Its obviously taken influence from the Israeli Heavy "Namer" APC. Which is based on a Merkava Chasis. Its a heavy assault APC. And its clearly been given a huge cannon so it can double as a fire support vehicle.
There most likely not, they just saw that design and thought it’s good and effective, and given the average iq and experience Chinese army officials have. . . . Well
The problem with it is that it is not designed for self use, but for selling abroad (you can guess to who by looking at the camouflage). The buyers don't lack money. The Pla is equipping the 04a at the moment and is having a new type soon
The rear facing machine guns are for stopping tailgating and keeps the dismounted troops from getting back into the vehicle if not authorized to do so.
My thoughts too. They forgot the side sponsons with the 100 mm and heavy bolter guns though. On the other hand, it does look pretty cool for the parade ground.
This looks like a fighting vehicle designed by committee. They had to keep making it bigger and bigger to accommodate everyone's ideas for what an infantry fighting vehicle should have.
It’s for export though. I think it’s meant for African countries with heavy bush vegetation. In the bush, really large vehicles are preferred in order to actually see over the grass.
Probably saw the Namer AFV and decided to take a try at it, only to make a Namer Heavier, Carry less troops, and have less armor overall, but hey it has a cannon like a tank, the troop capacity if provably because of a carousel turret design, probably an autoloader like the Russians, so its a big PHAT juicy target for any grunt with a top attack ATGM
This reminds me of an army story my dad told me that he got from a buddy that was there. Apparently, some years ago, there was an initiative to turn an Apache into an electronic warfare vehicle. The original design called for a modest system suite, and someone higher up in the command structure liked it and approved it. However, word got around of what the project's intent was, and that it had been approved already. Pretty soon all the senior R&D officers with any pull on the base were having their own pet systems added on to it. Everything from signal monitoring, to radar jamming equipment. Then the big day came. A bunch of generals came down from Washington to see the initial test flight. So they powered up the Apache...and brought it full power...and it couldn't lift off the tarmac. They had put so many systems on it that they had exceeded it's maximum lift capacity. The end result was a scathing memo regarding changes to approved designs, and a lesson for everyone of what design by committee actually looks like.
Your dad was so right. There's many such stories in industrial design. A famous world leading Korean seeing machine maker, circa 1970s 80s, decided to make the most advanced sewing machine ever. Every homemaker would die to have one. They added so many features, functions, automation, The thing could practically cut you a suit or dress on it's own. Only problem, nobody could figure out how to use it. Zero sales. It was sometimes taught by professors in business s
Also reminds me of Bill Gates in 80s 90s Microsoft. As the new operating system or apps came together, he'd make them do a build every night. It had to work with thousands of 3rd party programs, insane, at a certain point he'd say say stop. Good enough. Not a quote. But we used to call it good enough software development. It was the same in WWII, we mass manufactured tanks, Germans made the best, by hand. Game over
Toyota in the 80s did the same. An engineering group designed the perfect exhaust system, costly but it would outlast the damned car! It was a marvel. A wise man killed the project. These nutty things arise throughout history.
Look into the history of the British R-101 airship program designed by a government committee with almost unlimited funding using innovative, but untested and redundant systems vs. the rival R-100 built by private industry with a limited budget and employing known and proven technology. The end results are self evident.
There probably was the one smart higher-up who was told "this thing will never lift of, its too heavy!" by the Engineers. And his Response was: "Good, lets show them their Stupidity". At least in my Head-Canon that's how it went ^^.
The inherent risk of larger IFVs is that if they are disabled/destroyed in battle, that’s a whole lot of weapons and materials lost in one instance. Also, a totaled 50 ton IFV is far more difficult to retrieve than a smaller 15 ton IFV. For the VN-20 to prove effective, it needs to be amazing as it has been advertised. This is the sort of risk America isn’t desperate enough or dumb enough to take.
@@skeletonofwisdom2922 It is a 50ton armor vehicle, it has more armor than most vehicles against whatever hit it. Besides, they probably have drone station in the heavy vehicle to zero exposed enemy drone operators too.
