Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

ohan_qwe said:

I wonder why they didn't go with 40mm cannon like this one instead of 2A42 that it designed in 1970s.

Click to expand...

The shell used by CS/AA5 is CTA (cased telescoped ammunition). Is there any military adopting CTA in active service? CS/AA5 is for export, but I think it is more of a demonstrator since nobody (including PLA) has adopted such concept.

Unlike aircraft, jet engine and electronics, guns and cannons have reached its theoretical limit long time ago. 1970s gun is as deadly as gun made in 2020s. The only improvements are rearrangement or making it lighter a little bit. The 40mm CTA gun is slightly smaller than a 30mm old gun, making upgrade/swapping very easy when it is accepted.

taxiya said:

The shell used by CS/AA5 is CTA (cased telescoped ammunition). Is there any military adopting CTA in active service? CS/AA5 is for export, but I think it is more of a demonstrator since nobody (including PLA) has adopted such concept.

Unlike aircraft, jet engine and electronics, guns and cannons have reached its theoretical limit long time ago. 1970s gun is as deadly as gun made in 2020s. The only improvements are rearrangement or making it lighter a little bit. The 40mm CTA gun is slightly smaller than a 30mm old gun, making upgrade/swapping very easy when it is accepted.

Click to expand...

That is none-sense. In 70s tanks are still rocking L7. Smoothbore guns were still new. The base 2A46 on original T-72 has been improved many times in material science and construction to have much greater pressure. Roughly speaking the same gun in 70s is about 30-40% stronger if redesigned in 2023.

taxiya said:

The shell used by CS/AA5 is CTA (cased telescoped ammunition). Is there any military adopting CTA in active service? CS/AA5 is for export, but I think it is more of a demonstrator since nobody (including PLA) has adopted such concept.

Unlike aircraft, jet engine and electronics, guns and cannons have reached its theoretical limit long time ago. 1970s gun is as deadly as gun made in 2020s. The only improvements are rearrangement or making it lighter a little bit. The 40mm CTA gun is slightly smaller than a 30mm old gun, making upgrade/swapping very easy when it is accepted.

Click to expand...

CTA 40MM, EBRC Jaguar.

Keep in mind that more and more modern ifv's have 30 mm protection in front of the vehicle.
So a larger caliber isn't unnecessary. Speaking of this topic, in my earlier question about the
Lynx all terrain vehicle is it possible that this version armed with the 40 mm CTA will make it?
After all it must be much cheaper than an IFV.

Builder said:

Keep in mind that more and more modern ifv's have 30 mm protection in front of the vehicle.
So a larger caliber isn't unnecessary. Speaking of this topic, in my earlier question about the
Lynx all terrain vehicle is it possible that this version armed with the 40 mm CTA will make it?
After all it must be much cheaper than an IFV.

Click to expand...

What about just stick an ATGM launcher at that point? Strictly speaking of defeating armor a Javelin or HJ-12 will make sure even MBT can be defeated. Does CTA-40 style cannon offer other capability for the cost it might add?

" What about just stick an ATGM launcher at that point? Strictly speaking of defeating armor a Javelin or HJ-12 will make sure even MBT can be defeated. Does CTA-40 style cannon offer other capability for the cost it might add? "

Ok, you have a point on this but what if the opponent IFV also have an active protection system?
How else can you fight it then? The frontal armour is too thick and atgm strikes have no effect for
the first attacks. What I want to say is that it will cost a defending infantry more energy to fight just
one heavily protected IFV while a larger caliber auto cannon probably would penetrate it even in the
frontal arc. Besides an IFV is not as armoured as an mbt.

ohan_qwe said:

I wonder why they didn't go with 40mm cannon like this one instead of 2A42 that it designed in 1970s.

Click to expand...

maybe they think the system is still immature to put it in use, I think people will be switching to 40mm sooner or later, we may see the earlier batches of the new ifv sticking to 30mm, then switching to 40mm in later batches, or not if they manage to finish the project before the ifv project does, after all, they're probably two parallel projects by different design teams, who knows what fatal problem will pop up for one of them in some random time

Maybe a sort of universal IFV turret mount can be developed that different turrets with different armaments can be swapped as needed in future.

no_name said:

Maybe a sort of universal IFV turret mount can be developed that different turrets with different armaments can be swapped as needed in future.

Click to expand...

Unmanned turrets are probably way easier to swap than manned one if ammo are included. But bigger caliber means less ammo capacity or the turret become larger outside the chassis making a bigger change on the center of gravity.

Modular system are nice on paper but have proved quite troublesome on some projects. We can take the LCS for example got drawbacks to be modular end modular mission packages have failed to materialize.

by78 said:

The VN22 now mounts an assault gun + a image of the driver compartment.

Click to expand...

Finally, an interior image of the troop compartment, which has been strangely difficult to come by. You can catch a glimpse of the commander's terminal in the back.