So apparently according to the original poster of this picture, the two turrets in the back are not actually supposed to be 12.7mm turrets, but 7.62NATO calibre ones. And all the weirdness (mainly the two separate turrets in the back) can be attributed to "client request". So we can infer that the "client" (most likely UAE considering their history with BMP3) requested NORINCO to put together a product with BMP-3 turret and other NORINCO off the shelf parts, and here it is. As a result, there probably won't be a domestic equivalent heavy IFV using type 96/type99 chassis.
Chinese infantry fighting vehicles
- Thread starter Broccoli
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
The ZBD-04 IFV armament is indeed overkill to some degree. Understandably the PLA wants to maintain an array of weapons to deal with the myriad of threats an IFV will most likely face. Perhaps a new IFV turret design would replace the 30mm co axial with a 14.5mm HMG. This would give the new IFV the capability to rapidly engage any target that is less than a fully armored vehicle and even light cover, while the 100mm with basic HE-F can give any IFV a second thought, and there is always the HEAT warhead for the occasional tank.
Such an arrange should give the new IFV more space for ammunition storage without significantly decreasing it's offensive capabilities.
Such an arrange should give the new IFV more space for ammunition storage without significantly decreasing it's offensive capabilities.
So according to this article, the ifv will be named VN-50, with 7 passengers and 3 crew, weighing at 50t, which is 2 tons lighter than vt4.
So if it only has 3 crew, who will be operating the additional two RWS? The passenger count is the same as zbd08 so the passenger layout should be similar as well, with 3 on each side and 1 in the middle behind the turret, then there is still much more room left (40% of the vehicle length is in front of the driver). There seems to be enough space to fit one or two more crew members around next to the driver.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The rear RWS might not be as crazy as some here are thinking.
I remember some Syrian war footage of how Assad’s forces mounted urban assaults.
Basically, their BMPs reversed into walls to breach them, and allowed troops to assault directly into the target structure without taking fire from surrounding buildings.
The main turret was not useable in such breaches, and was used instead to provide continued suppression fire against enemies in surrounding buildings.
If used in such a way, the rare RWS would make a lot more sense, as it allows two troopers to sweep the interior of the breached building and provide continued surpression and supporting fire while the squad deployed.
Once the squad has found cover, the RWS operating troops can join the rest of the squad while they lay down suppression fire.
Additionally/alternatively, the IFV can remain on station, waiting for the troopers to return if it is a quick smash and grab hostage rescue, or explosive demolition raid, for the troopers to quickly re-embark and pull out without risk leaving the rare of the IFV vulnerable to assault from hostiles within the target structure.
I remember some Syrian war footage of how Assad’s forces mounted urban assaults.
Basically, their BMPs reversed into walls to breach them, and allowed troops to assault directly into the target structure without taking fire from surrounding buildings.
The main turret was not useable in such breaches, and was used instead to provide continued suppression fire against enemies in surrounding buildings.
If used in such a way, the rare RWS would make a lot more sense, as it allows two troopers to sweep the interior of the breached building and provide continued surpression and supporting fire while the squad deployed.
Once the squad has found cover, the RWS operating troops can join the rest of the squad while they lay down suppression fire.
Additionally/alternatively, the IFV can remain on station, waiting for the troopers to return if it is a quick smash and grab hostage rescue, or explosive demolition raid, for the troopers to quickly re-embark and pull out without risk leaving the rare of the IFV vulnerable to assault from hostiles within the target structure.
That would break the shit out of the RWS. I BMP 3s have top exit holes which would work for this purpose. This was a UAE decision probably, who is not known for effective military tactics and doctrine, but the customer is always right as we all know
I personally don’t like it because apparently there won’t even be enough crew members to use both guns along with the turret at the same time. Even if there are, we reach the issue that made older multi-turret designs non-viable where the commander giving orders to so many gunners while performing spotting and communication drastically reduced the efficiency.The more I think about this, the more I’m flabbergasted. Why not just put one gun on top, it would have better coverage and more reactive than a janky swing arm and can be effectively used by the limited number of crew it has. It’s almost like that’s the optimal solution used by every modern armor design ever...
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That would break the shit out of the RWS. I BMP 3s have top exit holes which would work for this purpose. This was a UAE decision probably, who is not known for effective military tactics and doctrine, but the customer is always right as we all know
Note that the RSW seems to be sitting on pivoting arms.
Those arms would not only allow the crew to move the arms out of the way for a rear wall breach, they would also allow the RWS pretty much 360 firing arcs around the tank, and would not be limited to rear quarter operations only.
In urban combat, the more eyes and guns looking around the better.
Old WWI land cruisers were not viable because the gunners have very restricted fields and view, with very slow traverse time for the gun turrets.
Modern RWS have integrated camera arrays and can operation pretty much independently without needing to bother the tank commander with.
The rear RWS could be operated by embarked troopers, who would otherwise just be sitting twiddling their thumbs.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Placing the RWS on top would carry other costs.
You would need to increase the turret size to accommodate them, and having them bolted into your turret would obstruct the commander’s periscope rearward field of view.
These rear mounted swing-out RWS would not limit the commander’s view in any way.
Dismounts will. Consider them as a replacement to hatches and/or gunports on lighter IFVs. Just far more expensive, much less dangerous and certainly far more effective than gunports.