The new IFV has entered service

Costas 240GD

Costas 240GD

Junior Member
It seems that russian/eastern european and chinese design philosophy for APC/IFVs emphasizes light weight which implies low purchase and operating costs at the expense of armor protection, while allowing amphibious capability for the vehicles. The Russians have recently started to develop additional armor kits to boost protecion for the BMP-2/3 IFVs and also gone over to the other end of the scale with the BTR-T and the DPM heavy IFV/APC vehicles.
It stands to reason thet eventually the Chinese will adopt some kind of add-on armor, passive or explosive reactive, for retrofitting to their APC/IFVs and possibly introduce tank based heavy APC/IFVs. Remember that when first introduced the M2 Bradley was amphibious, but lost this capability when weight increased with the improvements in armor protection. The fitting of the Sanoet thermal imager or a chinese equivalent is also not out of the question.
 
utelore

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I cannot tell you how important it is to have thermal imaging. While in GW1 I operated my TIS in "white hot" both day and night. Most of the shots I took against the enemy were using TIS both day and night. I know the Bradley's are very much feared by the insurgents in OIF because of the 25mm slaved in TIS. I think it is one of the most valuable pieces of equipment on the battle field today. I cannot believe the PRC would cheap out of this crucial piece of equipment......cheers ute
 
Dongfeng

Dongfeng

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Hi utelore, as always your first-hand experience in the battelfield is highly valuable. I wish someone from PLA would be watching this thread and have a some serious consideration on this. I know that the PLA has no problem in producing decent thermal imagers, it is the price factor that often stops them from being equipped in significant numbers.
 
Red not Dead

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
MadMax said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually you'd be surprized to know that the BMP3 has a front of 100mm more than enough to stand a small grouped burst of AOA-18.

And yes IN THE WEST to with stand such shots you need to have a 30 ton+ vehicle.

Dongfeng said:
Hi utelore, as always your first-hand experience in the battelfield is highly valuable. I wish someone from PLA would be watching this thread and have a some serious consideration on this. I know that the PLA has no problem in producing decent thermal imagers, it is the price factor that often stops them from being equipped in significant numbers.
Click to expand...

The price factor can be overcome for APC's by buying eastern products like the Peleng of Czech Republic or the Slovienian Fotona series. Plus western x10 TIS and IR's are relatively cheap (sagem or turms).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

Nethappy

NO WAR PLS
VIP Professional
Any chance of it using composite armor.. if it did. It should be able to stop a 30mm with ease. Cos I know the Pla had spend billion in developing advance composite armor, and they seem pity proud of them self..
If they plan to cover the whole type 99 with muitilayer armor, why dun they give a single layer of dat to the IFV should increase in protection greaty.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
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...
light armour can not survive in RPG country.according to Miltech,with rise of mega cities and population increase,the prospect of street to street fighting will become more common in 21 th century.in fact we already witness it right now,lebanese crisis,chenchya,west bank,iraq....etc,etc
in Israel opinion,light IFV that weight below 25ton can not survive in high tech,rich Anti-armour environment.already the US and russian army with there experience in iraq and chenchya show the need of "heavy" IFV.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
isthvan said:
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…
Click to expand...
according to Chinese magazine,IR imaging camera for up graded T-59D cost half million yuan!
 
C

chakos

New Member
VIP Professional
Why doesnt China develop heavy APC and Infantry support vehicles like the Isreili Nagmachon or Napkadon (Heavy APC's based on old centurions and t-55's respectivelly) or the Russian BMP-T (Not actually an APC but an extremelly heavily armoured urban combat and support vehicle using the chassis of a T-80 but with a automated turret armed with 2 30mm cannons, and 4 AT-9 Konkurs missiles). There are plenty of older chassis of the T-59 and T-69 tanks that will be without a job now there are adequate amounts of newer tanks going round.. why not upgrade them with armor, suitable weapons and turn them into APC's or BMP-T style support vehicles. Perfect for crushing urban centers full of pesky terrorists/freedomfighters/jihadists/mexicans/french/taiwanese/__________<== (insert favourite enemy here)
 
sumdud

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
There are a number of problems of tank conversions into APCs:
First, they don't have that much space, espeically in this case.
2nd, where will they enter? The engine is in the back, the top is dangerous, and let's not go to the front.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
chakos said:
Why doesnt China develop heavy APC and Infantry support vehicles like the Isreili Nagmachon or Napkadon (Heavy APC's based on old centurions and t-55's respectivelly) or the Russian BMP-T (Not actually an APC but an extremelly heavily armoured urban combat and support vehicle using the chassis of a T-80 but with a automated turret armed with 2 30mm cannons, and 4 AT-9 Konkurs missiles). There are plenty of older chassis of the T-59 and T-69 tanks that will be without a job now there are adequate amounts of newer tanks going round.. why not upgrade them with armor, suitable weapons and turn them into APC's or BMP-T style support vehicles. Perfect for crushing urban centers full of pesky terrorists/freedomfighters/jihadists/mexicans/french/taiwanese/__________<== (insert favourite enemy here)
Click to expand...
I believ cost,heavier AFV require more logistic support,other problem was bridge,road..etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top