Chinese infantry fighting vehicles

Biscuits said:

They use them as high low combo right? Israel doesn’t have remotely enough Merkava to equip their entire army.

Click to expand...

Over 2000 of all variants. Around 460 were know to have been delivered of the MkIV with production on going andthe Nammer which is a Merkava 3-4 hull modified to serve as an APC and IFV.
The vehicles you mentioned are at best reserve.

Biscuits said:

Using the 99A makes sense in order to allow it to tank ATGM and 120mm tank shells, I doubt the Type 59 platform can do this? I could be wrong though

Click to expand...

No type 59 can't but then again this is an heavy INFANTRY Fighting Vehicle not a tank.
An HIFV would trade off the tank turret for an autocannon turret.
The Type 99 cannot fit an Infantry squad into it without removing the Autoloader and massive changes to the interior. Same for Type 59. You can't duel role a tank into an IFV. It's one or the other.
Merkava can in an emergency carry troops but at a cost it looses ammo. It can also do this because the Merkava is unique among tanks it has a forward engine where everything else uses a rear engine. Most IFV have forward mounted powerpacks the one exception I can think of being the BMP3 But have you ever seen Russian troops load into One? It's not practical.
The T55 conversions have followed one of two roots the Isreali vehicle which was no an IFV but an APC changed the power pack and created a door way to the side of the smaller power pack the russians used this on there BTR-T which is more of a fighting vehicle then An infantry vehicle. The other root taken has been to turn the tank around. This is what the Chinese did with the VN11 vehicle.
The same would apply to any other MBT conversion to a HIFV.
Every HIFV I can think of that enjoyed any real practical value or success has traded off the tank gun and turret for a smaller IFV turret.

Farther more I think you failed to consider what I think this is meant to do.

by78 said:

An

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

posted on the Chinese Military procurement website listed procurement requirements for a heavy IFV and troop transport based on Type-59 MBT (59式坦克改制重型步兵战车及装甲输送车).

Click to expand...

HIFV and Troop transport (HAPC)
What this seems to me to indicate is a concept like that the US Army just did with the Bradley AMPV. That is replace very very obsolete light armored vehicles with a (possibly interim) better armored more modern vehicle family with high commonality across the Service.
For the US it was the Bradley hull replacing M113.
For the PLA Type 59 hills replacing type 89?, Type 63? Basically clean out a lot of very old vehicles with a modernized and very available chassis for a low price tag compared to starting with a Type 99 hull.
Although it might not have the latest armor it would still fare far better against light anti tank weapons and machine guns. Because of the thousands of units of Type 59 in storage they would have a virtually unlimited number of vehicles to build from.
Despite what it seems the PLA does have to answer for emptying the PRC coffers. Additionally it might drum up some export orders as many third world nations have Type 59 And T55 just sitting around collecting dust.

I think the main fault of something like a Type-59 MBT based heavy IFV is that it will be slow. It won't be able to keep up with modern tanks.
The engine powerpack has really low horsepower and the suspension is crap.

Now the Russian T-15 with the 57mm autocannon and the anti-tank missiles. That looks cool.

Such IFV would be for cityfighting, where armour matters more than speed.

gelgoog said:

I think the main fault of something like a Type-59 MBT based heavy IFV is that it will be slow. It won't be able to keep up with modern tanks.


The engine powerpack has really low horsepower and the suspension is crap.

Click to expand...

Listed road speed is 50kph which slower then a modern MBT is still a good clip for an armored vehicles. The Ukrainian BMP-55 claimed up to 70KPH with a new power pack and VN11 was said to refresh automotive and suspension system. So not as big a deal there. Weight is only 35 tons which is about on par with modern IFVs

Now the Russian T-15 with the 57mm autocannon and the anti-tank missiles. That looks cool.

Click to expand...

looks and practical. This is meant I think more to the later.

plawolf said:

Such IFV would be for cityfighting, where armour matters more than speed.

Click to expand...

Yes better armor but with the cat HIFV like the Lynx, Puma, and Nammer on the prowl. I think the Chinese are looking for a Tiger.
Not nessisarily for urban but even force on force this would be a tough nut to crack. Superior armor to the main line of existing PLA IFV. Fair speed perhaps comparable with a power pack upgrades. Able to withstand a good sized IED or mine still less then 40 tons.
Able to take RPG hits and keep operational. Add on a good autocannon, and building off existing stocks.

