Talk:Type 99 tank

message: say is that it reminds me of the whole vulgar joke/comparison amongst men.  (Psychoneko (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Armor

message: How many have been made so far? (Jaymano 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How many have been made so far?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Design Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page move suggestion 

message: 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 NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have changed the wording of the introduction paragraph 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unexplained blanking of referenced materials and subsequent reverts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Type 99 variants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Detailed bibliography 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removal of others' talk page contributions is considered vandalism.  I have restored it.  Scr★pIronIV 16:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talk page sections removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright violation  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncited nonsense 

message: 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 b c
99 Phase 2 d e f
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.
 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)
thread_title:  Type 99 Phase 1 and 2 variants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's the top speed of the differents ZTZ99 variants