Talk:Type 99 tank

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 necessarily 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)

Unfortunately, my IP got changed again.

• I understand your concerns. I would have even agree with you if the state-media used a western-style approach to reporting -- where the bulk of the article is made up of the journalist's opinions. However, in this very instance your concerns are misplaced since the state-media published the actual interviews. That means performance figures are originated from engineers directly involved with the tank, not from journalists. The state-media role gets limited to reporting on those Q&A sessions through publishing of direct quotes, eliminating the sort of manipulations you envisioned.
• The current state of the article is abysmal, because most of the sources used right now are just speculation. It is obvious that authors of these sources would never be able to get within visual range of the tank. On the other hand, the interviews with engineers contain wealth of actual information about the tank. So if you truly care about accuracy, then you would support inclusion of these sources rather than to fight it. Inclusion will also allow us to gauge responses from other editors. Censoring information based on our bias against government sponsored sources will be doing everyone a disservice.
• By the way, despite copyrights concern, my translation has been recognized by other users as being done under good-faith. That, is what others will see in talk page history. You are the only one who is using the term "intentionally" throughout. As that is a loaded term, that is an accusation, and an accusation which you have no evidence to-boot. 86.136.122.86 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the introduction paragraph

I have recently read the source from "Air Power Australia" since it claimed that Type 99 is a variant of T-72. However, the source itself never provided any links or concrete evidence to back up such claim. It only stated that Type 99 use the T-72's hull which is actually incorrect, because Type 99's hull is actually 1 meter longer; Type-99 does use the auto loader and 125mm main gun. However there is no evidence to show that it uses the same armor as the T-72, it is clear to see that Type 99 has slope armor while the T-72 does not.

Therefore, I changed it to a more neutral tone.

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:F1F2:BE98:96EA:8B9 (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Type 99 is simply too different from T-72, for it to be called a "variant" of T-72

There are just too many differences between T-72 and the Type 99:

1. Type 99 use a 1500 HP diesel engine while the T-72 use a 780 HP diesel engine. 2. Type 99 adopted a western style turret and it is clearly visible while T-72 is typically soviet design. 3. Type 99 has the latest electronics and counter measures that T-72 lacks.

Despite all this, I decided not to remove the source but simply change it to a more accurate and neutral tone.

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:F1F2:BE98:96EA:8B9 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Air Power Australia's sourced content is moved to a new section under "development"

With sufficient evidence pointing out that Type-99 is not a variant of T-72. According to global security which itself is more reliable than Air Power Australia. Type 99 is developed from Type 98 which shared several technologies from T-72 such as the auto loader, a lengthened hull, 125 mm gun. However, there is no evidence to show that Type 99 even the Type 98 used the same armor as the T-72.

However, I decided not to remove Air Power Australia source since it is still a sourced content but simply move its claim under the development section.

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:F1F2:BE98:96EA:8B9 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking of referenced materials and subsequent reverts

Hi, I notice there is a back-and-forth reverting over the past few days, began by unexplained removal sourced materials. May I ask why those sourced materials are removed? May I ask all party to explain their rationale on the talk page before further action is done? For the time being, I think it is best to restore the article to the least controversial version.

The state of the article is dismal since a mass removal of content in September. If there is no good sources to be used, then perhaps the article itself should be put up for deletion.

86.146.25.25 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese news/documentary unreliable?

I refer to my most recent edit. While I do admit the changes are quite drastic, they are from adequate sources: CCTV and other Chinese news organizations. The chinese tank pages have so far obtained much information from poorly designed and written sites like sinodefence. Why not use more of sources that are straight from the horse's mouth? There is one good example example of such: the military museum page. The sources I have cited also corroborate each other. There's even a Wikipedia Chinese page of the designer. I have left out contentious and obviously ridiculous claims such as the much vaunted superiority of Chinese tanks over the Abrams and Type 90(Japan).

Additional edits and corroboration by people who actually know Mandarin and China would be much appreciated. 

Directing this to User:ScrapIronIV who undid my edits. I would be happy to trim off unnecessary information or to rewrite in a more appropriate manner, rather than simple removal of the edits.

RedArrowSG (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The doumentary is discussed in detail further up the page. Scr★pIron^IV 13:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the video in question has been discussed. Now let me raise some issues I have on my mind.

If the contention was copyright and that I could not transcribe, translate and paraphrase what was said, an omission is fine. But the information about the tank designer is on the Chinese wikipedia, Chinese news sources and Norinco themselves.

Consider that even sources like Jane's defence weekly have no choice to take in information from Norinco. https://web.archive.org/web/20071226112211/http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw070824_1_n.shtml Are you somehow implying that such sources are also not reliable?

