Chinese infantry fighting vehicles


GTI

New Member
Registered Member
Well I'm sorry
When you post, try and add more content, the 1-liners are inexcusable.

We all know there is a language issue, but I’m sure you can easily write more than 1 line in Turkish.

Quality of your posts aside - I think WE all should give you some slack for the choice of words. I had decided to assume benign intent and your use of “primitive” was due to the translation software. For the patriots, sinophiles and/or military enthusiasts amongst us, it was quite a “triggering” word.

Don’t be sorry, just be better. Yes it looks outmoded, but it’s a mortar that only needs to drive itself around and fit inside aircraft (most of the “juicy bits” are not outwardly visible), if it’s the simple turret that looks outmoded (to you) - then say so and add it to your post.

Mods (and everyone else) - begging your forbearance in advance...
 

by78

Lieutenant General
When you post, try and add more content, the 1-liners are inexcusable.

We all know there is a language issue, but I’m sure you can easily write more than 1 line in Turkish.

Quality of your posts aside - I think WE all should give you some slack for the choice of words. I had decided to assume benign intent and your use of “primitive” was due to the translation software. For the patriots, sinophiles and/or military enthusiasts amongst us, it was quite a “triggering” word.

Don’t be sorry, just be better. Yes it looks outmoded, but it’s a mortar that only needs to drive itself around and fit inside aircraft (most of the “juicy bits” are not outwardly visible), if it’s the simple turret that looks outmoded (to you) - then say so and add it to your post.

Mods (and everyone else) - begging your forbearance in advance...

It's not a language issue. He's faking it.
 

sequ

Junior Member
Registered Member
For the patriots, sinophiles and/or military enthusiasts amongst us, it was quite a “triggering” word.
Perhaps be less triggered about it? For those who follow the PLA developments know that the PLAGF is lagging behind the most modern armies and they probably don't get the biggest piece of the budget-pie either. So whereas China pumps out dozens of modern warships per year, it is only now starting to apply ad-hoc thermals to some of their older AFV's. Something which should have been done much earlier and in a more comprehensive way IMO. Another example of the apparent outdatedness of the PLAGF is that it is still using exposed AT-3 (HJ-73) derived variants on its IFV's.

And this 'new' mortar vehicle does look outdated tbh. But that doesn't mean it is bad in performance. Perhaps that is what @Akame meant with 'primitive' seeing as he just joined this forum a couple months ago.
 

KampfAlwin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Perhaps be less triggered about it? For those who follow the PLA developments know that the PLAGF is lagging behind the most modern armies and they probably don't get the biggest piece of the budget-pie either. So whereas China pumps out dozens of modern warships per year, it is only now starting to apply ad-hoc thermals to some of their older AFV's. Something which should have been done much earlier and in a more comprehensive way IMO. Another example of the apparent outdatedness of the PLAGF is that it is still using exposed AT-3 (HJ-73) derived variants on its IFV's.

And this 'new' mortar vehicle does look outdated tbh. But that doesn't mean it is bad in performance. Perhaps that is what @Akame meant with 'primitive' seeing as he just joined this forum a couple months ago.
I agree, we shouldn’t be offended by any statement not directed personally especially if it is not on purpose. In fact, I think @Akame‘s statement sort of invites a useful debate about PLA designs, however offensive one might take it.

Let‘s just all cool down :)
 

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
The vehicle is old Mengshi I This is mortar carrier to provide fire support for either Airborne troop or light armor troop. Traditionally airborne troop are provided only with light armament like Machine gun, Light mortar or ATGW not good enough against armor troop. So the trend now is to equipped airborne troop with some heavy caliber 76mm gun or 80mm mortar that is not man portable therefore the need for carrier like Mengshi. But the problem with airborne troop is sooner or later they run out of supply since they normally drop behind enemy line to seize bridges, airport or to prevent flanking movement.

But the newest light armor gun is this 122mm PCL 161 with newer Mengshi carrier

This seems slow. Airborne troops should ideally be a fast moving force so that they can exploit enemy defences and make quick gains before they get bogged down by enemy reinforcements or reserves

All this deployment sequence, digging a hole with a shovel and all that will definetely slow down airborne troops.

