The main battle tank is one of the most potent
symbols of a nation’s military power - a terrifying armored behemoth capable of challenging
any enemy it encounters on the battlefield. They are some of the most advanced and dangerous
machines modern nations produce, but they aren’t all created equal. Competition to create the deadliest, most
sophisticated tank in the world is intense, and the stakes are high. Battlefield dominance is the proving ground
of geopolitical power, and a question of life and death for the crews inside these weapons. With the US and China ratcheting up tensions,
it’s no wonder there is a lot of discussion about how the military hardware of the two
powers stacks up against each other. The United States has been the world’s sole
superpower for decades, and has been accustomed to overmatching anything its adversaries can
put into the field. But China has undertaken an incredible modernization
of its armed forces, and its capabilities are constantly growing. The two nations boast some of the most formidable
tank designs on the planet, the M1 Abrams, and the Type 99 - but how do those designs
compare to each other? The Abrams has by far the older design lineage. Development of the original model began in
the mid 1970s, seeking to upgrade the American tank force to compete with advances in Soviet
weapon designs. The original M1 tanks first entered service
in 1980 - though their capabilities then were a shadow of what they are now. The M1 has seen a long series of upgrades
over the decades, each one adding new technology and making the tank far more lethal - as well
as adding considerable weight. Chinese tank production has for many years
drawn very heavily from Russian designs, and the Type 99’s predecessors were clearly
modeled on the Soviet T-72. In recent decades though they have developed
more and more of their own original technology, the quality of which has been improving rapidly. The Type 99 first entered service in 2001,
and the upgraded 99A was officially introduced in 2015. All information here pertains to the latest
versions of the tanks, the M1A2 for the Abrams, and the Type 99A. First off, let’s consider the size of these
monsters. The Abrams is the larger of the two tanks,
at 26 feet long (not including the main gun barrel) by 12 feet wide by 8 feet high. The body of the Type 99 is three feet shorter,
and its profile is about 5 inches lower. The Abrams is also significantly heavier. Each major upgrade has added weight, and while
the original M1 back in 1980 weighed in at 60 tons, the most modern version of the tank
weighs nearly 74 tons. The latest Type 99A tanks weigh just under
64 tons. Both tanks carry engines that supply 1500
horse power, but the lighter overall weight of the Type 99A means that it achieves a greater
power to weight ratio. This is borne out in the top speeds of the
two tanks. The M1A2 can travel at a maximum speed of
42mph on roads, and just 25mph off road. The Type 99A can travel at nearly 50 mph on
road, and over 37 mph off road. It also has greater fuel efficiency, and a
longer operational range. The Type 99A can travel about 311 miles before
needing to refuel, whereas the M1A2 can only travel up to about 265 miles by road, or about
124 miles off road. The greater operational range and the faster
tactical maneuvering are clear advantages for the lighter Chinese tank. It shouldn’t be assumed that these would
necessarily lead to a greater survival rate in a battle between rival tank formations,
given how sophisticated the weaponry and targeting computers of both machines are. But it’s clearly a mark in the Type 99’s
favor. Next we’ll consider the armor of the two
tanks. The ability to withstand enemy fire is one
of the original and most fundamental requirements of any tank, and armor protection is one of
the fiercest areas of competition in tank design - as well as one of the most secretive. The original M1 Abrams models were protected
by Chobham armor, a British-designed composite originally developed in the 1960s, which combined
ceramic blocks, metal plates and empty space. The complicated physics of how these diverse
materials and their careful arrangement interacted with an incoming projectile meant that the
armor could withstand shots that would have easily penetrated simple steel plates. Over the years the M1’s armor has seen repeated
upgrades, and the more recent generation of M1A2 models incorporate depleted uranium,
in addition to other, unknown materials. The exact composition is highly classified. Depleted uranium is extremely dense, and the
improved armor makes the M1A2 significantly heavier than previous models, but the protection
is greatly increased. Estimates are that the depleted uranium armor
may be nearly twice as effective as that of the original M1s. After the US military’s experiences of urban
combat during the Iraq war, the Tank Urban Combat Survival Kit, or TUSK, was released. This allows the Abrams to be outfitted with
explosive reactive armor, in addition to other upgrades designed to give the tank more of
an edge in the constricted fighting environment of towns and cities, where it’s much easier
for an enemy to sneak up with man-portable rocket launchers. The Type 99 is also protected by composite
armor panels, but again the composition and configuration are closely guarded secrets. It has been claimed that the tank’s frontal
armor protection is roughly equivalent to that of the Abrams, but this is impossible
to verify. It also benefits from an advanced explosive
reactive armor system, said to be similar to the “Relikt” system designed for latest
generation Russian tanks. Small explosive panels are installed on the
surface of the tank, and detonate when struck by an enemy round, theoretically disrupting
or even destroying it before it can penetrate the tank. The explosive panels can defeat a wide range
of anti tank missiles, and also diminish the penetrating power of armor-piercing tank shells. But the full extent of its capabilities are
unknown. So which side actually enjoys the advantage? It’s impossible to say at this stage. Of the two tanks, only the M1 has seen combat
against enemy armor, in the two invasions of Iraq. But there it fought against older, Soviet
era models, which were clearly outclassed by the Abrams. Neither the M1 nor the Type 99 has had to
withstand the fire of the most cutting edge enemy weapons, and both sides are determined
