AS21 Redback & ZBD-04A: Australia - China Infantry Fighting Vehicles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- This briefing will examine the Redback & ZBD-04A by looking at their design focus, & firepower, protection & mobility characteristics.
Related briefings:
AS21 Redback IFV - Why Australia Chose It.
China's New IFV - Is it any good?
Guide To PLA Fighting Vehicles
ZBD-04A V BMP-3M
How they’re being used is important too. There are 1700 type 04a in China up until 2021, and there’s 129 AS21 in Australia. In a Chinese heavy combined arms brigade, there’s around 120 ifv versions of 04a ( more than 136 if you count the scout units, that’s more 04a than all the AS21 Australia have in just one brigade ),and they’re under the same unit as the ztz-99a which means they always support each other. Their tactics are to use them to quickly charge at a enemy position head on after the 152/155mm artillery and 300mm rocket barrage saturation. That’s the reason why they focus on frontal armor so much and sacrifice side armor for mobility( same as the ztz-99a as well )
Not to discredit the aussies, love you guys, but I think it would make a better comparison with the US ABCT and Chinese HCAB. Equipments are designed to work with each other under tactics, they don’t really do Mexican stand-offs.
As I say in the intro, "Additionally, no matter how good an IFV is, it must be operated effectively by its crew, & employed in the right way. "
@@Strategy_Analysis I must’ve missed it, apologies
I will be doing a briefing on the HCAB later this year.
@@Strategy_Analysis thank you, really looking forward to that. Incredibly complex unit, dare I say it has some of the best anti air capabilities anywhere. Can’t imagine the amount of work you put in to these videos, but please remember to take some rest too, appreciate the work.
I am quite impressed all these is done by a setup that can be put in a back pack.
Thank you. I'm not at my home so no studio or desktop computer. I've actually just moved to a new location as well.
This is an unbiased and underrated channel. It's a pity that there are too many "propaganda" videos on TH-cam, which makes it impossible to objectively view the development of weapons in various countries. It's a pity that this kind of channel is popular, without blind praise and blind denigration of China. Regarding your video, I think the 04A infantry fighting vehicle was born more than 10 years ago, and Australia's AS21 was born later. If we only compare vehicles, Australia's IFV is stronger. The biggest problem of 04A is the lack of more powerful anti-tank missiles such as HJ16 that cannot be installed with ZBL191, only the old HJ73J, that is, if facing T90 or K2 M1A2 Abrams tanks alone, they can only call 99A tanks or air supports (such as Z10 or JH7 or various UAVs, such as Wing Loong 2) for fire strikes. If there is no 99A and aircraft nearby, then they can only retreat. Thank you for your video, I will continue to follow you
I traveled to Australia ten years ago. Sydney is the most modern Western city I have ever visited. I personally feel it is more beautiful than Paris, New York and LA.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Love this channel. Keep up the great work.🤠
Much appreciated.
Brilliant report mate! This type of video is a great idea. I think too many people don’t actually look at what we are potentially going fight against. Especially certain commentators in the media. So the Redback isn’t amphibious? That surprising considering how wet it gets up north
Cheers
It is surprising that Redback isn't amphibious, but im pretty sure thats why we are also buying the boxers.
@@AlienAbyss2 the boxer in not as well
Love it when I see you’ve put out a new video
Much appreciated.
@@Strategy_Analysis I traveled to Australia ten years ago. Sydney is the most modern Western city I have ever visited. I personally feel it is more beautiful than Paris, New York and LA
Thank you for doing these. They are informative and I'm appreciative of how frequently you are getting them out now.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
I think the Australian army should consider acquiring some M-10 Booker armoured vehicles to operate with the Redbacks to free up the Abrams to hunt other tanks in a philosophical sense.
God no. The best hunter of tanks is not another tank or armored vehicle it's drones, attack helicopters, and attack fighters. Tanks and armored fighting vehicles are best used to support infantry to assault heavily fortified positions. Australia should focus on being a naval power because we're an island nation. But as far as ground forces go we honestly just need more Redbacks than the number we've ordered so far.
