The new IFV has entered service

backwindow

backwindow

New Member
China have no immediate threat from land. And no need to deal with mobs and terrorist like Russia and Israel in the near future. No need for heavy IFV. It just need to land the island. So this light and amphibian one may be good.
 
D

Dutch Infantry

New Member
Registered Member
Mmm im notrealy inpresed..:coffee:
This APC looks old is based on a old APC the BMP 3.
Does it have al laser-rangefinder?
And a Integraded cumputersystem?
Just 500HP?

I work every day whit the zweedish CV90/35.
normaly 25 tons but this one is opgraded whit ad on armour makes it about 30tons.
750hp makes hin fast 90kmh.
35mm fastfirecanon whit laserrangefinder and gunstabalizor for fire one move makes him one of the best.:nono:
Other very good APCs are the:
2t stalker.
Warrior.
Bradley Linebacker.
Puma.

Demian..
 
C

chicket9

New Member
Hmmm

I know those a real real good IFVs...but China simply cannot buy something like that in large numbers...let alone the Type 97!

Chinese aren't stupid...and yes BMP-3 has not been combat tested. But though it seems to be an older design, to the PLA, this is a break through in IFV tech, and the vehicle looks very promising for future upgrades and armour packs.

Though personally, I'd say get rid of the 100 mm turret, because I guess large calibre guns just never worked (eg the BMP1 concept even though it was quite radical back then). The more simpler 30 mm turret, already fitted to some WZ501s as an upgrade pack, seems more suitable and better equipped (say with external HJ9 ATGMs).

As my two cents, I agree that China should operate heavy APCs. Israel originally found the Merkeva APC variant too expensive, but only pressed for more orders as they experienced tougher militants. There are many benefits in using the Type 59 and 69 hull for APC...its heavier, more powerful, and has more potential for being fitted with heavier armour. Good for urban warfare, and it shouldnt be too costly, afterall, there are still thousands of these old tank hulls (unless being upgraded to Type 59D which I am sure not all would be). This heavy APC I know will be somewhat a logistical difficulty...but I see its operations useful in Western Xinjiang...where militancy is most likely to take place...


PLA seems to be fitting more armour on its latest vehicles...which is a real good sign of improvement. Yet the token armour on the frontal arc of the Type 59D is no way a really effective protection package. Apart from the Type 98, I really am quite concerned with all Chinese armoured vehicles, in the fact I've never seen any of them really wear full ERA protection (especially the APCs). This is contrast to what Western Armies practise constantly (eg, M113s are fitted with new MG turrets and armour suites).
So is this a good thing or bad thing? PLA's armoured force is in all ways formidable. Its a high-low mix, but it is large in numbers and the firepower and increasing self-defense capabilities make this force very potent. Yet I think PLA's armoured force is only most effective in fast-moving, open warfare. Once in urban warfare, I'm afraid PLA's armoured forces won't last long (even with Infantry aid).
 
Last edited:
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
chicket9 said:
Hmmm

I know those a real real good IFVs...but China simply cannot buy something like that in large numbers...let alone the Type 97!

Chinese aren't stupid...and yes BMP-3 has not been combat tested. But though it seems to be an older design, to the PLA, this is a break through in IFV tech, and the vehicle looks very promising for future upgrades and armour packs.

Though personally, I'd say get rid of the 100 mm turret, because I guess large calibre guns just never worked (eg the BMP1 concept even though it was quite radical back then). The more simpler 30 mm turret, already fitted to some WZ501s as an upgrade pack, seems more suitable and better equipped (say with external HJ9 ATGMs).

As my two cents, I agree that China should operate heavy APCs. Israel originally found the Merkeva APC variant too expensive, but only pressed for more orders as they experienced tougher militants. There are many benefits in using the Type 59 and 69 hull for APC...its heavier, more powerful, and has more potential for being fitted with heavier armour. Good for urban warfare, and it shouldnt be too costly, afterall, there are still thousands of these old tank hulls (unless being upgraded to Type 59D which I am sure not all would be). This heavy APC I know will be somewhat a logistical difficulty...but I see its operations useful in Western Xinjiang...where militancy is most likely to take place...


PLA seems to be fitting more armour on its latest vehicles...which is a real good sign of improvement. Yet the token armour on the frontal arc of the Type 59D is no way a really effective protection package. Apart from the Type 98, I really am quite concerned with all Chinese armoured vehicles, in the fact I've never seen any of them really wear full ERA protection (especially the APCs). This is contrast to what Western Armies practise constantly (eg, M113s are fitted with new MG turrets and armour suites).
So is this a good thing or bad thing? PLA's armoured force is in all ways formidable. Its a high-low mix, but it is large in numbers and the firepower and increasing self-defense capabilities make this force very potent. Yet I think PLA's armoured force is only most effective in fast-moving, open warfare. Once in urban warfare, I'm afraid PLA's armoured forces won't last long (even with Infantry aid).
Click to expand...
25mm~30mm armed turrent may also exist.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Though personally, I'd say get rid of the 100 mm turret, because I guess large calibre guns just never worked (eg the BMP1 concept even though it was quite radical back then). The more simpler 30 mm turret, already fitted to some WZ501s as an upgrade pack, seems more suitable and better equipped (say with external HJ9 ATGMs).
Click to expand...


