The new IFV has entered service

[MIGleader]

China's new IFV, the ZBD 97, has begun entering PLA service since March of this year. Finally, a this long awaited vehicle is here to provide some fire support for the 99s. It will be a while before the vehciel completely replaces the type 86's though.

The new IFV was first revealed in road tests in 2003. The ZBD 97 has entered service with the 1st and 124 Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Divisions. This also suggests that the ZBD 97, like many PLA vehicles, is amhibious and is capable of driving off a LST and swimming to Taiwan.

The vehicle's chasis is what China calls a "universal chasis", so expect to see soem C&C and APC mods of it. The turret is a liscence production BMP-3 turret, with some reduced features. the turret does not have the fancy wester electronics the BMP-3 turret has. The ZBD 97 turret also lacks a thermal imager. This might have been ommited to save development time and costs, but it is well in China's abilities to design thermal and laser equipment, so upgrades will follow soon. The main gun is 2A70 100mm with a 30mm coaxal gun. The gun can fire the Arkan ATGM.

The armor and engine are in question. The IFV may be made fo welded steel, but no evidence exists of any composite armor plates. to power this kind of vehicle, the engine would need to be at least 500 horsepower.

Here are some pictures from its initial delivery in March

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8659/ifv31806d7om.jpg

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/7136/ifv31806c7cm.jpg

and here are pics of it now, in excercises

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/xinhuius/4_862111.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/xinhuius/4_862105.jpg

i hope this page can act as a supplement or even alternative to a sinodefence page.

[isthvan]

MIGleader I was thinking that ZBD 97 body was based on BMP-3 not only turret? Did China made indigenous hull design and fitted it whit Bmp-3 turret or is ZBD 97 completely based on BMP-3?
Also do you have any information about FCS? And since you mentioned laser equipment as future update I’m interested how can it currently use laser guided ATGM? I mean gun is clearly capable to use ATGM but without laser designator it can’t hit anything?

[MadMax]

yes the chasis is an indigionus design with the engine in the front left hand side of the vehicle. the engine on the BMP3 is in the far back of the hull and results in a very small troop compartment and an akward dismmount from the vehicle. it looks like this new IFV will have signifigantly more interior space because of the engine placment and it also appears to be taller then the BMP3

[MIGleader]

Alas, I wish I ha the answer to most of your questions. The ZDB 97's hull is not a complete copy of the bmp-3. However, it is claer chinese designers were heavily influenced by the latter. The ZBD 97 's hull hull is taller with greater internal space

China purchased the fire control system and missile laser guidance system technology used on the bmp-3 from russia. Im not sure whether the chinese directed intergrated this technology or made modifications. Oif course, the bmp-3 had a variety of western electronics such as a French SAGEM thermal sight and laser illuminator, BZS1 gunner's sight, TKN-AI commander's periscope. None of this would be on the the ZBD 97, so the chinese must have used indigenous replacements.

[isthvan]

Thanks guys.
Since BMP-3 had great problems whit hull design China made significant improvement by changing engine position and increasing height of the main body. As MadMax said engine position in BMP-3 greatly reduced troop compartment and made troop dismount weary impractical…
IIRC on BMP-3 troops had to open rear door and then open the hatches on top to be able to dismount… Under fire this is not most practical way to leave the vehicle… BMP inherited that construction flow from BMD series of vehicles (it has more construction similarities whit BMD series then whit earlier BMP-1 and BMP-2 designs)…

As for FCS do you think that PLA will use simplified tank FCS on new IFV or will they develop new FCS for them? I ask because IIRC during early 1990 Sweden offered modified CV-90 FCS as T-72 modernization package to few countries…

[adeptitus]

Claimed photo of new IFV (ZBD 97) turrent under construction:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=550

Close-up pics of IFV:
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20060513/images/13314242_2006051311111374000000.jpg
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20060513/images/13314242_2006051311111377877600.jpg
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20060513/images/13314242_2006051311111381025100.jpg

If above URL's don't work use this:
http://news.yunnan.cn/4547/2006/05/16/54@368510.htm


As for the chasis, I've seen claims that it's an upgraded chasis from Type 63 (YW531) APC. If you compare the two they do look alike:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type638.asp

[MIGleader]

As for FCS do you think that PLA will use simplified tank FCS on new IFV or will they develop new FCS for them? I ask because IIRC during early 1990 Sweden offered modified CV-90 FCS as T-72 modernization package to few countries…

Read what i posted!!! China purchased the Bmp-3 FCS from russia for the bmp-3.

A quote from Armytechnology:
The fire control system is 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.


Of course, China will make substitues for the ruopean components

Plus, I found the bmp-3 engine has 500 horsepower, so my estimate was prety accurate.

Watch your language!

[Anonymous]

Read what i posted!!! China purchased the Bmp-3 FCS from russia for the bmp-3.

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?

[MadMax]

it is most likely since the SAGEM thermal sight was fited to the back of the turret because apperently the turret interior is very cramped and the thermal would not fit

[isthvan]

Read what i posted!!! China purchased the Bmp-3 FCS from russia for the bmp-3.

Relax;) …
I meant as possible future update. Russian FCS is not exactly top of the line and is usually first thing that users change during modernizations…
If we look at amount of firepower BMP-3 turret offers it is quite reasonable to expect some kind of FCS modernization which will enable complete use of weaponry without limitations of Russian FCS…

Modified type99 FCS (if type99 FCS is really good as people on this forum say it is) could provide that and only obstacle I see for that kind of modernization could be cost of such upgrade...

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…

[planeman]

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).

[MIGleader]

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?

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…

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.

[isthvan]

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.

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…

[Red not Dead]

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…


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.

[RavenWing278]

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

[Gollevainen]

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:confused:

[isthvan]

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 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…

[PanAsian]

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.

[MadMax]

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

[Dongfeng]

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.

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: http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type974.asp
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.

[Costas 240GD]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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).

[Nethappy]

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.

[challenge]

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…
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.

[challenge]

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…
according to Chinese magazine,IR imaging camera for up graded T-59D cost half million yuan!

[chakos]

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]

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.

[challenge]

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)
I believ cost,heavier AFV require more logistic support,other problem was bridge,road..etc.

[backwindow]

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.

[Dutch Infantry]

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..

[chicket9]

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).

[challenge]

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).
25mm~30mm armed turrent may also exist.

[Gollevainen]

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).


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.

[Dutch Infantry]

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).

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]

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.....

[chicket9]

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]

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.

[ahho]

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.

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