The new IFV has entered service

People are saying it's "probably" amphibious. I'd say it's definately amphibious - the water jets are clearly visible each side of the rear door and the bow plane is also a dead give away.

It appears to be significantly lighter armoured than current US/European designs. The Israelis, Jordanians and Russians are going down the route of heavier IFVs -conceptually, this is just a modernisation of the BMP-1 idea but with exceptionally good firepower (as on BMP-3).

Anonymous said:

People at CDF claims that this IFV doesn't have a thermal channel since ealier versiosn of BMP-3 doesn't have it either.

Can anyone comfirm this?

Click to expand...

Yes, the ZBD 97 does not have thermal imager.

Personally, I would get a thermal imager for the IFV before any other upgrade. As of now, the thing is almost completely blind at night, unless the tank has some night vision equipment. Still, the IFV could not fight at night.

Also I have noticed that ZDB 97 has only one door for troop dismount?

Western army’s uses IFV as infantry support vehicle and at first contact whit enemy troops dismount and provide cover outside of vehicle… Only one door complicates that significantly…
Thus that means that PLA adopted old soviet concept where troops are fighting from inside of IFV? Because that tactics failed miserably in Groznyy…

Click to expand...

I think the ZBD-97's role is to support main battle tanks, destroy vehciles, and to provide fire support for infantry. The type 92 IFV will serve the purpose of carrying and dismounting troops.

MIGleader said:

I think the ZBD-97's role is to support main battle tanks, destroy vehciles, and to provide fire support for infantry. The type 92 IFV will serve the purpose of carrying and dismounting troops.

Click to expand...

I hope that they will not make that mistake… Using IFV that way is old soviet tactic developed whit BMP-1 and failed miserably in Middle East wars, in Afghanistan and in Chechnya… Russian finally gave up that tactic after first Chechnya fiasco and used modified western tactics in second…
IFV joust can’t survive without infantry support, and I don’t see why anyone would us IFV as some sort of light tank… PLA should use proven tactics and stop fallowing 1960s outdated doctrine…
As for type 92 wheeled IFV are quite capable to replace tracked vehicles in some scenarios but they can’t completely replace tracked vehicles… They lack armor and they can’t be used in all environments as tracked IFV…

isthvan said:

I hope that they will not make that mistake… Using IFV that way is old soviet tactic developed whit BMP-1 and failed miserably in Middle East wars, in Afghanistan and in Chechnya… Russian finally gave up that tactic after first Chechnya fiasco and used modified western tactics in second…
IFV joust can’t survive without infantry support, and I don’t see why anyone would us IFV as some sort of light tank… PLA should use proven tactics and stop fallowing 1960s outdated doctrine…
As for type 92 wheeled IFV are quite capable to replace tracked vehicles in some scenarios but they can’t completely replace tracked vehicles… They lack armor and they can’t be used in all environments as tracked IFV…

Click to expand...

How did it failed in the middle eastern wars? And in afghanistan? I mean Chechnya?

No you're pointing out at the problematic armour APC's and IFV's have. But whan I see how it works in Iraq when they invaded well the bradley's did a helluva job. Same has to be said for teh BMP's when used in africa or teh balkans!!! The problem is that IFV and APC's must work with armour. When you see how they were employed in A-stan you could see soft armoured columns and then a couple of APC's... with no tank support. So that use of the APC's is a sound one. But as I said an APC has always to play on the distance. It has to put a void between its creaw and the OPFOR infantry.

Plus tracked vehicles? Damn you tell me why tracked vehicles get shot more easily in urban environments than BTR's!!! Because they're slow and make noise.

i may be wrong but it looks to me that troops can get out from the front.. theres that thing that looks like an access ramp..just my 2 cents

Well i know what you mean but it's very unlikely that the thing is an acsessramp...its too small and the whole idea of getting the troops out from the frontside of the vechicle is just too hazardrious. The whole point of rear acsessramp is to provide the troops adequate support when departing the vehicle. To force them charging from the vehicle towards the most likely position of the enemy is just stubid...

I think the thing that you mean is more likely some sort of shiled for the tracks from the frontside being lifted down...tough i cannot be sure

Red not Dead said:

How did it failed in the middle eastern wars? And in afghanistan? I mean Chechnya?

No you're pointing out at the problematic armour APC's and IFV's have. But whan I see how it works in Iraq when they invaded well the bradley's did a helluva job. Same has to be said for teh BMP's when used in africa or teh balkans!!! The problem is that IFV and APC's must work with armour. When you see how they were employed in A-stan you could see soft armoured columns and then a couple of APC's... with no tank support. So that use of the APC's is a sound one. But as I said an APC has always to play on the distance. It has to put a void between its creaw and the OPFOR infantry.