I think there is no reason for get wrid of the 100mm gun, why would there? The 73mm gun in BMP-1 is infact recoiles rifle using the same ammunitions as the SPG-9, but the gun in bmp-3 is a "real" tankgun. As the turret already has the 30mm cannon in co-axially fitted there is no need for new turret. The only disavantage of bmp-3 was it's engine arragment but it seems that it's been corrected with the chinese vehicle allowing good personel space. I'm not sure about the chinese vehicles armour, but othervice it seems to be one hell of a IFV, propaply one of the best availble if looking the overall concept.
 
D

Dutch Infantry

New Member
Registered Member
chicket9 said:
Hmmm

I know those a real real good IFVs...but China simply cannot buy something like that in large numbers...let alone the Type 97!

Chinese aren't stupid...and yes BMP-3 has not been combat tested. But though it seems to be an older design, to the PLA, this is a break through in IFV tech, and the vehicle looks very promising for future upgrades and armour packs.

Though personally, I'd say get rid of the 100 mm turret, because I guess large calibre guns just never worked (eg the BMP1 concept even though it was quite radical back then). The more simpler 30 mm turret, already fitted to some WZ501s as an upgrade pack, seems more suitable and better equipped (say with external HJ9 ATGMs).

As my two cents, I agree that China should operate heavy APCs. Israel originally found the Merkeva APC variant too expensive, but only pressed for more orders as they experienced tougher militants. There are many benefits in using the Type 59 and 69 hull for APC...its heavier, more powerful, and has more potential for being fitted with heavier armour. Good for urban warfare, and it shouldnt be too costly, afterall, there are still thousands of these old tank hulls (unless being upgraded to Type 59D which I am sure not all would be). This heavy APC I know will be somewhat a logistical difficulty...but I see its operations useful in Western Xinjiang...where militancy is most likely to take place...


PLA seems to be fitting more armour on its latest vehicles...which is a real good sign of improvement. Yet the token armour on the frontal arc of the Type 59D is no way a really effective protection package. Apart from the Type 98, I really am quite concerned with all Chinese armoured vehicles, in the fact I've never seen any of them really wear full ERA protection (especially the APCs). This is contrast to what Western Armies practise constantly (eg, M113s are fitted with new MG turrets and armour suites).
So is this a good thing or bad thing? PLA's armoured force is in all ways formidable. Its a high-low mix, but it is large in numbers and the firepower and increasing self-defense capabilities make this force very potent. Yet I think PLA's armoured force is only most effective in fast-moving, open warfare. Once in urban warfare, I'm afraid PLA's armoured forces won't last long (even with Infantry aid).
Click to expand...

Ehm formideble?
80% is crap.
In western armys even the leopard 2 is old.
Its size wil make in powerful but is Crap to some state of the art western armys.
BMP 3 is old even the BMP 4 is allreddy old.
Of corse its not posible to build state of the art armourd-fleet the size of china.
But i think russia wil be stronger at this point by far.
China must have it whit there numbers of soldiers not by technology.
Its a other type of army than the western armys.
Whit light MBTs about 50 tons en light IFVs and APCs.
Like this type-97.
I dont think its a bad IFV and in use on the Chineese way i coult be use verry well.
 
sumdud

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
To chicket:
I don't think logistics is a problem, since China had these tanks all along. But I have to ask you, if you are to redesign the tank, what will you do to turn it into an APC? Where will the men come in and leave? Not the front. Not the side where the tracks are. The top isn't safe since you'll get enemy fire as soon as you raise your head. I don't think you can go through the back either. Why? The engine is there, and I doubt the engine is low enough to make an exit the way the BMP-3 has it.

I don't think the M113 makes a good example, since the Type 89 APC has just as much armour(It has barely any armour, an RPG will go through the APC before it explodes....) and probably performs better.

I doubt the type 97 will have just 1 turret. Previous types 92, 89, and 86 all have variants.

To Dutch Infantry:
What do you consider as new??
The BMP isn't very old, being from the 1990s, and the BMP-4 has not even appear.
Plus, what do you expect? China's got a huge army and its GDP isn't the best there is.
Yes, I have to admit, the CV-90 is a masterpiece, but how old is it? Will it survive in Asia's muddy lands? Can it swim? I mean, everyone has its flaws, you can't expect everything to be a golden spoon.....
 
