Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

Long standing issues exist with firing ports. First is they are blind fire. Even with some sighting system they have a fixed line of fire. A few degrees up or down no ability to sight the weapon the firing port without farther limitations.
This is why tanks post world war two dropped the bow gunner. To aim the weapon you have to turn the tank.
Well firing ports are infantry bow gunners. It's only good if the vehicle is absolutely surrounded.

SinoSoldier said:

An export-oriented landkreuzer heavy IFV variant of the VT-4 was displayed at a defense exhibition. Take note of the multiple RWSs at the rear.

View attachment 51111
View attachment 51112
View attachment 51113

Click to expand...

Where are the entry/exit points for passengers? A hatch between the rear smoke dispensers?

PanAsian said:

Where are the entry/exit points for passengers? A hatch between the rear smoke dispensers?

Click to expand...

Between the RWS that is a ramp entry.
I am guessing that the redesign concept is to mount two smaller power packs mated to an electric drive and create a opening like you see on Nammer but we'll retaining the rear engine placement.

Difference between ZBL-08 and ZBL-09 ? Aren't they the same vehicle.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Although it might not have the latest armor it would still fare far better against light anti tank weapons and machine guns. Because of the thousands of units of Type 59 in storage they would have a virtually unlimited number of vehicles to build from.

Click to expand...

That did better be extremely light anti tank weapons, seeing as things like the RPG-7, perhaps the most ubiquitous anti tank weapon that can be bought for a pittance can already penetrated up to 300 plus mm of RHA. While the Type 59 at best only have 120mm frontal armor on the hull.

Viktor Jav said:

While the Type 59 at best only have 120mm frontal armor on the hull.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. They would be based off the chassis not the armor. Part of the reconfiguration from tank to KFC is reversing the vehicles orientation and removing most of the existing hull to build a new one with troop compartment. That means the old frontal armor is not there replaced with new armor including ERA.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Doesn't matter. They would be based off the chassis not the armor. Part of the reconfiguration from tank to KFC is reversing the vehicles orientation and removing most of the existing hull to build a new one with troop compartment. That means the old frontal armor is not there replaced with new armor including ERA.

Click to expand...

Would that not cause the time and effort of production to approach levels of that if the PLA just simply build designs of existing IFVs but with improved armor. Call me a skeptic on this, but in depth armor modficiations would render whatever advantages offer by this new HIFV obsolete. The second choice would give the PLAN a IFV that is designed from the ground up as such.

Viktor Jav said:

Would that not cause the time and effort of production to approach levels of that if the PLA just simply build designs of existing IFVs but with improved armor.

Click to expand...

You could but the result would be having to spend months to years on R&D. The aim here is to streamline the process with an off thr shelf situation. In other words it was already started with the Export VN11 IFV.

Viktor Jav said:

Call me a skeptic on this, but in depth armor modficiations would render whatever advantages offer by this new HIFV obsolete. The second choice would give the PLAN a IFV that is designed from the ground up as such.

Click to expand...

By basing it off the existing suspension and automotive components they save over the course of the vehicles life by again harvesting from off the shelf.
New tracks? Check the bin. Yup brand new never used circa 1979.
New road wheels. Yup been in storage since the Sino Soviet split but still drives.
Sprocket? This thing was built before the wall fell.

That's how it saves for them.
Why bother building a brand new 35 tons tracked IFV chassis when you have a perfectly serviceable chassis system in inventory with thousands of rolling stock in good condition?
The Chinese built over 9,500 type 59 5000 in there own invantory That's an extensive supply chain and with the tanks still in service in some places around world there are still parts made.
The armor is a secondary concerns as it can be or rather would need to be changed. The only limitation is what weight the chassis can take.

So why spend the money on a specialized new chassis for an IFV and APC to give to secondary units when the same armor and protection can be supplied in an existing drive?
And that is something I keep saying because the resulting vehicles would lack Amphibious capabilities this seems better to the units facing say India. It would offer a relivtivly new vehicle that has been proven able to traverse the highlands yet at a over life cost savings.
Rather then spending on a totally new APC/IFV that may cause issues as the PLA moves to adopt a light tank off the same chassis.

8x8 IFV in driving training... All images are high-resolution.

Some screen captures of ZBD-04...