@@joelau2383 Huh!! No. The bigger the vehicle the bigger the target. There is no apparent drone launching pod on this land whale and drone operators do their job sitting thousands of miles away. There are a number of US made missiles and drop bombs that would be happy to launch its turret up in the air.
@@joelau2383 even if that were true, which definitely remains to be seen, armor isn't generally getting killed by armor in Ukraine. It is getting killed by precision artillery fires. This thing is a sitting duck when it comes to artillery.
Weight has always been an issue for crossing bridges. The larger size also makes it an easier target. No matter what armor you use. There is a munition that can penetrate it.
yes, but your enemy might not be fielding that munition that can penetrate it, better armor means better protection, aka more likely that whatever the enemy is using can't defeat the armor
@@alexmarlow2508 yes however before any armor becomes common use on the battle field. The United States has ways to defeat it. Such as in the case of hypersonic missiles. The Untitled States already has a laser system being deployed to shoot them down. As is often the case nations like Russia and China are really trying to play catch up.
They forgot to add a flame thrower and fuel tanks for it next to the fuel tanks. It also lacks a mine plow in front and helicopter rotors to get over large obstacles. It looks like a weapon out of Starship Troopers.
Flamethrower is great against trenches. In WWII Crocodile was excellent against trenches, especially when they used "wet squirt" (just splashing the flammable liquid, but not setting it on fire), because when you hold a rifle and somebody dumps a bucket of gasoline on you, do you want to pull the trigger? I'm not a gun expert, but I noticed that when you fire a rifle (gun, machinegun, musket, whatever), it goes with a nice flash of fire. Do you want an open fire when you are covered in gasoline or similar flammable liquid? If your other option is tossing the gun away, raising hands and surrendering of course.
This made me bust out laughing. I'm still waiting for the day we actually implement some form of the crazy "metal storm" weapon system that could fire a (theoretical) 1 million rounds a minute. Those prototype vids were wild. Can you imagine a IFV with pods of those things using air burst or canister shot munitions....I think that would show the chines who can build the craziest bs, I mean, TOTALLY REAL AND FEASIBLE best IFV.
You know, they should really just make the turret work as a self contained system, so it can be pulled off and used as a gun by mechsuits and supersoldiers
One key point that is missing is that weapons beginning with "VN" and "VT" are foreign trade products, the PLA does not equip them, and these weapons are heavily customised according to the customer's requirements, so a lot of the features look interesting.
*Oh my gosh.* This infantry fighting vehicle can transport a maximum of *NINE PEOPLE?!* (3 crew + 6 passengers) I feel like a minivan would have similar carrying capacity, and perhaps greater maneuverability!
You all listen to these people 😆😆He never seen it or used it smh imagine getting information from a person who has never seen it in person or used it. VERY RELIABLE
@@TheMetalfreak360 I think we’ll see a Kirov airship or equivalent first, as the problem with a Mammoth Tank is that it’s really big and heavy, making it difficult to transport and requiring fording water instead of using a bridge (which is one of the things that did in the Maus, along with various production difficulties).
The main armament is a version of the weapon system fitted to the BMP-3. In that case the 100mm main gun is actually a gun/missile launcher which fires all sorts of conventional rounds AND the BM-117 ATGM. Why carry spare twin ATGM launchers also?
@@NationalI4578You couldn't really use both of them at the same time anyway. Besides this is meant for breakthroughs. They have lighter IFVs, but they want this for when they need to break through dug in enemy frontlines.
The external fuel barrels instantly reminded me of the BMP-1 where the doors of the passenger compartment are fuel tanks. - Comrade Lead Designer are you sure about it? - Da, you just have to advance all the time. If you don't turn around the enemy can't shoot at it!
@@ruler898 yeah good point actually. Though still, you can get into combat earlier than expected and then you're screwed. In Chechnya, this happened to the Russians.
@@DeReAntiqua yeah I think you're right that this VN-20 will go the way of the Armata. Imagine how many of the freaking things you'd need to deploy just a company of soldiers, just the cost of that alone, not to mention the upkeep.
