Recent Developments

Despite the focus on the navy and air force, PLA seems to have plenty of new projects going on in the army. They will likely disclose them one by one (not all the same time), so as not to appear threatening.

Some new undisclosed projects include:

Type 96G MBT


Type 05 155mm Self-propelled artillery


Type XX 35mm Self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery
(scroll down)

Type 63A light amphibious tank


Number 6xx Amphibious IFV (looks like an amphibious artillery)


A new AAAV (looks to be based on the US concept )


New models of wheeled IFVs


These technology developments (especially in the area of amphibious assault) are really impressive. It must be a massive modernization effort.

Feel free to add anything missing.

Holy..... that AAAV looks like it was made in (you choose the bad word/country).

Since the Marines are under the Navy, I think some of these projects are up really because of the Navy, not because of the army's will.

As for the 8x8s, didn't the PLA use to have 8x8 WZ-551s? What happen to those? Gotta wonder why PLA is now investing in these West-common(Germany excluded) "tank chassis" fronts. They won't make trench and obstacle crossing any easier.

sumdud said:

Holy..... that AAAV looks like it was made in (you choose the bad word/country).

Since the Marines are under the Navy, I think some of these projects are up really because of the Navy, not because of the army's will.

As for the 8x8s, didn't the PLA use to have 8x8 WZ-551s? What happen to those? Gotta wonder why PLA is now investing in these West-common(Germany excluded) "tank chassis" fronts. They won't make trench and obstacle crossing any easier.

Click to expand...

The wheeled IFV family concept is most likely for a rapid response team, capable of self deploying anywhere where China deems it necessary. With tracked vehicles, it is necessary to have transporters to carry the vehicles to the front, to reduce the wear and tear on the tracks, and to reduce wear and tear on roads.

sumdud said:

Holy..... that AAAV looks like it was made in (you choose the bad word/country).

Since the Marines are under the Navy, I think some of these projects are up really because of the Navy, not because of the army's will.

As for the 8x8s, didn't the PLA use to have 8x8 WZ-551s? What happen to those? Gotta wonder why PLA is now investing in these West-common(Germany excluded) "tank chassis" fronts. They won't make trench and obstacle crossing any easier.

Click to expand...

I heard they made a switch from WZ-551 mainly for better crew comfort. I assume it's pretty cramped in the old model, which makes soldiers tired more easily after a long drive to the frontlines. Also, the elongated front might provide for a bigger engine and better electronic equipments.

Jiang said:

We need more Type 99 and more artilary. :china:

Click to expand...

Why? I think Type 96 is good enough and is much cheaper. China could build masses of them. As for artillery, I agreed with you, but could you elaborate on which type of artillery that you think is needed more (MLRS, howitzers, mortars, tactical missiles?)

China needs to modernisate it's entire tube artillery fleet. The main divisional level (in infantry and armoured divs) artillery pieces are still the Type 66 (D-20) or the Type 83 (Despite it's name, it's a derivation form the M-30 which dates pre-WWII!!). For example the W86 (D-30 copy) is only started to be introduced to special units, about 40 years later than in rest of the world using the same howitser. Artillery is quite good (or more properly sad) example of the fact that the chinese military modernization is still far away from complete.

Ofcourse there are new stuff comming, but artillery is a thing that needs to be produced in great volumes and when replacing the artillery arsenal of the wrold largest army, It wont be easy task. Still I think china is stalling the progress. What PLA needs (more despertly than any of those fancy new tanks or MRLS) is new serial production towed gun-howitser (155mm/52 cal would be the best solution) with APU to replace both divisional level artillery and the army level as well. In fact the whole divisional sturcture of PLA should be changed also, finally letting away the Tsarist russian era "holy trinity"...

Gollevainen said:

Still I think china is stalling the progress. What PLA needs (more despertly than any of those fancy new tanks or MRLS) is new serial production towed gun-howitser (155mm/52 cal would be the best solution) with APU to replace both divisional level artillery and the army level as well. In fact the whole divisional sturcture of PLA should be changed also, finally letting away the Tsarist russian era "holy trinity"...

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this one. China is doing well if it will let it's artillery park rust. First of all, not even APU gun is very survivable in a modern war environment. SP-guns are the way to go. Second is that with advanced ammunition and shooting techniques there is no such a great need for large amounts of artillery as there was before. Combined these mean that even for suppression fire not as much artillery is needed as before. Reducing amount of artillery and ammunition will also massively reduce logistical challenges. This makes rapid deployment to crisis spots easier, especially if they need to be reached via air or sea transportation. (ie. Taiwan, Myanmar, Tibet etc.)

On issue of organisational change I would agree. In the future it's battalion battle groups, not divisions, which will count. Organisations should become flatter.

(btw, as a long time lurker your .sig is wonderful)

SP artillery poses really a myth more than anything truely practical innovative leap over normal Artillery, expecially now as the APU allows same level tactical mobility (not to mention the allready existing superior strategical mobilty that truck towed artillery poses over tracked SP).

Lot of people live under the false image that SP systems protection would somewhat make them more survivable in the battle field. Against small arms and suprise attacks by enemy diversionary infantry units they give, and they also provides (atleast psychological, if nothing more) protection to the crews against shnarbelz, but they wont make them anymore better place to be than normal artillery when the counter-battery consentration or air strike hits in. Normal artillery fire position at least offers lot better means to camoflage and the gunners have lot more better change to seek cover in the surrounding than trying to squeeze out from those small hatches of the sardine cans. Modern camoflage nets available to towed guns makes them invicible to heat seekers and thermal imgagery devices.

In the past, SP artillery did provide the battery a change to shoot-and-scoop, but now as the APUs are in the market, The guns can do the same. In bigger picture the advantages of SP system are flawed by its huge price different and like I said in the previous post, its the most key factor in PLAs case.

And what comes to the smart mutions, they are one part of the Artillery, but it should be looked as element that enwidens Artillerys usage, but by now way they wont replace the artillerys basic idea, fire support. And to that you still need deliver as much iron as fast as you can, and there is no use to spend Expensive smart munitions to use in the same role that normal ammunition will do just fine. Those smart, extended range multidispence munitions are good to use in special operations like counter-battery fire.

The current trend to make "less with the same effect" is merely political and comes from the fact that western nations today cannot afford to keep large and effective artillery branch.

Jiang said:

We need more Type 99 and more artilary. :china:

Click to expand...

As long as we're talking about what China needs. It needs better environmental awareness, health care, and social safety net before it needs more Type99 and artillery.

but not in chinese military forums land force section
We are not talking about chinese economical sectors needs, but purely speculating what PLA needs and what it is getting, out of its political contest.