Plus tracked vehicles? Damn you tell me why tracked vehicles get shot more easily in urban environments than BTR's!!! Because they're slow and make noise.

Click to expand...

I said that doctrine failed not Russian APC’s or wheeled IFV…. I personally think that BMP2 was probably best soviet armored vehicle fielded in Afghanistan (especially in combination whit ZSU–23-4 Shilka) and Soviet didn’t use MBT’s for convoy protection because tank guns have to limited elevation…

I was referring to fact that old soviet doctrine looks at IFV as some sort of light attack support vehicle whit almost no emphasis on infantry… Same goes for tanks…
You can look for results of such tactic in Groznyy or in Vukovar (Yugoslav army used that tactics and suffered heavy loses to 800 lightly armed defenders; that’s for Balkans experience)…
Yes I agree that IFV’ must work whit tanks but Russian experience in Groznyy shove what happens to armor without infantry support… Using armor without infantry is plain stupid… That’s why IFV’s were created in first place, to provide infantry support to armor (modifying mechanized infantry concept)…

As for wheeled IFV I said that they are quite capable to replace tracked vehicles in some scenarios but they can’t completely replace tracked vehicles… They lack armor and they can’t be used in all environments and terrains as tracked IFV…
I said nothing about urban warfare…
But since you started firstly tracked IFV like Bradley has max. speed of 70km/h( so its not slow as you my think), has better protection(Iraq version weights 36t), and better firepower then most wheeled IFV's… You can’t possible believe that 14t BTR has same armor protection?

Again I was referring to tactics not equipment and you my see that Russian army adopted lots of western usage concepts in second Chechen war…

Unfortunately for the PLA I think this is another case of equipment being introduced that is obsolete right away. It seems that this vehicle is no better armored than earlier APCs which means it is drastically underarmored for any sort of frontline duty. Hopefully the engine in front layout would help crew survivability a bit.

Without even a thermal sight, I hope there is some fire control system that allows firing on the move with decent probability to hit. In my opinion this is an upgunned transport that is a deathtrap for its occupants. Hopefully they realize this and it will prompt them to more often dismount and pursue combined ops tactics that should be more effective overall anyways.

Sorry if I sound very negative but protection only against 7.62mm ammo and shrapnel, and vehicle weapons with poor hit probability on the move, in today's battlefield against any half decent force fails to meet any of the 3 basic purposes of armored vehicles, protection, mobility, and firepower.

i agree with that this vehicle is mostly liklely in the same wieght class as the BMP 3 which is 18 tons. the manufacturer says it will withstand 30mm rounds over the frontal ark but that is pure BS unless all that weight is at the front there is no way its gonna stop that. The only IFVs that i know of that can take that are in the 24-33 ton range. this means unfortunatly that the BMP 3 and new IFV could be most likely taken out with a .50 cal or 14.5mm MG with relative ease. in terms of fire control i am starting to find it unlikely that it dosnt have a thermal or if it in fact dosnt will not be equiped with one in the very near future. however the fire control system on the BMP 3 is supoused to be exelent and if it isnt china is more then capable of produceing a good one

PanAsian said:

Without even a thermal sight, I hope there is some fire control system that allows firing on the move with decent probability to hit. In my opinion this is an upgunned transport that is a deathtrap for its occupants. Hopefully they realize this and it will prompt them to more often dismount and pursue combined ops tactics that should be more effective overall anyways.

Click to expand...

The Type 97's turret was derived from the BMP-3, so I'll be very surprised if it doesn't have a decent fire-control.

Just for reference, the fire-control on BMP-3 includes (From Army-technology.com) "automatic with manual override for both gunner and commander. It includes a 1V539 ballistic computer, 2E52 electro-mechanical armament stabiliser and 1D16 laser rangefinder. The gunner has a 1K13-2 main sight, a combined image-intensified day/night sight and PPD-1 standby day sight. The commander has a 1PZ-10 day sight and TKN-3 combined day and image-intensified night sight.

The French company SAGEM, with Kurganmashzavod and Peleng of Belarus, have developed the Namut thermal sight for the BMP-3. This sight is based on the SAGEM Athos eight - twelve micron three field of view thermal imager and is fitted to the BMP-3 ICV's delivered to the United Arab Emirates."

So Type 97 should at least have an image-intensified day/night sight. If you look at this photo:
you'll see there are three devices on top of the turret, just like the BMP-3. There are two devices on the left of the turret. The bigger one with a window at front is the laser guidance system for the gun-fired ATGM, while those two smaller devices should be the day/night sight for commander and gunner.