If you’re getting shot in the ass on a vehicle I think that leaking fuel is among the last things on your mind. Personally I’d be more concerned about the projectiles penetrating the rear of my vehicle.
1 of criticisms of original Bradley was it was so tall it would be an easy target, this thing dwarfs it. Wait, they mounted MGs facing rear UNDER fuel tanks-I get it's diesel, but when those tanks get shot, spew fuel, the guns would ignite it, so soldiers could be exiting IFV into burning fuel. Who needs flamethrowers when enemy is already burning their own men. FLAME ON!
@Thomas Zhang That would require common sense, something most militaries lack. As a 15 year US Army veteran, I can attest to that, and China hasn't been in war since 1979, where lessons are learned, usually the hard way.
That was my first thought upon seeing the tiny “guardsman” next to the rear hatch. I have no respect for Chinese leadership but hot damn if them being WH40k fans might change that.
@@KungfufightU they don't actively fight wars since 1979 so all they could do is play UN peacekeeper and play wargames. I am sure 40K is in the menu...
I had the same thought and scrolled before making my own comment. If it can only carry 6 Chinese troopers, good luck in getting a terminator squad in there.
I'm guessing the machine guns are supposed to be used by the infantry to clear opposition before dismounting. A bit like a port gun. The two barrels of fuel look like they're long range fuel tanks supposed to be dumped before entering combat. There was a BMP design with a similar feature at one point: The exit hatch was a hollow fuel tank, but any remaining fuel was supposed to be dumped before getting near the enemy.
This is like the WW2 German tank idea that was described as a land ship. It failed... Never came to fruition due to MANY holes in its ability to actually navigate various land types successfully without lots of maintenance and risk.
Finally someone here finds the real problem and biggest problem with this vehicle. It's weights as much as a main battle tank and that means it GUZZLES fuel, fuel that China does not produce and must import and must preserve in a war to maintain supply lines. There is a reason why Japan, another country with no oil, was building small vehicles in WW2. In a war, China will quickly find out why this IFV is terrible when all the fuel depots it has to stick on the front line start getting blown up
@@maximonkey1 Russia has lots of oil and yet but has trouble supplying its vehicles on the front, there is a big difference between having it and getting to where it should go
I was armouring KBR trucks in Kuwait during the while the US was in Iraq. We were offered Chinese armour rated to stop AK47 rounds. The armour was so bad AK rounds blew right threw it. The 1/4 inch plate was made to metric 6mm where as US 1/4 inch armour is closer to 7mm. The armour was so soft we could drill trough it in seconds. My feeling is the Chinese have never mastered the manufacturing of armour plate which is why it NEEDS to be so heavy just to stand up to IFVs from the west.
Chinese steel is notoriously inconsistent. They are capable of high quality steel for their sales samples, then once the contract is signed, the dogshit starts flowing in
[Quote from 'The Pentagon Wars' HBO movie] Col. Robert Laurel Smith: That's one hell of a cannon. Jones: That's the problem. Col. Robert Laurel Smith: What is? Jones: You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy's going to unload on you with everything they got. Might as well put a big red bullseye on the side. Col. Robert Laurel Smith: But it's a troop carrier, not a tank. Jones: Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank, please don't shoot at me"?
thats a funny movie, but I hate to tell you, its also a complete farce. not only is it a slue of 'bad takes' on military doctrine, but the main character "protagonist" was, in real life, a career monkey who was out to sabatage the bradley project in favor of HIS project, and didnt understand the first thing about mil-tech R&D. Pentagon Wars is NOT a good reference for insight on military procurement or intelligent design. Go check out the video LazerPig did on it for a close and in depth look at it. I cant communicate everything he covers in it in a youtube post.
dude was seriously thinking vietnam era M113 battle bus doctrine, completely unaware that the IFV wasn't just the future, it had already arrived with the soviet BMP series of vehicles. it's the same bullshit with the "IT TOOK 50 SHERMANS TO TAKE DOWN ONE TIGER", someone said it in a book, and now everyone can't help but repeat it despite how many times it's been debunked
The rear-mounted mgs, exit ramp, and extra fuel tanks are a complete system. The muzzle flash of the heavy mgs ignites the fuel-soaked infantry, shocking the crap out of opposing forces and making them easier targets for supporting forces. It also motivates infantry to succeed. The 6 worst-performing infantry in each company get to ride in the first vehicle.
