Main thing in debate is if its gonna be a V10 or V8, I´m assuming the latter for the moment. It already produces a power to weight ratio that is overkill.
form some presumably HPD engine related paper, it’s a V10, at least there is no V8 HPD engine as I know.
and a V12 version for maybe future heavier tanks
so it looks like 700 mm lower plate plus great mobility + unmaned turret
1 Like
Honestly its a bit sus… 35 tons with 700mm KE frontal and overkill HP? Unless they cut mass from other places (turret and hull sides, plus Im sure downsizing the gun cut some weight as well) I fail to see how they achieve it… but oh well, we dont have any other numbers to go from anyway.
Although it being a “little brother” to ZTZ-99 make sense. I wonder if it means 99 gonna get some reinforced protection (not counting spotted APS)
1 Like
Being better protected than the “older brother” is funny tho.
What explains the low weight is how concentrated all the heavy protection is. Basically protects only this area on the front:
1 Like
Well, as I said, it make sense only if they cut everything else down, which is… certainly a choice.
Sure if they think it will fight only in a very specific way, but… eh, dont want call it arrogance or foolishness
Clearly they didn’t as it also has add-on side protection and hardkill APS.
And its not like there are any tanks designed to whitstand particularly heavy hits from the sides EG other MBTs etc
TBH, side armor protection is significantly better than in past, heavier PLA tank models. The only area were armor protection is really lacking in Type 100 would be the roof above the crew. The rest of the ballistic protection is quite good for today´s standards considering the kind of tanks PLA is likely to encounter.
On the other hand, they are betting a lot on APS to make up for heavy all around ballistic protection.
Eh, I guess fair is fair.
Funny enough it gives me T-14 vibe in a way of “protect hull front and crew at all cost, the heavy ERA and hardkill APS will take care of most threats”, but it actually smaller and by the country which can mass produce them in meaningful numbers
Turret is unmanned so there isn’t much point of making it heavily armoured, so it makes sense to make the front of the hull heavily armoured. Most of the weight was probably saved by making the turret unmanned and less armoured.
2 Likes
Considering what we know now about the T-14. It’s hull layout, ERA against 3bm42, etc. I’m more trusting of the Type 100 hull protection…
For a few reasons. The T-14 hull armor was revealed to not only be not as thick as everyone assumed, it’s also a lot less angled than everyone assumed, on top of the ERA not being remotely as powerful as many people insinuated based on field testing by the manufacturer. Not to mention the turret having little to no protection from even quite small auto-cannon fire… The Type 100 likely beats the T-14 out in turret protection aswell whilst being lighter and likely more mobile…
Overall, I do not see the Type 100 and T-14 being far from each-other in frontal hull protection. Assuming no corruption, or trickery is going on in regards to the T-14s armor.
Which is my point of concern. Achieving superior protection and mobility while being lighter? Sure, modern materials and dropping a gun caliber a notch do help as well as the overkill HP per weight (being lighter and all), but 20 tons of difference?
It just… idk, doesn’t make much sense unless it paper thinn literally everywhere else (effectively reinventing tank designs with frontal protection being absolute)
Brother. It’s not rocket science (not being rude or mean I’m just saying). Why is the IS-4M lighter than the Tiger II, & JagdTiger but has 200mm side armor, yet sporting better frontal and rear protection on top of that? Size MATTERS A-LOT as-well as geometry. The T-14 hull is very long to be able to accommodate that long gun and it’s longer ammunition that can’t fit in other MBTs on top of that engine. It all adds up…
There are plenty of tanks that are lighter or same weight as another tank with far better armor. Why’s the T-44 so much better protected than the T-34-85 despite being the around same weight of not lighter? See, it’s not “unbelievable” or “crazy”. Size and geometry can really do a lot more than many people think!
To be fair the length of ammo on T-14 not that of the issue because it places upwards and not horizontal like on AZ/MZ, but yeah, I guess you’re right.
On another note - I wonder if it side protection can be adapted to 99A.
Just some caution though. Armor physical thickness on itself means little nowadays. What matters is how efficient in terms of volume (physical thickness) or mass that armor may be. There are tanks that prioritize one or the other and there is progress over time. T-14 front hull is about 650mm thick LOS, about the same as T-90A/M turret cheeks and T-90A´s turret cheeks are equivalent to at least 600mm KE, using armor technology back from the 1990s.
There is even less information about T-14´s Monolit (other than it not using traditional explosive reactive material), all we can know is its flyer plates are way longer than Relikt and flyer plate length enhances effectiveness. If the leap in capability is at least comparable to the past progress from K5 to Relikt, then we are looking at an extremely effective reactive armor package.
So does that not affect hull height, Autoloader height, Autoloader width? You need to cram as much charges and warheads into the hull… It all affects one thing after another it’s a domino effect.
Either way the Type 100 is the IS-4M and the T-14 is the Tiger II. Albeit the difference in armor protection between those two WW2 examples are far different. Oh and the IS-4M has a bigger, heavier more unwieldy cannon despite the weight being far less too.
If I see the turret is basically sheet metal. It doesn’t matter how much “thickness doesn’t matter” that ain’t holding up against auto-cannon fire…
Overall, the ERA couldn’t stop the 3bm42 from penetrating the two thick angled plates in the armored array (it may have even went through the 3rd). Relikt in War Thunder would’ve stopped the shell… So either 3bm42 has anti ERA properties IRL that I don’t know about, or the ERA isn’t as strong as everyone says.
I´m talking about the hull, not the turret. Wherever composite is involved, thickness isn´t a direct indicator of effectiveness. I mean, yeah, you can look an armor module and guess it must be heavily armored because its physically thick but it might just be that module is engineered to be more weight efficient than volume efficient.
And no, no flyer plate-type reactive armor IRL stops KE on its own. It degrades, unbalances the projectile but the actual stopping is always done by the base armor.
Height for sure (T-14 is tall in comparison to a more traditional T-series), but not as much as wight (although this one needs to be checked, but Im pretty sure Armata, as a platform, not that much wider than T-90)