@XM803ENJOYER46 Wrong.
Armor gives the crew hope to survive. Take the Sherman for example, Crews were scared of it cooking off. But once they added armor Fromm other vehicles, they felt better.
But nowadays, tanks are going like horses. New tech is replacing it.
drones are just the beginning. Soon it’ll just be missile at missile combat.

@zhongguofeiyou because the engineers who design the anti tank weapons are very skilled. At a certain point, armor just is for small arms and rpgs

BVVD我要这个

@XM803ENJOYER46 But,why?

@CHRT2025 yeah, nowadays it seems like armor works against RPGs, and HMGs. Once you get to full caliber cannons, they’re shi- I mean shot on.

@XM803ENJOYER46 Well, it's indeed cool, but as you said, the Type 100 tank is limited by its 105mm caliber and is destined to be inferior in firepower to the NATO 130 or even 140mm caliber concepts (if they are successfully developed). At present, it seems that the Type 100 tank has given up specialized protection designs against extreme armor-piercing projectiles of large calibers. Instead, it aims to serve as an information node on the battlefield while having the ability to withstand most conventional armor-piercing projectiles and penetrate most tanks.

@XM803ENJOYER46 Haha, these are actually all completely open-source intelligence.

@CHRT2025 if this is truthful, I would advise you to stay out (or get out) of China 💀
Thanks for the nice info

@FengRedWhite it is one of. Custom design, I only have the turret renders of it

@MTakach Which tank

@XM803ENJOYER46 Regarding the official disclosure of this issue, I think it can start with the Type 99A tank. There is a saying on the Chinese Internet that "if it's too outdated, it can be shown." Mao Ning, the designer of the Type 99A tank, once disclosed in a media program that the penetration of the DTC 10 125 (under Chinese standards) fired by the Type 99A is no less than the main armor area of the Type 99A tank's body resistance to penetration (680mm).

@XM803ENJOYER46 Haha, indeed. But you need to consider multiple information sources. First, the Zhuhai Airshow. You know, North Industries has a heavy weapons booth every year, with exhibits including the Type 15 tank, the VT4 tank, the VT2 tank... There are also many 105mm armor-piercing shells (DTW 105, BTA2 (1.1m long), DTC 02 105 (PLA's third-generation 105mm armor-piercing shell for self-use)... These are all export products, so related customers can get approximate data standards, such as the length of the armor-piercing shell rod, and thus the relevant data leaks out. Secondly, there was once a 105mm armor-piercing shell rod that leaked on Xianyu (a Chinese second-hand trading platform) (hahaha, yes, you read that right). Thirdly, many netizens can obtain the overall picture from the details through the patents published by relevant research institutes (for example, a patent registered on May 21, 2020, named "A processing technology for a large aspect ratio sabot armor-piercing projectile base", with the patent number 202010435931.X, which is believed to be the nose cone design of the 105-4). Finally, as you said, Gaijin is simply a very great intelligence agency (once the manual of the Type 15 tank was leaked).

@CorporalWojak below

@CHRT2025 while all that seems reasonable, can we really trust those facts? I don’t think anything a world superpower will release about how they limit/allow APFSDS capabilities will be truly accurate.

Maybe it is right,
but if I were China I would NOT release a single document (except for the exclusive use of Gaijin.

@CHRT2025 That's actually very interesting, Thanks for the info!

@XM803ENJOYER46 I enjoyed it bro, you we're amazing! take care!

太快了这也，紧跟时事啊ψ(｀∇´)ψ

@CorporalWojak Here I'm referring to the fourth-generation 105mm armor-piercing shell, not the third-generation one (DTC 02 105). It should be noted that the third-generation 125mm armor-piercing shell can penetrate 680mm of homogeneous steel armor at a 90% probability at a distance of 2000 meters with a propellant temperature of 15 degrees Celsius (vertical semi-infinite target). The NATO testing standard is generally a 50% probability of penetration at 21 degrees Celsius (60° inclined target), which is a more lenient standard than China's V90. Under the same penetration depth data, the value measured by the NATO standard is usually about 8% to 12% higher than that of the Chinese standard.

Under the NATO testing standard, several representative NATO armor-piercing shells have a penetration depth of around 700mm at a distance of 2000 meters for the DM63, and around 750mm for the M829A4 (depleted uranium penetrator). Directly comparing the data, converting the 680mm penetration depth of the Chinese third-generation shell (V90) to the NATO V50 standard results in a penetration depth of approximately 740-760mm; however, considering the normalization effect in the NATO 60° inclined target test, the equivalent vertical penetration depth is around 720mm. The rod length of the DTC-10 125 is 680mm, while the new 105mm shell is 1.1m, which to some extent can make up for the speed issue.

@CorporalWojak yeah this is one of those topics where us measly citizens have very little full proof knowledge. Thanks for not getting all salty or anything, very rare to come by on the ol’ internet

《坦克是没有后视镜的》

@CHRT2025 "Should Have"

@XM803ENJOYER46 I understand bro and to an extent you are right, so good one on you!

"所以世界上的民族, 我们最大; 世界上的历史, 我们最长. 这不是偶然, 是当然."
- 傅斯年

@CorporalWojak The new 105-millimeter shell should have a penetration depth of over 680 millimeters.

好，把他们上市！