The full name of this vehicles is the VN20 is internally referred to as the "Fuqitaditon", and whenever an enhancement was suggested, the design team would say the say the vehicle's name, and work on integrating the enhancement. Also the main two guns seems to be inspired by the BMP-3, so that is kind of retro.
The concept of the gun was liked by the Chinese from the BMP3 so it was used on the ZBD-97 which started production in 1999 and the concept is now used on the vn20
BMP-3's 100mm gun is a genius design for that kind of vehicle. Allows you to carry fuck tonn of HE shells for fire support purposes, as well as ATGMs of all types.
@@arnoldli890 next time use a comma (,) when typing more than one examples. it hurts my eyes reading chinese vehicle name, especially witout the use of a comma
As proven in the war in Ukraine. The anti-tank systems available just makes these kinds of vehicles obsolete, unless you are fighting a bunch of dudes equipped with just Aks, sandals, and a couple of RPGs.
The Chinese name for VN20 is '战斗要塞' or battle fortress. Its designed to draw fire and be as big of a target as possiable. Not sure if that is a good tactic, but it sure can get the job of been shot at done putty well.
@@vinylrebellion the basic idea is not to set off the projectile but to break it. Thus the slats need to be close enough to catch it it, but to present a minimal surface area, but also be strong enough. Hence the slats are a certain size and set a particular distance apart and set sideways. The other thing to realise is that they only work against slow moving contact projectiles (e.g. RPG), which is why those top cover cope cages are utterly useless against missiles such as the top attack Javelin.
@peter b I am pretty sure that it doesn't work against Javalin because it is a tandem charge warhead. I am pretty sure that slat armour doesn't work against any tandem warhead, even for RPG.
@@will19125 You are correct, it wont work at all against Javelin, mainly because Javelin is not a relatively slow moving contact detonation projectile like an RPG7. And a tandem charge is there to defeat ERA. Slat armour is not ERA.
@@peterb2272 If we speak about perfect conditions where tanks is standing still, with a good andgle around 90° and you do not miss with javelin because of low acc.
I think the standards/precision is more significant from a maintenance/interchangeability standpoint. We've seen going all the way back to WW2 that an impressive vehicle on paper isn't much use if it can't be maintained in the field with easily sourced replacement parts. The VN-20 seems like it could have similar issues.
The whole vehicle design philosophy reminds me of Soviet era frigates with the firepower of a battleship. One huge problem with this concept, lots of ammo in a small space = enemy can aim just about anywhere and hit an ammunition magazine, then "BOOM".
It worked both ways, any shot against it and it becomes the next space program, but if you get hit by it you, your ship, and your existence is getting vaporized
BMP-3's should basically be classified as VBIEDs at this point. There are some very striking images of BMP-3's lost in Ukraine that genuinely look worse than the Sheridan wrecks from Vietnam.
The rear machine guns is reminiscent of multi turreted tank designs of the interwar period of the 1920s-1930s (The T28 and T35 etc) . It may be utilized to fire in trenches as the vehicle crosses over/drives over the trench in a side firing configuration- to suppress enemy infantry in the trench. I would assume the rear mg only fire when troops are inside the vehicle.
That’s a great point; crossing trenches it could fire right down the line. Because trenches would have anti-armor weapons of some sort. Like something similar to RKG-3. Those things are perfect for trench urban warfare. Had to deal with those in Iraq and they always came out of alley to throw when we passed in deep urban areas. Harder to move around.
but made in china is mostly always done with shortcuts and cheaper materials and that goes also for their military as we seen (nukes filled with water???? wtf) @@aleemesmail8096
It’s kind of like you combined the Namer with the BMP-3, then added ATGMs for good measure. It has the exact same main armament (100mm with coaxial 30mm) as the BMP-3, with the same basic hull layout as the Namer.