Something doesn't add up
When I initially saw the title for the video I thought to myself, right I think I can almost guess which categories Aussie will win and which the Chinese will win. The firepower thing was pretty obvious and I knew they (PLA) had stuck a potent (on paper) engine in their unit so I figured that might go to them too. BUT, what really threw me was the protection section. I know a little about the various methods of explaining protection such as GOST or VPAM for personnel protection, STANAG 4569 and CEN 1063 being used for Vehicles. Therefore it is through this admittedly minimal knowledge of armor type, ability and production materials that I cannot understand how the ZBD IFV has managed to achieve a (claimed) STANAG level 6 protection and such a low weight. This level is claimed to extend across the frontal arc with Level 4 on the sides, all the while the PLA reporting a weight of only 24t.
I know the extra passive and active protection systems in the Redback will have added weight as will the slightly larger dimensions but surely the whole extra gun (100mm) along with the larger ATGM stocks would add significant weight to the ZBD. In short, I find it difficult to believe the PLA claims for their IFV specifically on weight (24t), and protection. This seems especially unlikely given the weight needed (42t) to accommodate all the abilities and armor levels present in the AS21 IFV. I would (ideally) like to be proven wholely incorrect in my suspicions. I do not want to have to view PLA assertions regarding their military tech with the same level of scepticism as I am now forced to use when considering Russian claims about their military technology.
So please, go right ahead and prove me wrong :)
Great report.
Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
Love your content and I know this is away from your usual content but could you please make a video on the British army and its new land mobility program I don’t know any channel that covers content the way you do
Thanks for the support. I'll consider it. Cheers.
The greater firepower and the ability to fire "smart rounds" from the ZBD-04A gives the PLA vehicle the ability to make the first shot and first kill. After the redback is taken out, no amount of ride comfort etc in the aussie IFV is going to matter anymore.
Experts said that even chopsticks sold on AliExpress should be viewed with suspicion.
3:34 floating floor mitigates mines and IED's..The key to good floor designs is in breaking up the load path so there is not a direct means of transmitting the full shock wave encountered by the hull to the walking floor. ...The Iron Vision system that allows the Redback’s crew to effectively look through the hull of the vehicle as though it isn’t there is an absolute game changer when it comes to operating heavy armoured vehicles in close company with dismounted troops
Team Redback is the industry group led by Hanwha Defense Australia and currently comprising Electro Optic Systems (EOS), Elbit, ECLIPS, Milspec, Bisalloy, Soucy, Marand, and CBG Systems, with Hanwha continuing efforts to expand Australian industry involvement.
“The Redback is a highly advanced infantry fighting vehicle and I believe it to be the safest and most lethal on offer to the Commonwealth,” Managing Director of Hanwha Defense Australia, Richard Cho said in a statement. “The RMA is a great opportunity for the Commonwealth to become familiar with the highly advanced technology seamlessly integrated in Redback.
It certainly is a very advanced weapon system, with a lot of thought put into it.
7:58: I presume the "4.5mm" is a slip of the tongue and it should be "14.5mm" in terms of flank protection?
Indeed. Thanks.
The ZBD-04A does not have any millimetre-wave radar targeting system. You may be mistaking the IFF system for something like that.
What is your source for the 100mm receiving thermobaric ammunition and ATGMs with top-attack?
Arguably one of the key strengths of ZBD-04A (and most modern PLA vehicles) is it being integrated with a battle management system which locally networks and also connects to a satellite communication system. It's terminal is visible on the ZBD-04A turret roof.
Its integrated battlefield management, part of the PLA's "informationalised" warfare concept, is certainly a strength.
I'll check my source re the top attack.
Indonesian military analysis next please. Either as ally, or adversary, I feel that Indonesias future in regards to Australia is often overlooked.
Hopefully next month, but it might slip to August. Having lived there I do have some insight.
Keep up the good work
Thanks, appreciated.
