PLA ZTZ99A with Digital Camo

[Ad Lav]

Being a copy of the T80? T90? it has a rather squashed turret so I'd imagine getting anything in there would be tricky!

Be good to see the metal bits arrive.

[Ad Lav]

Nicely done. Tricky to match the colours I bet.

[HERMAN BIX]

Nice finish mate, how high is it over all ?
Be good to see a side by side front on next to your Abrams

[Ad Lav]

Quite squat isn't she!

No tall people allowed!

[HERMAN BIX]

All in the turret height by the looks. Must be a hell of a machine to fight effectively from a crew perspective,
Great photo Mr Scalawag, puts them all into scale , thanks

[atcttge]

Being a copy of the T80? T90? it has a rather squashed turret so I'd imagine getting anything in there would be tricky!

Be good to see the metal bits arrive.

T-72.

[greengiant]

The lower turrets don't do much good when you have components sticking up that are nearly as tall as the taller turrets and give your enemy something to see and identify your location by.

[atcttge]

Being a copy of the T80? T90? it has a rather squashed turret so I'd imagine getting anything in there would be tricky!

Be good to see the metal bits arrive.

T-72.

I think they are all T72 based or inspired aren't they.

No. Earlier Chinese tanks were based on the T-55. I do not seem to recall they copying or license producing the T-62. They licensed produced the T-55, lengthened it etc. resulting to long list of tanks with the name Type 54 etc. IIRC it ended with Type 80. Their newest tanks are based on the T-72. It may not look like a T-72 anymore with all that armour etc but deep inside it's a T-72 including the auto loader mechanism.

T-90 is based on the T-72 line, originating from the T-72S I think. The T-90 label was originally a marketing gimmick to distance it from the T-72 which saw much negative press after Desert Storm.

T-80 lineage is not from the T-72. T-80 lineage is from the T-64, itself a premier tank that was never exported, and considered to have been better than the T-72. T-80 was considered as better than T-72 but was expensive to produce, hence the smaller numbers and "abandonment" for the T-72S/T-90. The T-64 family continued with the T-84 in Ukraine service, and the prototype Black Eagle tank which never amounted to anything.

T-72 was conceived as a cheaper, easier to build tank vs. the T-64 which was expensive and had issues. Both had different design bureaus IIRC, hence the reason we have the T-80 serving alongside the T-72.

So while the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, and T-84 all had low profiles, auto loader, capability to launch missiles through the gun tube, etc. making them similar, they had different lineages with the T-72/90 in one branch of the family tree, and the T-64/80 on another branch of the family tree.

Armata OTOH is based on neither tank, with it's own long (30+? years since late 70s/early 80s) development history.

[atcttge]

The lower turrets don't do much good when you have components sticking up that are nearly as tall as the taller turrets and give your enemy something to see and identify your location by.

Not really. Low profile is good as it reduces the silouette. The bits sticking up isn't much of an issue since they are smaller than the turret itself and so still difficult to see especially with proper positioning of the tank and camoflauge. Plus, if these bits aren't emitting any thermal signature, it should be no problem. Problem with low profile is that it limits gun depression angle so that it requires more of the tank to get out of its defensive position to fire at the enemy, which is a problem for those T-XX tanks such as the T-72. It also shows the design bureau's intent on what these tanks are to be - offensive platforms since the low profile with limited gun depression meant it couldn't engage enemies well behind a berm.

The M60 is a tall vehicle compared to the M1, the latter was designed to be squat and have a lower profile compared to its predecessor, to enhance its survivability in the battlefield. It still was taller than the T-72 and gun depression was better than the Russian tanks making it perform better on the defense behind a berm. The lower silouette, better engine, better frontal armour package, and eventually better gun meant that the M1 (and its stablemate the Leopard 2) had a better offensive capability vs its predecessors (M60 etc), which in turn influenced NATO planning in the event of WW3 in Europe (i.e., no longer would NATO tanks be on the defensive behind berms etc, the M1 and Leo 2's offensive capabilities would mean NATO having a better ability of armoured counter attacking Warsaw Pact forces).

The low profile design with good gun depression continues with the newer tanks out there like Leclerc, the Korean K-2, the Japanese Type 10, Turkish Altay, which have squat profiles and a central raised roof to accommodate gun depression.

[atcttge]

I have to clarify some stuff:

T-64 was better than early T-72s until a certain model (cannot recall, maybe T-72A?). IIRC, T-64 (and T-80) plant was in Ukraine, which is big reason why the T-80 was never developed further in Russian service because after the dissolution of the USSR, the factory was in the wrong country, hence the continuation of the T-90, while Ukraine continued with the T-84 (which also never amounted much as only small numbers were produced). Main MBT of the Ukrainian Army was IIRC upgraded T-64s with upgraded ERA (IIRC Nozh which is supposedly as good if not better than Kontakt-V found on T-90) and FCS (but IIRC with the same old automotive stuff so probably not as great as the T-72 automotively).