Theoretically seems to have a pretty solid use as an armored fire support vehicle that can also be integrated into front line armored combat without the same vulnerability as the Stryker MGS. Since it's based on a tank hull with similar protection, a 100mm gun that will likely be for anti-infantry and anti-emplacement operations with HEAT or HE, a 30mm auto cannon, an ATGM Launcher, and can carry 6 infantry, it should be pretty versatile and great in urban combat. This won't be the main Chinese IFV, but should still be able to be built in large enough numbers to allow the Chinese Army to integrate it on a doctrinal level.
I wanted to say this and you have done it, good. Since IFV would get mostly into urban warfare, namer concept is most ideal but give it unmanned turret and thick top armor + mini CIWS to overcome top down attack missiles. Large IFV would give better protection too looking at Bradley & LAVTP-7 vulnerability in Iraqi Freedom
It doesn't seem like the optimal design for an IFV: Only carries 6 soldiers, but needs a crew of three. Weighs almost as much as an MBT, but can't take the hits that an MBT can. It's going to burn through a lot of fuel as well. So, bigger hit on logistics.
cant take hits that a mbt can? actually it can prob take more. its frontal armor is likely simillar if not greater than the vt4 giving it MBT levels of protection. it also has era on the side which alot of MBTs dont even have. remember this weighs 50 tons, which is 2 tons less than the vt4 (The main battle tank this IFV is built on) but it lacks a tank turret and 125mm cannon and autoloader+ammo. so where is all that weight going? obviously extremely thick composite armor for its hull
Even modern ATGM can absolutely trash MBT, this thing is basically IFV, that's bigger, heavier and more armoured than typical IFV. BUT the armour level didn't reached MBT, so basically just a big target
@@Phantom-bh5ru Good lord can you quit with the RU-CHINA propaganda? All your comments are out here claiming Russian and China has the best shit. It doesn't matter if this thing has ERA on the side when we've seen during the fighting in Ukraine that there's tons of ways to just hit vics from above.
@@Phantom-bh5ru The extra Weight went into the 100 MM cannon, the 30 MM Coaxil, The ammo and auto loader for both of those, the AT missiles, the machine guns, and probably a bunch into those barrels in the back. As well as the Seats and hydraulic for the hatch in the back for the infantry. In short, It has maybe the same protection as a tank, though in that case enjoy the giant fuel hungry monster that's gonna fuck up your logistics even more.
I was with the first Stryker brigade to get the slat armor, actually the first Stryker brigade for the Army. I had no idea we had issues with the mobility other than extending the vehicle's size. I don't remember hearing anything negative about it, other than it was a pain to put on in Kuwait. Given we never trained on the vehicle after the armor was added, and just adapted to it in combat, I think we did well.
I was in a Marine LAV company and the word we got about the striker is they kept rolling into canals due to the excessive weight collapsing the banks. We took over canal patrol duty from there and strykers ended up on patrol duty in the desert.
@@DirectedVerdict We had 2 in my regiment that did that. Maybe at some other time as well, I never heard. The way it happened, it would've happened without the slat armor, and would've happened to a LAV too. We lost 3 that night. "We took over canal patrol duty from there and strykers ended up on patrol duty in the desert." That's not what we were doing to my knowledge. We hit Samarra doing direct action missions, in city patrols, and traffic stops. The company I was with slept outside the city on the ground for that. Then we moved to Mosul to do the same, with some going to Balad and Tal-Afar. We didn't "patrol the desert", at least not my unit. This was 2004.
