Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

Franklin said:

I can't believe China still has their infantry run on foot alongside the armoured vehicles and tanks. When are they going to stop doing that ?

Click to expand...

Haven't you watch Fury?

Franklin said:

I can't believe China still has their infantry run on foot alongside the armoured vehicles and tanks. When are they going to stop doing that ?

Click to expand...

I also cannot believe other countries (other than China) dismount their troops from armoured vehicles and have them run either alongside or away from the vehicle and into danger zone.





And I also cannot believe other countries soldiers still sit on top of Armoured vehicles, don't they know they are supposed to be sitting inside ;P

So as you can see, it is not always the case by looking at and criticizing based on a few photos or video, it might be needed for various reasons - such as, not enough vehicles, they are entering less hostile environment, they are out of the vehicles to engage on enemies that are difficult to be hit by armoured vehicles (IFV), etc. All these played a part, right?

rhino123 said:

So as you can see, it is not always the case by looking at and criticizing based on a few photos or video, it might be needed for various reasons - such as, not enough vehicles, they are entering less hostile environment, they are out of the vehicles to engage on enemies that are difficult to be hit by armoured vehicles (IFV), etc. All these played a part, right?

Click to expand...

By the way, you guys noticed the "high visibility" flag patches on those US soldiers?

Anyhow, It always boggles me how anything a little out of ordinary about the PLA is somehow turned into a sign of backwardness... It turns out everything the PLA does is done by everyone else...

That's joint war game, The terrain is wrong for active deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan so wearing full color makes some sense. besides In ACU does it really matter? The Camo sticks out like a Sore thumb, the only use I can see for it really is for maybe police or Peace Keeping not active combat.

vesicles said:

By the way, you guys noticed the "high visibility" flag patches on those US soldiers?

Anyhow, It always boggles me how anything a little out of ordinary about the PLA is somehow turned into a sign of backwardness... It turns out everything the PLA does is done by everyone else...

Click to expand...

Because the naysayers and China bashing fan boys need something to pick on to make them feel good.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That's joint war game, The terrain is wrong for active deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan so wearing full color makes some sense. besides In ACU does it really matter? The Camo sticks out like a Sore thumb, the only use I can see for it really is for maybe police or Peace Keeping not active combat.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought too since some of the troops in the first photo were South Koreans. I was just trying to point out that soldiers from other nations also wear colored flag patches in exercises. That was intended to counter some other posters who seem to believe that wearing colored flag patches in exercises was a sign of backwardness. My point was that everyone wears colored flag patches. It all depends on situations...

rhino123 said:

I also cannot believe other countries (other than China) dismount their troops from armoured vehicles and have them run either alongside or away from the vehicle and into danger zone.

And I also cannot believe other countries soldiers still sit on top of Armoured vehicles, don't they know they are supposed to be sitting inside ;P

So as you can see, it is not always the case by looking at and criticizing based on a few photos or video, it might be needed for various reasons - such as, not enough vehicles, they are entering less hostile environment, they are out of the vehicles to engage on enemies that are difficult to be hit by armoured vehicles (IFV), etc. All these played a part, right?

Click to expand...

In fact, it was due to combat experiences that infantry, especially from the formal soviet block, tends to prefer sit on top of, instead of inside, an APC or IFV during transit, and dismount as soon as approaching or encountering hostilities.

Typical APCs and IFVs are poorly protected from anything other than small arms. One hit from an RPG from the side or behind could take out an entire squad sitting inside an APC or IFV. Visibilities from inside of the vehicles are poor, and mounted soldiers have very limited contribution other than firing from firing holes with restricted field of view.

The Russians in Chechnya found out that siting inside an APC/IFV actually decreases the soldier's survivability. With solders sitting on top during transit, they have a great view of potential dangers, and they can dismount very quickly as soon as hostilities struck.

IFV's true value to infantry is that it provides heavy support firepower, and a place to store equipment, a moving object to take cover behind---but not inside, during combat; and good mobility during transportation between combat. Its armour is really only useful for protection against opportunistic snipers and artillery shrapnel during transport phase.

Of course there are heavy IFVs and APCs with armour approaching or equivalent to MBTs. But these are heavy, have a large logistic footprint, and during combat, the infantry will be fighting dismounted anyway, so in general, other than low intensity anti-insurgent patrol operations where acceptable casualties levels are practically zero and soldiers generally sit inside most of the time, they are inefficient use of resources.

wtlh said:

In fact, it was due to combat experiences that infantry, especially from the formal soviet block, tends to prefer sit on top of, instead of inside, an APC or IFV during transit, and dismount as soon as approaching or encountering hostilities.

Typical APCs and IFVs are poorly protected from anything other than small arms. One hit from an RPG from the side or behind could take out an entire squad sitting inside an APC or IFV. Visibilities from inside of the vehicles are poor, and mounted soldiers have very limited contribution other than firing from firing holes with restricted field of view.

IFV's true value to infantry is that it provides heavy support firepower, and a place to store equipment, a moving object to take cover behind---but not inside, during combat; and good mobility during transportation between combat. Its armour is really only useful for protection against opportunistic snipers and artillery shrapnel during transport phase.

Of course there are heavy IFVs and APCs with armour approaching or equivalent to MBTs. But these are heavy, have a large logistic footprint, and during combat, the infantry will be fighting dismounted anyway, so in general, other than low intensity anti-insurgent patrol operations where acceptable casualties levels are practically zero and soldiers generally sit inside most of the time, they are inefficient use of resources.

Click to expand...

I would say that the practice is tactics having to adapt to inadequate equipment. A poorly armored APC that is lost is still a loss regardless of whether there are additional troops inside it. The real issue is insufficient protection and the only real solution is additional protection.

Don't forget about the crew either, I am sure a big reason why so many armored vehicles are abandoned in Middle East conflicts is because the crews know that under particular circumstances their vehicles are nothing but death traps. Abandoning them prematurely may be a discipline issue but the real problem is there.

PanAsian said:

I would say that the practice is tactics having to adapt to inadequate equipment. A poorly armored APC that is lost is still a loss regardless of whether there are additional troops inside it. The real issue is insufficient protection and the only real solution is additional protection.

Don't forget about the crew either, I am sure a big reason why so many armored vehicles are abandoned in Middle East conflicts is because the crews know that under particular circumstances their vehicles are nothing but death traps. Abandoning them prematurely may be a discipline issue but the real problem is there.

Click to expand...

Protection is indeed the main issue. However, IFV and APCs have intrinsic disadvantages in terms protection due to their function. They are never going to be able to as well protected as the MBTs while still filling their primary roles of transporting adequate number of troops well, and maintain a reasonable logistic footprint.

A MBT has a lot less area to cover, and the way they are used also means that they can have very uneven distribution of armour and still with the fighting compartment and the crew protected. An IFV or APC is entirely a different matter. An IFV not only has a fighting compartment, but also its relatively large troop transport section to protect.

And further more a lot of the IFV designs are supposed to be air-transportable, and one simply cannot expect an adequate protection from armour piercing munitions just from passive armour for those.

IFV and APC are designed to amass and move large number of troops and fire power at a large concentrated area quickly to disable the enemy position and flanks. It was never meant to be made to fight MBT or take hits from artillery shells during battle. I think of them as an all terrain vehicle that's armored just enough against small arms fire and transportation and recon mission.