LoooSeR Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 More photos of that new Type 96A Differences between engine compartments: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 SWS-2 AA system on VN1 chassis. 23 tons, crew of 3, 35 mm autocannon with 400 rounds (include programmable HE shots), 4 AA missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 You.... Do realize Lightning posted about this exact variant 4 posts above me right? he probably knows more about it then I can say.Now we can call it Type 96B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 ZSL-92 of Chinese peackeeping mission in South Sudan was destroyed by mortar mine (?), 2 peacekeepers KIA. http://www.chinanews.com/shipin/2016/07-11/news656583.shtml Via Yuri Lyamin, otvaga forum. It destroyed by a 125mm HE round Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 It destroyed by a 125mm HE round 125mm? are you sure? that looks like an extremely high angle hit and I'm not aware of any 125mm mortar systems. Do you happen to have any information on what weapon system did it? (did they find the weapon in question?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 125mm? are you sure? that looks like an extremely high angle hit and I'm not aware of any 125mm mortar systems. Do you happen to have any information on what weapon system did it? (did they find the weapon in question?) They found the round‘s remains Bronezhilet and Khand-e 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 The round hit the vehicle’s roof and exploded outside,nevertheless the impulse wave tore the armor plate and struck inside and killed someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 the round hit at the hatch in right side . Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 That photo actually answered alot as to why it looks like the roof was caved in yet was hit from the side (It looks like it makes sense when seen from that angle). However, that shell looks like an HE round from a 2A46, it was fired from a tank? (It seems unlikely a Sprut AT gun would've been used.) If so, do you know if peacekeepers are going to be more heavily equipped and ready for armored threats after this incident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 That photo actually answered alot as to why it looks like the roof was caved in yet was hit from the side (It looks like it makes sense when seen from that angle). However, that shell looks like an HE round from a 2A46, it was fired from a tank? (It seems unlikely a Sprut AT gun would've been used.) If so, do you know if peacekeepers are going to be more heavily equipped and ready for armored threats after this incident? Yes,fire from T-72, AFAIK, but I am not sure if it was a friendly fire accident. Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 I think that Chinese equipments for UN force will become heavier and heavier so as to reduce the ratio of loss Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Novosibirsk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Tumen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 In Udmurtiya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molota_477 Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Latest clue,I also believe that it would be caused buy a Mortar...but the fragment of 125 mm HE found from the roof of vehicle was a doubtful point, maybe it just a coincidence. hit point Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-47 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Hi, guys, I am a Chinese who happens to found here. According to a friend of the manufacturer TieMa company (in English as Iron Horse, but I don't know if it uses such English name or sth else, this company builted these Type92 IFV, and this event makes a lot of Chinese blame them that they made a weak AFV that couldn't protect our soliders), the one that hit the Type92 is a 60mm mortar, and the roof armor where it hits is 5mm. Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Hi, guys, I am a Chinese who happens to found here. According to a friend of the manufacturer TieMa company (in English as Iron Horse, but I don't if it uses such English name or sth else, this company builted these Type92 IFV, and this event makes a lot of Chinese blame them that they made a weak AFV that couldn't protect our soliders), the one that hit the Type92 is a 60mm mortar, and the roof armor where it hits is 5mm. Hello, welcome to the forum. Anyway, are you sure about the Mortar claim? I thought it was plausible a mortar did it at first too, but after seeing Lightning posted the tail remains of what's clearly an HE shell for a 125mm Tank gun that was found at the site, I'm not so certain. Anyway, I don't think the WZ551/Type92 is supposed to be heavily armored but just supposed to operate in low intensity operations, it reminds me of a bigger M113 (and is only 200kg heavier, so it can't be that much heavier armored), which is a vehicle that served a similar purpose in the US Armed Forces (among others) yet wasn't heavily armored at all, being able to be easily penetrated by .50/12.7mm AP fire. I think a better solution would be to send heavier, high intensity conflict equipment if the situation in Sudan/South Sudan turns hotter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-47 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Hello, welcome to the forum. Anyway, are you sure about the Mortar claim? I thought it was plausible a mortar did it at first too, but after seeing Lightning posted the tail remains of