C

chicket9

New Member
Yes, I know 'where infantry will sit and enter/exit' is an issue for a Type-59 tank based APC, but I'm just saying this cause the Israelis did this too (though I do not see where the people sit either)...

But definitely, this large bulk of obsolete hulls are quite useful...eg engineering vehicles, mine clearers, even potential hulls for future SP artillery of 122mm range and SP AAA/SAM. Eg...KS-1 mobile variant.

About CV-90, it is a great piece of tech I admit. 40 mm gun is quite formidable compared to 30mm or 25 mm, and its hull has been quite flexible from Light Tank to AAA.

Yet CV-90...I think too much pride goes into it. Its not combat proven, lacks ATGM unlike US and British IFVs, and like all IFVs...vulnerable to ATGM and RPG...
 
sumdud

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
I think the Israeli tank-converted APCs exit mostly on the top. Israeli tank->APCs (some reclassified as engineering vehicle) include: Puma, Nakpadon, NagmaSho't, Nagmachon, Achzarit. All of these but the Achzarit (not sure about the "don", the flat topped one made from the Centurion) dismount troops through the top, and the site admits that this is not a good thing. The Puma is now reclassified and re-equiped (can still carry 5 troops) for engineering purposes.
Site: Israeli-weapons.com

The Achzarit is awfully low, shorter than the BMP-1, Type 89 and MB-LT, at least it seems to be according to the way the door works. If China decides to do what we are discussing on, they could maybe raise the entire top, but troop dismount is still a problem. (If you look at the Nagmachon, It has some sort of door back of the tower, don't think it is for troop-dismounting, but still, maybe an idea can arise here.) And I doubt China will actually reposition the driver so that the back becomes the front, and whatsoever, but allowing troops to exit-rear.

In other roles: The old tank can be modified to become the type 59 ARV. (The Marines have these too, even though they aren't amphibious.) AAA works, for example, the Type 80 57mm AAA. I don't think it would be smart to turn it into a SPA however, since the 122mm is already here on the Type 63/77 Chassis.
The AAA role might fit the bill pretty well. This tank is small enough to fit onto city streets, and while it faces airplanes in the fields, in the city it faces RPGs from the top of buildings. Regular tanks can't shoot these enemies since they can't raise their guns enough, and if using their guns, will risk suicide if the building is weak. If converted, they can shoot them easily, especially with IR. Such a conversion also means dropping the 100mm gun and ammo, which might sound bad, but having AAA allows you to stop the enemy from attacking you without destroying them. (Art of War + Recycling/Conservation) Plus, you now need only 3 men and can have a lot of ammo at your disposal.

Too bad though, China also has the Type 321 chassis, so I am not sure how this will fare against it.
 
A

ahho

Junior Member
sumdud said:
I think the Israeli tank-converted APCs exit mostly on the top. Israeli tank->APCs (some reclassified as engineering vehicle) include: Puma, Nakpadon, NagmaSho't, Nagmachon, Achzarit. All of these but the Achzarit (not sure about the "don", the flat topped one made from the Centurion) dismount troops through the top, and the site admits that this is not a good thing. The Puma is now reclassified and re-equiped (can still carry 5 troops) for engineering purposes.
Site: Israeli-weapons.com

The Achzarit is awfully low, shorter than the BMP-1, Type 89 and MB-LT, at least it seems to be according to the way the door works. If China decides to do what we are discussing on, they could maybe raise the entire top, but troop dismount is still a problem. (If you look at the Nagmachon, It has some sort of door back of the tower, don't think it is for troop-dismounting, but still, maybe an idea can arise here.) And I doubt China will actually reposition the driver so that the back becomes the front, and whatsoever, but allowing troops to exit-rear.

In other roles: The old tank can be modified to become the type 59 ARV. (The Marines have these too, even though they aren't amphibious.) AAA works, for example, the Type 80 57mm AAA. I don't think it would be smart to turn it into a SPA however, since the 122mm is already here on the Type 63/77 Chassis.
The AAA role might fit the bill pretty well. This tank is small enough to fit onto city streets, and while it faces airplanes in the fields, in the city it faces RPGs from the top of buildings. Regular tanks can't shoot these enemies since they can't raise their guns enough, and if using their guns, will risk suicide if the building is weak. If converted, they can shoot them easily, especially with IR. Such a conversion also means dropping the 100mm gun and ammo, which might sound bad, but having AAA allows you to stop the enemy from attacking you without destroying them. (Art of War + Recycling/Conservation) Plus, you now need only 3 men and can have a lot of ammo at your disposal.

Too bad though, China also has the Type 321 chassis, so I am not sure how this will fare against it.
Click to expand...

that is a pretty nifty idea on turning the tank into AAA, but 1 question that i have in mind, does it require a new aaa turret for the chinese tank or the size of the hole is universal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top