Slat could be a pain in the ass when bent against the turn wheels. We had to winch the cage off the tires a couple of times. Stupid winch. My battalion had a couple run-ins with RKG-3s, to the best of my knowledge none of our Strykers took a RPG hit. I guess the slats were at least a deterrent? Luckily we carried 'MRE/water armor' on the top deck! Shaped charges lose steam RAPIDLY when the slug hits water. Doc got a concussion but it could have been worse. 2 SCBT 25th ID, N/NW of BIAP & Abu Ghraib AO 2007-09 Thank you to prior Stryker units for all the lessons-learned and advice!!
7:19 he does not understand, that the machineguns are there to prevent either a brave or very st**** people, from sneaking in back of the tank. Still does not matter if the bloody thing is deployed wrong, it is just a tombstone.
Reminds me of the landships that were built pre-WWII. There is a reason they stopped making them. They were too big and the multitude of weapons systems made them unable to focus on the one thing it was supposed to do really well...
Size and weight by themselves aren't always the problem, but what an IFV needs to excel at are mobility, reliably and operational distance. An IFV should never have to expect to face armor in a direct fight. ATGMs can even the playing field a little, but like the name suggests, an IFV only wants to go up against infantry and other light armor. The VN-20 will likely operate as if it was a lighter tank, and get absolutely obliterated by anti-tank weapons.
Not only that, but the design has to fit the use case. Currently the main conflict that China has on the horizon is against Taiwan, which is, ya know, an island. Imagine trying to lug a platoon of these monstrosities over the Taiwan strait. That's north of 250 tons, for IFVs for a whopping 30 soldiers, not counting crew.
This seems to be a lesson that can't be learned easiy. The US scolded South Vietam for using the M113 like a tank, and a few years later were scolding themselves for doing the same thing.
Japan in WW2: built smaller tanks, had few of them, because of mountainous and island terrain made armored warfare difficult to impractical at times. China 2023: builds massive IFVs ignoring their terrain issues.
that's a false equivalence, most of Taiwan's main cities are facing China. If an invasion is to occur in Taiwan, there's going to be brutal city fights from day 1. Such a heavy IFV would almost be essential to push through defensive lines.
Seems like a similar design philosophy to the Bradley. It's got decent armour from the start but that 50 tonne weight limit is going to be horrible for going over bridges. We won't know how good it is until and unless it is trialled in battle.
A very large IFV of such specifications sounds like a good idea on paper, as the larger size and heavier tonnage would enable the vehicle to carry heavier engines, more firepower and larger capacity for more infantry...but then reality sets in. Larger profile means larger target for everything from man-portable anti-tank to kamikaze drones to artillery. Then the tonnage of the vehicle itself can also be a downside, because if such an IFV is lost or damaged, it becomes more difficult to retrieve and repair because of it's heavier weight. Sturdier and more buoyant pontoon bridges would also be needed to support heavier vehicles in a river crossing operation where such vehicles are not amphibious. Larger IFVs are additionally more expensive to mass-produce than smaller IFVs, in much the same way that MBTs are more expensive than IFVs. The additional space for more or larger caliber ammunition is also offset by the increased risk of ammunition detonation in the event of a successful penetration, but then again, a roomier crew compartment can offset this danger to some degree as well, and wet ammunition stowage has been a thing for a good while now. In theory, an IFV of such size would be able to advance and fight right alongside main battle tanks while carrying mechanized infantry. But in practice, against the popularity of cheap and readily available anti-tank weapons, modern artillery systems, and the relatively recent innovation of kamikaze drones, it would probably end up just becoming another target.
At 50 tons that baby must drink fuel like no one buisness and considering china division size its gonna be a fuel intensive army. Which remind me of another fuel intensive army who's a failure.
By looking at modern war between relatively new tech, with Russia and Ukraine, basically NATO vs Soviets, we saw how well or bad certain types of weapons do in reality. We all that it's way easier to destroy a tank then to defend it, that it's almost impossible to use it in urban areas and in the open you'll blow it up either from RPG, drones, Aircrafts, Mines and artillery. So MAYBE the Chinese wunderwaffen can do well in an Urban situation, as the heavy armor would have no problem at tanking RPG while all the firepower can and would suppress enemy troops. In this age, you either build an extremely tanky and expensive tank, or you go cheap. A T-55AGM costs roughly 500k, while a leopard 2 costs 6 millions. Why should you buy a Leopard 2 that can still get oneshotted by a T-55AGM, when you can buy 12 T-55AGM?
