an attempt to acquire the tank so that the strength and weaknesses could be assesed and a better suited Chinese tank could be built instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.111.32 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Length inconsistencies btwn articles[edit]

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)

Am I the only person here who is amused by the idea of a 140 mm cannon on this tank? I've seen the images of the 140 mm cannon tank and all I can say is that it reminds me of the whole vulgar joke/comparison amongst men. (Psychoneko (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

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

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
But Tank gun can mean anything; 1st thing that comes to mind for me if someone said that would be a HMG ontop - unless Main Gun was said...--Kurtle (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Armor[edit]

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)
Are we sure they are ERA instead of additional ceramics?

"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?

Um, I still don't see any references to the numbers cited. Better armed and protected? According to what, sales bochure? According to a number of tankers I know, the publicaly available RHAe numbers for both its weaponry and protection do not add up. It is physically imposible given the L/D ratio of Chinese shells to achieve the kind of penetration the Chinese claims. As for armor superior to an Abrams, well, to do that it has to be better than the Russian tanks that clearly inspired the design of its hull. The theorized resistance is not likely due to the ballistic shape of the hull--too sharp for composite armor. So... does anyone has reliable source? Given the highly secretive nature of such things, maybe it is best that we leave the RHAe numbers alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.69.91 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How many have been made so far?[edit]

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)

Comparison[edit]

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

Wedge[edit]

"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

Picture[edit]

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

Design Section[edit]

The two paragraphs about the turret design and "shot trap" effect of the gap read like they are an argument and a rebuttal - this should be edited to read more like an encyclopedia article. RottenDog (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese tanks[edit]

Possible equivalent article similar to Tanks in the Spanish Army?

Copyright Infringement Problem[edit]

I deleted the complete "Type 99A2"-section because it was a copyright infringement from this page. Rewrite that section without copypasting copyrighted material. --DavidDCM (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Page move suggestion[edit]

Move this page to Type 99 tank? It really isn't any more notable than several of the other items on the Type 99 disambiguation page--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/type99chinese-main/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)