Talk:Type 99 tank

Type 99KM

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 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why go to template

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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.'

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

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?

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

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

"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

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

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

Possible equivalent article similar to Tanks in the Spanish Army?

Copyright Infringement Problem

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

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

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 ^Notify_Online 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyvio?

This article shares the first few paras, at least, of http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_99.htm. Someone has been copying, though I can't tell in which direction William M. Connolley (talk)

Type 99 intro

For those of you who don't know, I added a source about a week ago claiming that the Type 99 is a variant of the T-72. This source is Carlo Kopp who is a professional Australian military analyst who knows what his talking about and is cited frequently by professionals. Unfortunately for some, the term "variant" may be misinterpreted. In this case, "variant" does not mean copy as our IP friend thinks it is, but rather, a further developed derivative. The Type 99 incorporates the hull, gun, and armor of the T-72 while incorporating a more NATO like turret. Khazar (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This does not mean that Type-99 is a variant of the T-72. T-72 is a second generation tank while Type-99 is a third generation. Also, China did not have T-72, so your false claim that Type-99 is a variant of T-72 has no ground !!

Most importantly, your "source" is from Carlo Kopp whom specialize on air power !! As your source is " Air Power Australia " [" http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Type-96-99.html"]. How can an air power source claim that Type-99 which is a tank for ground force be possibly a reliable source??

The sources I provided: [1], [2]. Both of them are from news agency, one was from army technology. None of them stated that Type-99 is a "Variant" of T-72 !!. Also, the source you provided are nothing but personal blog (Carlo Kopp) and forums. Which are completely unreliable source by Wikipedia standards.

Even, with all this, I did not just blindly remove the claims you stated. I added them in the content, that Type-99 used a T-72 style auto loader, it has a similar hull but is 1 meter longer.

Now, please stop your distributive editing !

Thank you,

Carlo Kopp is a military analyst who also specializes in Chinese military vehicles, he is a reliable source. Also, your sources are published by enthusiasts, not experts. Khazar (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the writer of one of your sources. He does not qualify as a reliable source since he appears to be an enthusiast rather than an expert. Khazar (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

MT seems to fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH, and I can't find anything concerning Genys' credentials/expertise in the subject matter. He's published some equipment reference guides, but not having seen them I can only suspect that they're essentially hardcopy versions of his website content. I do not think MT can be considered WP:RS.

Kopp had better credentials. However, APA is his website (he both writes article for it and acts as the editor). APA is his vehicle to promote the F-22 over the F-35 in Australia, which he does by highlighting the capabilities of (mainly) Russian and Chinese munitions. There's an agenda here that may influence how munitions are depicted.

Fortunately, APA sometimes references articles written by Kopp that were published by third-parties; these other articles are probably better sources than APA articles (presumably Kopp was required to submit them to the editorial oversight of others). I would recommend that APA be used to locate other sources and not be referenced directly. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New Chinese Mini-documentary

One of the recent edits on this page added a video in Mandarin Chinese. I'm hoping that User talk:86.182.32.83 could translate it correctly so that it could actually be added to the article. The majority of the Wikipedians on this Wiki do not understand Mandarin and I was hoping if someone (I'm hoping for the IP to do so) can step up and translate the points of interest. Khazar (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the IP to come forth and actually translate the video. Khazar (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not possible. It gets removed immediately. 86.182.32.83 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because you're intentionally violating copyright laws which is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Another important note I should mention is that wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for state sponsored television. Therefore, I have no choice but to remove all your contributions. Khazar (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: My IP changed, so I can no longer respond with original IP.

"Intentionally" is a big accusation, which you lack evidence of. As it stands, an English translation of which I am the translator should breach no copyright policy. You seem to agree with this view too, as you made the request in the first place. However, a third-party has concerns, although he noted my contribution was done in good-faith. Given the translation was intended for you, and you would be the only one who lost out from all this, I simply didn't pursue the matter further.

As to your second point regarding state-sponsored television, and your edit comment calling CCTV propaganda, these are nothing more than ad-hominem attacks on the sources. This is considering you have not provided premises at all. My rationales for including state-media as sources are as follow:

• First and foremost is that you rejected non state-media sources I added earlier, calling them "tabloid" and "unreliable", thus I provided more authoritative ones,
• Chinese state-media is the only organization with direct access to Type 99 and related personnels. Thus state-media is the most reliable source in the context of a page regarding a Chinese tank,
• In sources that were included, only remarks of engineers, dates and technical information are added to the article.

These make state-media an acceptable source. Not only so, these sources involved statements of the tank's designers, meaning your concern of reliability has been properly addressed. I will revert when there is no further sound argument to be addressed. 86.146.24.230 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether state media has access to reliable sources but rather presenting it. Propaganda and inflation of figures is a common tactic used state media in China and Russia. Also, "intentionally" is not an accusation of any magnitude, but an observation. It's a fact that you posted an entire copyrighted transcript without permission for the purpose of proving your "point". My request is void as of now since state media is not acceptable for obvious reasons. Anyone can see that you attempted to do this in the talk page history and those warnings given to you on your previous IP talk page. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)