True. If we look at the domestic VN-11 version as a Bradley equivalent, it is very respectable.

Yet it is not a heavy IFV in the same way the T15 is, but arguably the PLA does not need one, given that they are mainly urban combat platforms, and that’s not the ground force priority right now.

Biscuits said:

True. If we look at the domestic VN-11 version as a Bradley

Click to expand...

AMPV more than M2/M3

Biscuits said:

equivalent, it is very respectable.

Click to expand...

The aims it seems to me being non interference with new light tank production. Heavier armor and protection without need for Amphibious assault capabilities. Existing logistics and growth potential. For a "low end" IFV and APC for armored second line units.

Biscuits said:

True. If we look at the domestic VN-11 version as a Bradley equivalent, it is very respectable.

Yet it is not a heavy IFV in the same way the T15 is, but arguably the PLA does not need one, given that they are mainly urban combat platforms, and that’s not the ground force priority right now.

Click to expand...

But I think it should be. If there is a Taiwan invasion scenario there will be an awful lot of city fighting. Another case where this might apply would be a conflict in Korea.

I can understand their focus on more deployable forces especially given the high priority given to the PLA Marines. Still PLA light armor vehicles could still be a lot better.
Even when you compare those kinds of systems vs other systems in the area like the Type 10 tank, the K21 IFV, or the K9 howitzer, China still has some ways to go.
In fact I would say China only has parity (or even superiority) in the howitzer sector.

gelgoog said:

But I think it should be. If there is a Taiwan invasion scenario there will be an awful lot of city fighting. Another case where this might apply would be a conflict in Korea.

I can understand their focus on more deployable forces especially given the high priority given to the PLA Marines. Still PLA light armor vehicles could still be a lot better.
Even when you compare those kinds of systems vs other systems in the area like the Type 10 tank, the K21 IFV, or the K9 howitzer, China still has some ways to go.
In fact I would say China only has parity (or even superiority) in the howitzer sector.

Click to expand...

According to most think tanks, a Taiwan contingency would primarily be shock and awe and would be resolved in very short time. Think desert storm.

Any urban fighting would be backed up by massive amounts of airpower. As evidenced by the US thunder runs in Iraq, you do not really need specialized urban combat vechicles in order to make rushes work.

As for the Japanese vechicles, China probably doesn’t plan to engage in a ground war with Japan. A war with Japan would be focused on bringing the JMSDF to heel and then an air campaign against major cities. China is hardly looking to annex Japan in such a conflict, just remove it as a military threat and seize disputed territory.

Biscuits said:

According to most think tanks, a Taiwan contingency would primarily be shock and awe and would be resolved in very short time. Think desert storm.

Any urban fighting would be backed up by massive amounts of airpower. As evidenced by the US thunder runs in Iraq, you do not really need specialized urban combat vechicles in order to make rushes work.

As for the Japanese vechicles, China probably doesn’t plan to engage in a ground war with Japan. A war with Japan would be focused on bringing the JMSDF to heel and then an air campaign against major cities. China is hardly looking to annex Japan in such a conflict, just remove it as a military threat and seize disputed territory.

Click to expand...

While it is indeed very likely Taiwan’s conscript army would simply crumble and dissolve back into the civilian population once it became obvious the war was lost, contingency planning means such a collapse cannot be taken for granted.

Moreover, if the PLA displays an obvious weakness, then that naturally makes it logical for Taiwan’s defenders to adapt their defensive strategies to try and exploit it.

I think a big part of the rationale for wanting a converted/retrofitted 59 is preferable is the speed at which such units could be mass converted of war looks actually likely.

The hull is the biggest part of a tank/IFV, so by using existing hulls, all that is needed is a new turret and refurbishments to areas of the hull.

That is a lot faster than building brand new vehicles from scratch.

Furthermore, it means the PLA does not need to invest in the production and procurement of huge numbers of new vehicles now.

They just need to keep the old 59s in good enough condition that they can be reactivated fairly quickly, and reply on China’s unparalleled industrial capabilities to produce vast numbers of the new turrets if and when such IFVs are needed en mass.