what's clearly an HE shell for a 125mm Tank gun that was found at the site, I'm not so certain. Anyway, I don't think the WZ551/Type92 is supposed to be heavily armored but just supposed to operate in low intensity operations, it reminds me of a bigger M113 (and is only 200kg heavier, so it can't be that much heavier armored), which is a vehicle that served a similar purpose in the US Armed Forces (among others) yet wasn't heavily armored at all, being able to be easily penetrated by .50/12.7mm AP fire. I think a better solution would be to send heavier, high intensity conflict equipment if the situation in Sudan/South Sudan turns hotter. Y, I know the tail, we saw it first from the Chinese peacekeeping force's official blog, who said they were attacked by an HEAT shell. Then we compared the photo to all known shells and we found it is a 125mm HE tail as well. But, as we all know: a 125mm shell can hardy hit the roof, and if it do, a 125mm HE will more likely to tear the wheeled IFV apart instead of just a small hole. And then we were told by the TieMa's staff that the blog made a mistake, that tail is from somewhere else (the blog simply release the photos as quickly as they can without think too much), not the one hit the IFV. The one hit the IFV is a 60mm mortar HE shell, and probably a Chinese made 60mm mortar HE shell. So TieMa official words is "a mortar shell less than 82mm". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-47 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 A lot of Chinese people who knows nothing about AFV tech simply blamed that how can a "armored" vehcile couldn't resist a incoming shell and our soliders got hit and died. Of course, we know that there is no way a wheeled APC/IFV can resist mortar's direct hit, and even Type04 IFV or some other Chinese tracked modern IFVs can hardy resist such hit else, so the best hope we have on such thing is a heavy APC based on Type59 (T-54A copy) tank which just tested this year (sorry there is no photo of this APC, just a offical list named it). But what is even worse is the Sudan army got T-72AV MBT outside, what if they fire at us like this time for whatever misfire reason? Obviously even if we do have a Type59 tank based heavy APC, it still couldn't resist a 125mm APFSDS. Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 A lot of Chinese people who knows nothing about AFV tech simply blamed that how can a "armored" vehcile couldn't resist a incoming shell and our soliders got hit and died. Of course, we know that there is no way a wheeled APC/IFV can resist mortar's direct hit, and even Type04 IFV or some other Chinese tracked modern IFVs can hardy resist such hit else, so the best hope we have on such thing is a heavy APC based on Type59 (T-54A copy) tank which just tested this year (sorry there is no photo of this APC, just a offical list named it). But what is even worse is the Sudan army got T-72AV MBT outside, what if they fire at us like this time for whatever misfire reason? Obviously even if we do have a Type59 tank based heavy APC, it still couldn't resist a 125mm APFSDS. To be fair, I highly doubt any APC or IFV system known is going to be armored enough to survive against 125mm APFSDS except for maybe the very latest with highly advanced ERA packages installed. It would better to just send things like other tanks (Sudan proper is currently 4-0 against South Sudanese T-72Bs with their imported ZTZ96As) or advanced ATGM systems. (HJ-9B, HJ-8/HJ-11 and HJ-12) to deal with it if enemy armor starts becoming a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-47 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 To be fair, I highly doubt any APC or IFV system known is going to be armored enough to survive against 125mm APFSDS except for maybe the very latest with highly advanced ERA packages installed. It would better to just send things like other tanks (Sudan proper is currently 4-0 against South Sudanese T-72Bs with their imported ZTZ96As) or advanced ATGM systems. (HJ-9B, HJ-8/HJ-11 and HJ-12) to deal with it if enemy armor starts becoming a problem. Do you mean the whole Sudan (whatever side) has 4 T-72/ZTZ96 totaly? Here is a interesting news, since obviously this event is a very bad reputation for Type92/WZ551, the TieMa( Type92/WZ551's manufacturer) has just released a new VN2C IFV which is basily a Type92/WZ551 with additional armor (SATNAG 4569 level3, 19 ton now instead of type92/WZ551's 12 ton) and 402hp new engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-47 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Wrong post.Edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted July 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Do you mean the whole Sudan (whatever side) has 4 T-72/ZTZ96 totaly? Here is a interesting news, since obviously this event is a very bad reputation for Type92/WZ551, the TieMa( Type92/WZ551's manufacturer) has just released a new VN2C IFV which is basily a Type92/WZ551 with additional armor (SATNAG 4569 level3, 19 ton now instead of type92/WZ551's 12 ton) and 402hp new engine. No, there was a reported tank battle not too long ago where South Sudan lost 4 T-72B tanks to Sudan Proper's ZTZ96A tanks with no reported losses of their own (It's not known how many tanks Sudan Proper had involved in the attack, but they did come out on top). Other then that I haven't heard of any head on armor conflicts between Sudan proper and South Sudan. Sorry, I should've clarified better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.