One of the sources I've used and is still inside the wikipedia page is http://www.sylu.edu.cn/bingqibowuguan/science/99tank.html or the Shenyang University of Technology's website. The page is question is a PLA museum on site. I included information that corroborates with that source. If you remove said information, are you denying the reliability of the website? I think some basic evaluation of information within sources should be done.

On the other hand, a line such as this is very subjective and very likely to be translated from Chinese news sources. "According to military-today. Type 99's fire control system is clearly superior to that of the T-72 and might even be so to the Russian T-90 tank" And it's not just that. The whole of military today's article is very similar to the wiki page but the wiki page still cites it as a source.

Lastly, as mentioned, I won't persist with using CCTV sources but I do think a clarification should be made and not a simple undoing of all the edits. As I've mentioned: It is not the video I'm solely using. The information is widely available in Chinese sources, the prototypes and various capabilities have photographic evidence and much of it is in included in the Chinese wikipedia page.

RedArrowSG (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sinodefence is actually a reliable source. It is not a well known one, but reliable. RAND quotes it. [3] US Army War College quotes it. [4] Center for Strategic and International Studies quotes it. [5] Can't say the same for the sources currently used on this Wikipedia article, but I digress.

Anyway, I'm glad to know I am not the only one having problem with the unwarranted bias against Chinese sources, and more generally, how references are currently being handled on this article. I am in favour of including the interviews, especially on aspect like history as that is not being disputed. I am not happy with the current practises of removing materials with no consultation whatsoever.

When we look at other Wikipedia articles on military equipments, including sources from the military or the manufacturer or both appears to be the norm. References that do not link with either still quote from defence officials in some ways. This makes perfect sense, as military equipments are secretive by nature, the most authoritative opinions should come from the users, followed by those who are involved in production.

This article currently does the complete opposite. Opinions from those who never got close enough to examine the tank in person are valued. Statements from engineers who worked on the tank were called inaccurate. It makes no sense. 86.146.25.25 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the generalizing sinodefence with the rest. The archived links I read all seemed like simple translations of Chinese news sources. It also strengthen my point: credible defense articles cite sinodefence and even such sites use screenshots from TV news (clearly evident by the watermarks).

Certainly, the designer was a former PLA officer and the documentary was state-approved. The personal events described reads like folk hero tales ala comrade Lei Feng. Such details are not included. Technical information however, should be taken at face value because these people are the ones closest to the tank!

I'm new here, specifically created an account because I wanted to edit this article. Cheers! RedArrowSG (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sinodefence is an enthusiast website. It's one thing for expert sources to reference a Sinodefence page/article (or particular bits of an article), it's another thing for the entire article (or the website) is reliable. Sinodefence should not be used directly. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

From previous discussion, you have also said the same thing about Air Power Australia...

86.133.195.173 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I said using articles written by Kopp and published on APA (his own website, with a clear agenda, to boot) is hazardous due to a lack of editorial oversight. On the other hand, using articles written by Kopp's and published by third-parties (given adequate credentials of the publisher and so forth) is satisfactory; those articles can stand on their own. I stand by this.

Sinodefence is one big question mark when it comes to credentials. In terms of reliability for Wikipedia, no better than the dime-a-dozen military news/data aggregation sites. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The history section is still a joke. According to army technology? Global security? These are commercial magazines. Where do they pull their info from? RedArrowSG (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Type 99 variants

Officially, there are only two types of Type 99. The Type 99(typified as the one shown at the 2009 national day parade and before) The Type 99A(typified as the one show at the 2015 victory day parade)

Any other designations are unofficial. The so-called Type 98 shown at the 1999 parade was never named.

All this can be verified on youtube. 2015 parade 1:25:15 refers to the Type 99A 2009 parade 36:50 refers to the Type 99 1999 parade 45:00 onwards, no reference to tank names

I would argue that it would be best if the tank variants were cut to the above two names and the prototypes and generation changes be described elsewhere.

Edited to be more focused on the issue at hand. RedArrowSG (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• 参加1999年国庆阅兵式的所谓“98型“坦克，官方有非制式命名：“9910工程”定型车，应是ZTZ-99坦克的原型车。外界所谓99G/99A1应是99型，外界所谓99A2应是99A型。--颐园新居 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Detailed bibliography