Is there not another way to quickly deploy these assets?

Although as mentioned previously the mortar team would quickly run out of ammo, but
at least it had a small size so that it could be deployed in numbers (ammunition supply in the ground though..)

This vehicle is definetely a step up on the airborne troops capabilities, however it may cost them time when they decide to fight

I would like to see more improvements on the deployment sequence.

Speed is everything in these kinds of missions. The faster you are, the quicker you maneuver around the enemy and inflicting it damage.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
This seems slow. Airborne troops should ideally be a fast moving force so that they can exploit enemy defences and make quick gains before they get bogged down by enemy reinforcements or reserves

All this deployment sequence, digging a hole with a shovel and all that will definetely slow down airborne troops.

Is there not another way to quickly deploy these assets?

Although as mentioned previously the mortar team would quickly run out of ammo, but
at least it had a small size so that it could be deployed in numbers (ammunition supply in the ground though..)

This vehicle is definetely a step up on the airborne troops capabilities, however it may cost them time when they decide to fight

I would like to see more improvements on the deployment sequence.

Speed is everything in these kinds of missions. The faster you are, the quicker you maneuver around the enemy and inflicting it damage.
I think you forgot that airborne troop normally land far away from opposing strong point or base. In Falkland operation the british land at the other end of falkland and they have to walk 3 days and night to the battle field talking about slow! That is the reason China experiment with improving mobility by having mortar or gun carrier and Mountain cat ATV

This video is only for photo op I don't think in real world they bother with digging hole
 

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
I think you forgot that airborne troop normally land far away from opposing strong point or base. In Falkland operation the british land at the other end of falkland and they have to walk 3 days and night to the battle field talking about slow! That is the reason China experiment with improving mobility by having mortar or gun carrier and Mountain cat ATV

This video is only for photo op I don't think in real world they bother with digging hole
thanks for answering. If it is just for photoshoots then it should be ok

Big increase in their capabilities. Also cool video which shows what you can do when you have speed. Imagine these units splitting off and pursuing different missions, it would be a nightmare for the enemy to contain these troops.

Speed is everything. Drones would also be a good addition
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Junior Member
Registered Member
This seems slow. Airborne troops should ideally be a fast moving force so that they can exploit enemy defences and make quick gains before they get bogged down by enemy reinforcements or reserves

All this deployment sequence, digging a hole with a shovel and all that will definetely slow down airborne troops.

Is there not another way to quickly deploy these assets?

Although as mentioned previously the mortar team would quickly run out of ammo, but
at least it had a small size so that it could be deployed in numbers (ammunition supply in the ground though..)

This vehicle is definetely a step up on the airborne troops capabilities, however it may cost them time when they decide to fight

I would like to see more improvements on the deployment sequence.

Speed is everything in these kinds of missions. The faster you are, the quicker you maneuver around the enemy and inflicting it damage.
That depends on the Airborne doctrine of the country. Russian VDV (their paratroopers) believes that they need to be airdropped behind enemy lines and act like a mechanized unit. As for the US, as of now, the 82nd Airborne mainly consists of light infantry and no light armor or vehicles, and their primary role is to seize or deny important objectives and hold until reinforcements arrive. They will typically land relatively close to their objective and trek to their objective. However, they are testing a new airborne tank, so there MIGHT be a change in doctrine.

As for China, I would say they are quick enough. They have both tracked and wheeled vehicles that gives them a decent amount of tools to work with in regards to speed and travelling to their objective. As for their shovelling, engineering vehicles cant be dropped from the back of a Y20 in mid air for now, so they gotta use whatever they have.
 

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
That depends on the Airborne doctrine of the country. Russian VDV (their paratroopers) believes that they need to be airdropped behind enemy lines and act like a mechanized unit. As for the US, as of now, the 82nd Airborne mainly consists of light infantry and no light armor or vehicles, and their primary role is to seize or deny important objectives and hold until reinforcements arrive. They will typically land relatively close to their objective and trek to their objective. However, they are testing a new airborne tank, so there MIGHT be a change in doctrine.