The assumption with the rear mounted machine guns is that they can even be fired when the rear hatch is open. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to write a few lines of code to disable them when the hatch opens. Also, if you need to shoot those guns(because the enemy is out there), why would you open the hatch and give the six commandos the opportunity to become hamburger from enemy fire?
Yeah but if the enemy is in your 6, everything is wrong already. Where is your support infantry, where are the other armoured units to support you, and why isn't the turret trained on the enemy yet? Rear mounted machine guns is an idea that was made obsolete in early WW2
@riograndedosulball248 it's like Japan making cruiser/carriers in ww2. If you are having to design for something like that, you have already lost the situation.
If you think about it the design makes perfect sense. See the biggest enemy of CCP isn't US, Taiwan nor India, it's the Chinese people. Human rights activists, democratic protestors, Qi gong practitioners, martial arts instructors, real estate investment scam victims etc. It serves the ccp to have their IFV look huge and intimidating with a lot of guns to scare its civilians,.
As i keep mentioning, a drone capable of carrying a 4 lb shape charge and detonating on it engine block a Shape charge pointed down can turn vehicles into very expensive lawn ornaments. Doing this while the troops are formed up behind said to be lawn ornament in a MINEFIELD and you not only halt an enemy push, you create a kill box for tank crew, infantry, and a nations economy.
The other issue is top down missile fire. The javellin has proven time and time again that no matter how much ERA and armor you slap on something your roof is still the most vulnerable thing on any vehicle, and this thing just screams BIG target for any javellins or AT systems. (I also saw on the vn20 it doesnt appear to have any ability to counter top down missile fire save suppressing the operator prior to launch. which is suprising because of how much we've seen from ukraine on the effectiveness on both top down missiles and drone based Armor fighting tech.
@joemancool im also looking at, cost, needed training, availability, and speed of manufacture. I missile takes at least hundreds of thousands to produce. For that a lot of suicide drones like mine could be made.
@@buddybraxnot necessarily, you need to realize WHY tanks came about in the first place. you may see more drones being utilized to the point that tanks become obsolete because of drones being able to cheaply and reliably destroy tanks and armored vehicles safely and ,most importantly economical. you will see that you don’t need to spend billions of dollars on a single tank when a $100 drone from wal-mart and some shaped charges can destroy it in seconds. mark my words. you will see a greater emphasis on remote controlled vehicles that will be smaller and more efficient due to lack of needing a crew to man it. same thing goes for cyber warfare. you will reach a point of stalemate until innovation comes back to counter it
@@buddybrax tank warfare will never die. There’s no substitution and many people who study war history have said this countless times. Will they most likely become lighter, faster and better overhead protection? Sure but tank warfare IS NEVER going to end. Holy. So many people commenting the same useless shit.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" dont point out the flaws, encourage them. for instance, diesel fuel tanks placement, very cool. Give the IFV great retro lines. Like a T62. The rear machineguns, have that IS7 ""deadly fortress of death" vibe.
For me this looks like a vehicle designed by manufacturers to be advertised as the ideal vehicle to attack hardened trench positions, where it could hit the positions with heavy weapons while approaching to clear a path, cross the trench, then use the rear MGs to fire to the left and right to suppress the trench while infantry dismounts and makes a beeline for the spot the vehicle crossed over
@@jacobnormann6678 🤣 coherent response there Jacob Normann. Have you taken your medication? Btw its Ironic that someone with such a forgettable name would say that.
@@jaketwigg1065 And is armored enough to need anti tank weapons to stop. Also becomes a bunker/turret when the tracks break but the hull itself isn't breached.
On the topic of precision manufacturing, I once sent out a drawing with dimensions out to four decimal places. Instead of saying "no", like a sane person, they came back and asked "are you sure?". 0.0001 inches is getting down to the size of larger microbes.
