Type 98,98G,99 tank - Page 2




 
--
 
February 25th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Chogum armored Challenger 2 tank took 8 RPGs and 1 ATGM while completely imobolised and blinded. I seriously doubt the same thing would happen to a Chinese steel hull..
You got any further info on which parts the challenger took those hits? Even the lighty armored stryker has survived rpg hits with its improvised extra armor. The Rpg's used there are nothing more but pathetic spitballs.
February 25th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Chogum armored Challenger 2 tank took 8 RPGs and 1 ATGM while completely imobolised and blinded. I seriously doubt the same thing would happen to a Chinese steel hull..
You got any further info on which parts the challenger took those hits? Even the lighty armored stryker has survived rpg hits with its improvised extra armor. The Rpg's used there are nothing more but pathetic spitballs.
Well i know one T-80 in Chechenya took 8 rpg hits too..
February 25th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
Ill just make a few short attacks, if I may. Because in my non-expert opiinion, some of you are just posting things that are ncorrect.

Quote:
It's still a steel armored tank, and with that it'll get rolled on the battlefield :-/

That being said, I do like the laser self defence weapon.
I don't think that its a self defese weapon at all, as its meant to blind the enemys tankers. Its a very horribel piece of weaponry in my view.

Quote:
it is more like a combination of layers of steel and other materials..
It is not maid of layers, it has some added compoit armour on the front. I would not consider that a composit armor tank.

Quote:
1) I doubt the chinese composite armor
By what reason do you doubt the chinese composit armor? Do you have any specific info on it? If you do, head over to the CIA and tell them, im sure they will like to know...In the mean while, I thing we should assume its similar to other composite armor from around the world.


Quote:
You got any further info on which parts the challenger took those hits? Even the lighty armored stryker has survived rpg hits with its improvised extra armor. The Rpg's used there are nothing more but pathetic spitballs.
That is by far an exgeration. Firstly, the Stryker failed to stop RPGs, untill they added the "cage" protection, which simply causes the RPG to explode too far away from the whole to do damage. This dose not mean that the Strykers armor can stop a RPG 7 round. Not at all. Scondly, the RPG 7 is a small, cheap anti tank weapon, that can penetrate 320mm of steel. That is not a spitball at all. however, since composite armour is so effective, it is hard to actually penetrate a modern tank with a RPG, unless you hit it at very specific weak points that diverce fom tank to tank.


[/quote]
--
February 25th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
320mm of steel is probably the penetration of the original soviet rpg-7 quite the same as for any light anti tank weapon of that era, however today there are a wide variety of different rockets available for rpg-7 and you'll be lucky to safely launch one of those let alone do some damage to a modern mbt.
February 25th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
actually, the Russians made so many that there is no lack in original ones. to that you can add all the chinese and israeli made ones, and you will see that there are a lot of good usable rockets for the RPG 7 out there. Also, there are newer ones that can penetrate even more.
February 26th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
The Type 98 isn't protected by just steel plate. It has composite armor, probably something like 1st Gen Chobham(not Chogum) across it's front. It's got ERA too, which probably brings it's frontal KEP to 800mm and CEP to 1000mm. It's good, but not great

The best thing going for it is the Chinese 3rd Gen DU APFSDS with 810mm-960mm protection.

I'm sick of RPGs being referred to as "spitballs". They are extremely effective, potent anti-tank weapon, especially in their latest forms.
February 26th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
lol im sick of americans crying over the use of laser dazzlers

if u dont mind using gatlin guns or clusetr bombs on infantry, why bother with soemthing that does not even kill you??? logically people should be fearing those instead of laser dazzlers
February 26th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA
lol im sick of americans crying over the use of laser dazzlers

if u dont mind using gatlin guns or clusetr bombs on infantry, why bother with soemthing that does not even kill you??? logically people should be fearing those instead of laser dazzlers
cool, just rememeber what you said when/if the US field an anti infantry laser weapon
February 26th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
if us owns that weapon, then i guess its a show down in whos frickin leaser beams are more powerful
February 26th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
The difference: The American laser beam will BLOW up your tank.