The weapons system was designed before the drone threat, and is remarkably lightweight and compact for the amount of firepower it provides. The ammunition is stored on the turret floor, and should be relatively safe, and it has a mechanism that reduces the risk of fire. What exactly are you comparing it to with the same firepower and mobility, yet has superior survivability? The Chinese system also has an improved internal layout as well as a laser warning system and additional armor. If you are referencing the BMP-3, it lacks passive ATGM sensors and has not been used as designed.
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
ZBD-04A max load carry x50 100mm HE shell , atleast 8x ATGM , x500 30mm shell
i don't think any kind of store trick can boost it crews survivability to equal level as ....bradley for example
also 100mm HE shell stored vertically , not really "relatively safe" like you think
specially again top attack ATMG , top/side attack drone
to make matter worst taiwan is an island , so the idea of bring less than max ammo load to boost survivability is not acceptable
anyway russian military seem didn't even know what was the design goal of BMP-3 at all : where to use , how to use , what to avoid ...etc
and they are the one invented this weapon system
Last edited:
Purpose built IFVs and APCs generally don't endure hits. In PLA's case, the idea is a heavier firepower vehicle can destroy enemies from range when supported by drones and airpower.
To storm enemy in close range you'd probably look at using dismounted and dispersed infantry or if you must use a vehicle, one of the PLA tank conversion IFVs.
broadsword
Brigadier
Would UGVs and robodogs suffer the same fate when used to storm at close range?
No gloves?
I Really Wish they wore their plate carriers more properly. The way some of them put them on themselves seems loose and sluggish. If they can prioritize solidity and discipline, they should certainly be able to do the same with plate carriers.