to keep the full extent of their armor’s capabilities secret. Next up, the big guns - the teeth and fangs
of these beasts of war. The M1A2’s main weapon is the M256A1 120mm
gun, a smoothbore weapon designed by Germany’s Rheinmetall AG, and manufactured in the US. This is the same gun that was carried on all
but the most modern incarnations of the German Leopard 2 tank. Its maximum effective range is nominally 3500
meters, though it demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm that it could engage targets
at nearly 4000 meters. The Type 99A carries the ZPT98 125 mm gun,
a copy of the Russian 2A46M, which has a maximum effective range of 3000 meters. For both tanks, the primary anti-tank munitions
are what are known as “armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot rounds.” This is a technologically very sophisticated
round that consists of a long thin penetrator with fins on the rear, surrounded by a thick
sleeve that falls away from the penetrator as it flies toward the target. This makes it possible to fire a very thin
projectile, which otherwise would be unstable in flight, from a smoothbore barrel, which
allows greater forward force to be imparted to the projectile. The Abrams makes use of a depleted uranium
round, taking advantage of the extreme density of that material and giving the round more
penetrating power. However the Chinese are said to have developed
their own depleted uranium round as well, and they claim that it can penetrate an M1
at up to 1.4 km. This is of course unverifiable. Current estimates are that the M1’s main
weapon can probably penetrate about 15 to 25% more armor - an advantage for the Abrams,
though clearly the Type 99 has a dangerous bite of its own. Both tanks can make use of a variety of other
ammunition as well, including sophisticated high explosive anti tank rounds, anti personnel
rounds that scatter huge numbers of metal balls across a wide swathe, like a giant shotgun,
and more. The Type 99 is capable of firing Chinese,
Russian, and ex-Warsaw Pact ammunition, giving it some versatility in supply. It can also fire anti tank guided missiles
down the gun tube, which the M1 cannot. These missiles are effective over longer range
than a tank’s normal armor piercing rounds, and can even take on low flying helicopters. However the technology has been around for
decades without being extensively used, and probably doesn’t represent a major advantage
over the Abrams. The M1 employs a fourth crewman as a manual
loader, whereas the Type 99 uses a carousel autoloader, which can achieve a rate of fire
of around 8 rounds per minute. A well trained human loader is faster, at
least under ideal circumstances, though the autoloader could potentially perform better
in rough terrain, where the human could be jostled and his loading cycle potentially
disrupted. But the autoloader is a complicated piece
of equipment in itself, and is one more piece that can fail if not properly maintained. The consequence of the Abrams carrying a fourth
crewman as a dedicated loader is that the turret is larger and heavier than that of
the Type 99. This adds to the overall weight of the vehicle
and decreases speed, but also comes with some major advantages. The US military feels the human loader is
faster and more reliable than an autoloader. Also, the larger turret means there is room
for the ammunition to be stored in separate compartments fitted with blow out panels,
so that if the tank is hit and the ammunition is ignited, the rounds will explode out of
the tank and not into the crew compartment. This is a significant advantage in survivability
for the crew. If the Type 99’s armor is penetrated, there
is a greater danger of the ammunition cooking off right there in the crew compartment. The M1’s fourth crewman is also available
for other tasks on board the tank, or to fill in when another crewman is injured. Both tanks carry several secondary weapons
for use against enemy infantry and light vehicles. The M1A2 carries three machine guns, two on
top of the turret in front of the commander’s and loader’s hatches, and one coaxial with
the main gun. The TUSK upgrade kit adds another coaxial
fifty caliber gun. The Type 99A carries one coaxial machine gun,
and one on the commander’s cupola. So the Abrams, which has been used extensively
on battlefields where the main threat was enemy infantry, like the insurgents of Iraq
and Afghanistan, carries more secondary firepower. This is an advantage against infantry, but
doesn’t tip the scale against enemy tanks. Both tanks carry an extremely sophisticated
suite of sensors and targeting computers, capable of taking the readings and crunching
the math to put rounds on target at long range while moving over rough terrain, so that the
gunner just has to keep the weapon aimed at the enemy vehicle. They both also carry active protection technology,
designed to disrupt the guidance systems of enemy anti tank missiles. Both the US and China have been experimenting
with so-called ‘hard-kill” systems, which fire small projectiles at incoming warheads. But too little is known about the capabilities,
especially of the Chinese technology, to compare effectiveness. Finally, it’s worth bearing in mind that
the cost of a latest generation M1A2 tank is around $9 million a piece, whereas each
Type 99A costs only around a third of that price. This isn’t a mark in favor of the Type 99’s
survivability, but it is an important strategic level consideration. If one had to bet on the tank that would come
out on top in a 1 on 1 match, the best money right now is probably on the Abrams, given
the American tank’s advantages in firing range, armor penetration and loading time,
and its proven combat effectiveness over decades of operation. Too much about the Chinese tank’s capabilities
remains unconfirmed rumor at this point. But the M1’s edge, if indeed it has one,
is clearly too small for comfort. The US military itself considers the Type
99 to be a world class design, and a clear potential threat to its own tanks. Many of the capabilities of these cutting
edge machines remain shrouded in secrecy, and the question of which tank would dominate
the other will likely remain unanswered unless they wind up facing each other across the
battlefield. But one thing that is clear is that both will
undoubtedly continue to become more lethal over time.