It sounds like you said the side armour of the ZBD-04A was rated to "4.5mm APS." Did you mean to say "14.5mm?"
I would have liked to have seen more discussion and attention being paid to the primary armament - the infantry.
Very few vids discussing IFV's ever seem to give the franchise a thought. I don't think you even mentioned how many are carried, let alone seating arrangements, ease of ingress/egress, headroom (so many IFV's - particularly of Cold War vintage can not comfortably accommodate soldiers of today's average height). How much kit can they carry, etc,...
I certainly did mention ingress/egress, and discussed the importance of crew comfort so they arrive in a combat ready state.
@@Strategy_Analysis - Mentioned. Not discussed.
the redbacks areto replace the old M113A3's and 6 wheel land Rover recon. the redback is decent for the fact that there really good all rounder (terrain for desert sands to water and sea mobilising for amphibious task forces also we got hawkei as well and then we got the Bushmaster's and M1A2 Abrams and dont forget the AS9 Howitzer SMG and AS10's and we got 90 so far Booxer's with the 50mm auto cannon and bushmaster 25mm's with ground to air Sam missiles.
I suspect that the Redback crew may be better trained and potentially more freedom/autonomy of/in operational movement. The 100mm gun on the ZBD as well as a 30mm is a concern but given it's size I would suggest that it would carry limited ammunition. Obviously more would be better but at least we will have the capability to build here in Australia should the need arise. Just out of curiosity does anyone know the build time per unit for Redbacks?
Drone scouts that fly in a formation around the vehicle and update the crews helmets where enemies are... if it's using the helmit from the f35 or new Israeli tank.
ukraine/russo conflict has certainly challenged the theory's of modern warfare and i agree the ifv is still holding itself up as part of the warfare fighting systems required to continue operations but was that ever really in doubt. Gaza is also challenging the current doctrines as it seems that fallujah created a false impression of urban warfare and combined arms. with all this said i still have to wonder what the adf are really arming up for and why, as i don't see the latest rag (dsr) on defence going forward as credible at all. in fact i would say it is totally delusional in respect to actual current world power and how that is going to look in the near coming future.
I would like your view on whether Australia should have LO3 and LO4 for F35B air cover for LO1 and LO2 amphibious ships. To me LO1 and LO2 will be sitting targets in a real conflict without air cover.
From what I have heard discussions around whether Australia should get F35B has been less around their ability to protect their own carriers and supporting fleet and more around their ability to support and protect land operations in the Pacific region. From this I assume that their own air defenses along with those of their escorts are believed to be more or less sufficient for the level of threat that they are likely to be exposed to. There has however been some talk of adding drones such as the Loyal Wingman to these ships in the future. I have heard nothing of adding a further two landing ships to Australia's inventory as you seem to be suggesting.
Project was to purchase 400+ IFV (this costed CV90 out of the bid). New government then cut order to 129 IFV - too late to then reconsider other bids.
Oz should just have bought CV90 - instead of trying to create a less performing orphan design (previous experience of purchasing orphan equipment).
I must have air support helicopter drone or spectre gunships
So we have come back to the doctrine of the infantry tank of WW2.
It has always been this way. What is wrong in Ukraine is that the frontline is too long and too urbanized. Both sides doesn't have enough force to break through enemy line and completely cut off form behind.
If the war happen in Australia desert, it is still the same game like WW2.
Always thought the tracked boxer with the 120mm/30mm RCT turret shown a couple of years ago was the best IFV i've seen to date at least conceptually. Wish it was in the US trials.
Redback jest lepszy ale cóż tego jak jego liczba wzbudza tylko śmiech......Wolę 1000 ZBD04a niż 100 Redback
Go China🇨🇳
China has a lot more numbers we shouldn't try measuring ourselves up to China,
Hope they are good on fuel, given they’ll have to cover 7600000 million square km. Thats around 60000 square kilometers each. 😂
Ugh fix that thumb nail headline mate... "FiGTHING"??