As for China, I would say they are quick enough. They have both tracked and wheeled vehicles that gives them a decent amount of tools to work with in regards to speed and travelling to their objective. As for their shovelling, engineering vehicles cant be dropped from the back of a Y20 in mid air for now, so they gotta use whatever they have.
As you have mentioned foreign militaries doctrines on their airborne troops, do you have any knowledge for China's doctrine?

From what I can see from the outside, it seems that they using a lot of firepower capabilities.

All these mortars and artilleries, point to a fighting force which would pursue objectives, fight off enemies and hold positions (?).

If possible can you give some high-level examples on what the Chinese airborne objectives would be (based on their doctrine ofc)
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Junior Member
Registered Member
As you have mentioned foreign militaries doctrines on their airborne troops, do you have any knowledge for China's doctrine?

From what I can see from the outside, it seems that they using a lot of firepower capabilities.

All these mortars and artilleries, point to a fighting force which would pursue objectives, fight off enemies and hold positions (?).

If possible can you give some high-level examples on what the Chinese airborne objectives would be (based on their doctrine ofc)
In the English-speaking world, the only thing we got is this:

"According to You Ji’s “The Armed forces of China”, the PLAAF Airborne Corps has been elevated to the status of a strategic force. It is a departure from the PLA traditional airborne force concept. Doctrinal modernization change allows the PLAAF Airborne Corps to act as a principal force employed for independent campaign missions in future wars. It is now accepted that the airborne troops should be used for pre-emptive attack on the enemy’s key military targets in the rear area in order to paralyze or disrupt its preparation for an offensive. This kind of large-scale mission cannot be conducted without having a total control in the air" (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Keep in mind, this excerpt is from a book published in 1999, so this is definitely outdated. However, according to the same source:

"The PLA Airborne Corps’ main purpose is to carry out both airborne and air-assault operations. These operations are designed to support main-force operational efforts, seize and hold key targets and areas in the enemy’s depth such as airfields and bridges, block an enemy’s retreat, block reinforcement by enemy reserve forces, and conduct raids on key targets in the enemy’s depth"

I believe the above is the author's view, and he is a retired Indian air marshal. Nonetheless, I do concur with his view. The PLA Airborne is too faraway from robust logistical chains to keep up any mechanized push. One can argue that they can get supplied by air. However, in World War 2, German forces, who were surrounded by Soviet Forces in the eve of the Battle of Stalingrad, were supplied by air but the weather sucked. Plus the resources they got wasn't enough for them to hold their position. In the same war, in the Battle of the Bulge, US Airborne forces weren't purely saved by air drops; they were saved by Patton's 3rd Army, who broke through the German encirclement. With modern day air defenses continuously improving, the air defense gap can be closed. So, the best they can do is seize important objectives, which would hinder the enemy's flow of logistical supplies and troops to the front, and, if necessary, rapidly reinforce the front lines.

As for an example, in the real world, let's say, the PLA airborne are trying to capture Myitkyina Airport in Myanmar (which is an extremely far-fetched example but I don't want a political debate happening in this thread). Assuming air defenses are all suppressed and the reinforcements are delayed due to an aerial campaign, the Airborne can land near the airport and seize and hold the major highways that connect to it. By the time the reinforcements are ready, the Airborne have already achieved their objective and are waiting for the main force to arrive. Due to their relatively strong artillery, anti-tank weaponry, and superb training, they can disrupt enemy attempts to recapture the airport and pick off any remaining forces that managed to reorganize into a fighting force. Meanwhile, since the enemy's air defense is suppressed and the air is in the control of the PLAAF, they can also call in air strikes to destroy any enemy opposition.

Also, we are going off topic since this thread is purely about Chinese infantry fighting vehicles only. So, I'm going to have to end it right here. Sorry about that, but we can discuss this in the PLA News, Pics, and Discussion thread if you want to continue this discussion.
 
Last edited:

Top