1. Most technical information and specs were unedited from previous versions. Most of it comes from: US Army TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity. Ground Systems (PDF). Worldwide Equipment Guide 1 (2011 ed.)
2. As globalsecurity.org has been acknowledged as a reliable source, it has been used as a reference for the history for the development of the tank. As most of the Type 90's information has been cannibalized by the Al Khalid page, I've decided to place the history of the Type 90 here. It's also quite obvious that the Type 90-II and Type 98 are from the same lineage due to its common characteristics: centered driver position, V-shaped mud guards, 6 road-wheels, welded turret and 2A46 copy 125mm smoothbore gun.
3. The Chinese army today by Dennis J Blasko. Dennis has served 23 years as a US Military Intelligence Officer and was once Military Attache to China. His descriptions of the tanks were used as references
4. Most of army-technology's info has already been mentioned elsewhere. I used this only for corroboration of the 1999 parade.
5. The People's Daily website. The official newspaper of the CCP. Seems to be an old section have the site that has been abandoned. No technical or historical data was used. I only used it to reference the use of the name "type 98" because although the name has been used widely in Western sources, it has a semi-official existence in Chinese media. This link proves at the very least that the primary newspaper at that time used the name. 6. China Military Online. Used as primary source for the type 99A designation and the debut of the tank in 2014
7. The Official CCTV channel. Again, used only to prove the official name of the latest Type 99 is still the Type 99A.
8. China showcases new weapon systems at 3 September parade - IHS Jane's 360. Used as counterpoint of the Type 99A2 variant and that both names are acceptable.
9. Weng, Jonathan (24 August 2007). "China trials enhanced Type 99 MBT - Jane's Defence News" Seems to be the ultimate cause of the name due to its date. However as I'm not a Jane's subscriber I've not read the full article.
10. Reference 21. CCTV news footage of senior officers learning new training methods. Scene in in-line citation has officer explaining the controls. "There is no clutch" and "This is the 1st gear, 2nd gear, 3rd gear, 4th gear, 5th gear, 6th gear reverse gear and neutral." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedArrowSG (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC) RedArrowSG (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page sections removal

I removed the old sections of the Talk page as it was getting lengthy and a tad irrelevant. RedArrowSG (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of others' talk page contributions is considered vandalism. I have restored it. Scr★pIron^IV 16:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the motive but not the method. Here's relevant policy that should be helpful for the future. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 18:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Here is the source of the photo. It is the property of news.china.com.cn

If only people used their brains to think sometimes and a fews seconds to reverse image search — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedArrowSG (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Uncited nonsense

In section 1.1, it says: "This is similar to the relationship between the Soviet T-64 and T-72, with the former only being supplied to elite tank units while the latter being the standard frontline main battle tank of the Soviet Army."

This makes no sense. It is either written in the wrong order and should be swapped to "T-72 and T-64" or it is a typo and should be "T-64 and T-62". Since no reference is provided, I suggest this sentence be removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umataro (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In 2.3 it says "The Type 99's combination of modular composite armour is estimated to be invulnerable to all modern kinetic energy munitions and missiles by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).[citation needed]" That is an extremely strong and overly broad claim for an uncited statement. Dracoranger (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Type 99 Phase 1 and 2 variants

There are actually three variants of the Type 99 tank, four if you include the preproduction 9910 or "Type 98" (never to have been designated that officially) vehicles. In chronological order, these are: Project 9910, Type 99, Type 99, and Type 99A. The first two Type 99s excluding the 9910, were never designated in a way that reflected their differences. They have always been called "Type 99". This is very confusing and misleading, as a simple Google search on "Type 99 tank" reveals both of these vehicles. Many do not even know there are two Type 99 tanks. Therefore I will refer to them as 99 Phase 1 and 99 Phase 2, terms which are popular among Chinese military circles.

Image references:

99 Phase 1 a[6] b[7] c[8]

99 Phase 2 d[9] e[10] f[11]

What are the changes from Phase 1 to Phase 2?

1) The wedge-shaped armor modules on the turret has been redesigned, from a more complicated design to simpler one that used less blocks. Due to this, the firing port of the co-axial machine gun (the hole to the right of the gun) became smaller. Refer to images b and e.

2) The composition of the ERA blocks on the upper glacis has changed. There is a clear difference in elevation between the front set of 16 blocks and the rear set. Refer to images b and e.

3) The turret basket now wraps around the bustle instead of only the sides. Refer to image f.

4) The set of ERA blocks flanking the turret sides has assumed a new shape, a right trapezoid, instead of a rectangle. Refer to images a and d.

[12] This image is useful in comparing the 9910, 99 Phase 1 and 99 Phase 2 variants.

Aside from some modifications to the turret, the chassis appears to not have been changed, although the Type 99A will introduce a major redesign.

I hope by showing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 tanks, you are able to know the difference between them, and that hopefully you could help in improving or correcting this article which has been very misleading. Chokoladesu (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the top speed of the differents ZTZ99 variants

This page claims 75km/h on 99A variant, what is for the others?

Can you guys add it please Samutlgfx (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)