Chinese infantry fighting vehicles
- Thread starter Broccoli
- Start date
ZBL-19
OK...I have been meaning to ask:
- GL6 APS has been implemented on Type-100 MBT cum Support Vehicles
- GL6 has also been implemented on "light" platforms like the airborne assets like airborne IFV and APC
- I do not see it being implemented on the 8 wheelers. So probably it is either not suitable or they will need to push for an upgrade
- Similarly for the ZTQ-15
Based on Russian experience, the new squads operate in groups of threes and sixes. This is the new Russian infantry tactic. The smaller the group, the less it can be detected by drones. Not going to discuss more into this as this belongs to another thread. Let's just say it works for them. When I saw this vehicle have threes going in, this is the first thing that pops to my head.
APCs and IFVs carry from seven, and up to eleven, like the M113 and the MT-LB. But what happens if the vehicle hits a mine or an ATGM while carrying personnel? That's a lot of people going to die.
The support vehicle is said to be an FSV or Fire Support Vehicle. It's not meant primarily as a battlefield taxi. It appears meant to support tanks by dealing with enemy infantry. The concept is all too familiar. It's what the Soviets had in mind when they conceived of the BMP, the first true IFV. It's was meant for tank support. Somehow the West turned the IFV into an APC with a bigger cannon, anything with 20mm and over, the battle bus is an IFV, and under, it's an APC. That's why there is a gap between the Soviet/Russian mind vs. the Western mind when it comes to IFVs.
The new FSV is returning to the original roots of an IFV.
As for the Type-100, that too is going back to the history of tanks, where wars were won by medium tanks like the Sherman and the T-34, not with heavy tanks, and when the world have gone to the deep end with heavy tanks, which have reached to the point of existential crisis.
The two vehicles feels like an overhaul in the conceptual level of what a tank and an IFV is meant to be.
Look like the hatch is locked manually from outside?
OK they are probably just the handles to remove the whole top plate (after remove the bolts) with the hatch on it, the right side plate has 2 upper extension to allow the top plate opened from the handle side. More reasonable now to have VLS inside (I start to believe this again)
Last edited:
Are you sure of this? This seems to be a simple access panel hatch for something as simple for maintenance of tool storage.
A lot of the posts postulate a VLS system through imagery, but the imagery shown is just a simple manually operated hatch. Not one that would be opened by a servo for a VLS system. An image of the Type 055 VLS system on the right side of the image sows the hatches and the hinges expected.
It could just be me as I am not seeing imagery that is indicative of a VLS system.
As for the lock being the handle, that is possible.
The item marked 'Fulcrum' looks more like a hatch stop, to prevent this box lid from interfering with the crew hatch and potentially crew egress. Which crew egress is a standard design term.
Again, I don't see proof of a vertically launch system on this vehicle, outside of the smoke grenade launchers of the right rear.
Considering the current variety of top attack munition and the fragments that may be produced by APS intercepting them, this can an additional protection for VLS units. This is something that the Navy VLS does not have to face.
If this is just the access panel hatch, then we have to ask why only the Type 100 support vehicle has this hatch design that is both upward and inward facing. Compared to pure armor plate, this is a clear structural disadvantage in terms of protection.
Last edited: