Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

for some reason the hull looks like KV-1

676 ‘s model.

Where is the gallery now..... OK, here are some Chinese cold-war prototype tank. 1980s, Type 80 tank with welded turret,this is one of the first Chinese welded tank turrets, as you can see i

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

Nice idea at the time for the resources they had on hand, but it ultimately does make alot of sense to retire them. (and any other system that still uses the indigenous 120mm honestly.)

 

As much as i like the idea of modern gun tank destroyers, that arent that efficent when you other alternatives

 

For starters, they are massive targets with not alot of armor. If your as likely as a western MBT to be hit you might aswell have the armor to back it up

 

And with everyone and their mother having 120 and 125mm guns there is no golden rule that says an aftermarket T-72 cant start putting rounds into you at 2km

 

And everyone also includes you- now that China has 125mm guns that can support long rode penetrators, there is no real reason to maintain the type 89 fleet, which was a vehicle made at a time where most of Chinese tanks were armed with 105 and 100mm guns

 

ATGMs vehicles are smaller, leave way less of a logistical footprint are more capable of knocking out tanks than a normal tank destroyer, atleast because they arent having to fight on equal terms as much

 

Not to mention they are alot cheaper to produce

 

And attack helos can do more than bust tanks, and are alot less vunerable on the modern battlefield than a type 89

Link to post
Share on other sites

ZBD-04

N2sdGoFM92U.jpg

 

Does somebody know armor of that thing? 

 

The armor of the ZBD97/ZBD04 initially was based on the philosophy of the "less armored but more agile" approach the BMP-3M had, basically it only has all around protection from 12.7mm SLAP and 14.5mm frontal arc at best.

 

However, some factions in the army aswell as potential export customers questioned this and insisted the Western approach of heavier, but more heavily armored IFVs that could be closer to combat zones was better, and this is where the ZBD08 came in, which is part of the family but built on a reinforced chassis and with much heavier base armor and addon armor, at the sacrifice of agility on land and top speed in amphibious mode, the 08 however, unlike it's predecessors is proofed against 30mm APFSDS on the front and 14.5mm SLAP resistant on all angles/14.5 API proofed as usual, (supposedly 14.5mm SLAP can penetrate the engine deck at some angles and ranges, not sure how true that is,) with much better mine, artillery burst, EFP and IED protection then the 04.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor of the ZBD97/ZBD04 initially was based on the philosophy of the "less armored but more agile" approach the BMP-3M had, basically it only has all around protection from 12.7mm SLAP and 14.5mm frontal arc at best.

 

However, some factions in the army aswell as potential export customers questioned this and insisted the Western approach of heavier, but more heavily armored IFVs that could be closer to combat zones was better, and this is where the ZBD08 came in, which is part of the family but built on a reinforced chassis and with much heavier base armor and addon armor, at the sacrifice of agility on land and top speed in amphibious mode, the 08 however, unlike it's predecessors is proofed against 30mm APFSDS on the front and 14.5mm SLAP resistant on all angles/14.5 API proofed as usual, (supposedly 14.5mm SLAP can penetrate the engine deck at some angles and ranges, not sure how true that is,) with much better mine, artillery burst, EFP and IED protection then the 04.

 

In defense of original armor scheme of BMP, it was built to be used in, and typically excels in mechanized warfare in relatively open spaces

 

There's really no point in piling on armor since conventional warfare in central Europe would be such a zero sum game. Why up-armor an IFV the size of a tank to resist canon fire when the AT weapons that everyone and their American adviser has been piling up to cut through T-55s on the other side of the fence 

 

Its built to carry an assload of armament and be able to stuff in a few or more Tieds in the process. Survavibly really isnt that big of a concern when even increasing it alittle would comprise all other elements. And hey, when that Arkan strikes home in a Leopard 2's ammorack, its just paid for itself several times. 

 

Chinese conflicts on the other hand are a bit more complex then trading fire over a 2km field in Central Germany. 

 

Especially in situations like Vietnam, it pays to not be a sitting duck to the many KVPT's your going to be encountering in that very uncomfortable 300 meter or less engagement range 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of original armor scheme of BMP, it was built to be used in, and typically excels in mechanized warfare in relatively open spaces

 

There's really no point in piling on armor since conventional warfare in central Europe would be such a zero sum game. Why up-armor an IFV the size of a tank to resist canon fire when the AT weapons that everyone and their American adviser has been piling up to cut through T-55s on the other side of the fence 

 

Its built to carry an assload of armament and be able to stuff in a few or more Tieds in the process. Survavibly really isnt that big of a concern when even increasing it alittle would comprise all other elements. And hey, when that Arkan strikes home in a Leopard 2's ammorack, its just paid for itself several times. 

 

Chinese conflicts on the other hand are a bit more complex then trading fire over a 2km field in Central Germany. 

 

Especially in situations like Vietnam, it pays to not be a sitting duck to the many KVPT's your going to be encountering in that very uncomfortable 300 meter or less engagement range 

 

The ZBD family actually has the same carry capacity as the BMP-3M and more ammunition for it's main 30mm cannon, It's just harder on logistics as it can't carry as much fuel/go as far or be transported as easily as the BMP-3M due to the weight and size increase.

 

Though, keep in mind only the ZBD08 is uparmored and more durable in exchange for being less agile, and the ZBD04 is still in service for when mobility, amphibious capabilities and general BMP like tactics are desired.

 

Also, speaking of it, there's apparently an enhanced recon variant of it, which is odd considering 1. the ZBD08 already has a pretty sizeable sensor and comms package and 2. no one can really figure out what the fuck it actually does/adds.

 

f7dc48176e6a-750x500.jpeg

 

f7dc48176e6a-750x50011.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

That "should" be the smokescreen exit. (A few Chinese tanks can spit diesel on the engine to create an emergency smokescreen similar to the Abrams)

   T-72s could do that from very early models, but they were not using additional exhausts for this. ANNA news videos from Jobar shows frequent use of that system by Syrian T-72s.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
       
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
       
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
       
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
       
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
       
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • By phasers on stun
      Fellow fish - imagine you had some money to develop the "next generation" 20-40mm" modular architecture turret.  Of course, you could talk about sensor fusion, using AI to detect threats, better / more integrated sensors... targetting linked to drones etc... But is this the way forwards. ?
       
      What is the SOTA 30mm turret on the market ? - more importantly, what are it's attributes ?? [ no need to name the manufacturer unless you want to] 
      Built in APS ?
      intelligent Armour ?
      Reconfigurability ?
      Self Repair ?
       
      We all have ideas... what would you see as a truly game changing set of characteristics ?  
       
      I think the T2000 looks interesting and there are some nice turrets from lower profile companies (as seen at AUSA).  
       
      Alternatively, we might be at the end of the roadmap - "gun + armour + sight is good enough"
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Belesarius
      http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it
       
      New high velocity 125mm tank gun reportedly starting testing for the Chinese military.  Not surprised that the data disappeared off the university website at all.
       
      Edit: 125mm/60? oO

×
×
  • Create New...