@@specialnewb9821 ya, in the us inches is pretty standard in machine shops. As a die maker, inches is a more accurate scale if you're using normal micrometers. Metric mics measure to .01mm and standard mics measure to .0001 inch. .01 mm is .0004 inches, so I can accurately measure quite a bit smaller with my standard mics. Does it matter? Not unless you're in a climate controled room. You'll see more than .0003 of an inch change in size between summer and winter out doors with metal parts.
Also a cultural thing. The concept of “face” means they try to assume that the person meant what they want, and if they wanted something unreasonable like micron-level precision, they’d try in a slightly roundabout way to ask for you to reconsider what you’re asking. They’re trying to respect your wishes while telling you that you’re asking for something impossible. That, and language barriers too.
@@the-fantabulous-g no, this was a us shop with an edm machine. I think they could have done it, but at higher cost and longer lead time than I would have wanted, but the fact that's even possible is wild. The dimensions were only supposed to go out to three places.
Instead of the two remote guns, I would add a pillar to the tank with a remote controlled machine-gun blister at the top. The idea being, that would allow the guntower blister to rotate around, up, and down, to get at any infantry or drones within reach. The downsides would be visibility, and whether such a design can actually work.
That's actually a great solution! Reminds me of the M3 Lee. Another possible downside to this would be raising vehicle height, thus providing a larger target, but I think the Chinese would actually consider this a bonus: more visibility!!!
Regarding China’s lack of high precision manufacturing, I’m old enough to remember we all dismissed Japan in a similar fashion. Now they’re among the top 3 countries in terms of capability in this area.
I mean, if you are older than 20, you'd remember what people were saying about China back in 2008 right? Could any of them have predicted what they are now? What's dangerous is, people don't like to be proven wrong, so instead of admitting that their prediction was off, they try extra hard to literally dismiss or bend reality to suit their narrative.
Oh don't worry Yankee, our dear president X is destroying China just like what Trump do to US. Considering Trump has fucked off and Mr X gonna rule China till death, U Americans still have chance to be great again by our suicide!
Name one Chinese vehicle civilian or military that's any good . The Japanese always cared about quality. The Chinese, on the other hand, have produced nothing but garbage.
Regarding the rear machinegun placements, I was wondering if they could switch the fuel tank and the machinegun placements. So that when fuel tanks are punctured by enemy fire or environment hazards, it will not bathe the infantry in fuel and potentially set them on fire easily given the circumstance. But then again, that will limit the machinegun cone coverage and infantry will now bathe in freshly extracted shells from the guns. XD
Indeed, I seem to recall that early versions of the German Marder had a 7.62 remote-controlled weapons station on the rear deck. Not sure why they removed it; it must have given a pretty good arc of fire....
The name code suggests that these are for international sale. China's hilly & Taiwan's mountainous/amphibious environment both don't support heavy vehicles. The tanks that Chinese use are lighter than its competitors. The manufacturer particularly bragged about its protection gainst mines & roadside bombs so it is probably made for Middle Eastern old customers.
Reminds me of a Merkava MBT infantry carrier. The Merkava operates with essentially 0 logistical tail as it only drive around Israel (for now). Another angle could be reports of the BMP Terminator's combat effectiveness in Ukraine. Depending on which side's reports you subscribe to, it would heavily influence your perception of such a concept.
The comparison to the Namer IFV is apt - over engineered and under speced (though from this review the Namer specs will eat a VN20 for breakfast), it is so not cost effective that it isn't deployed in any capability except for vanity purposes - the Namer IFV never got a non prototype build, and Namer APC deployments are so behind the original hopes of 100 units in service, that AVD managed to develop a whole new (and much more cost effective) wheeled IFV from scratch in the time it took to deploy the few Namers that are currently in service.
Merkava's armor is good, tho main problem of this vehicle is lack of firepower, but they are fixing it now, cuz M2 50 cal. on CROWS is simply not enough. BMPT terminator fucking shreds forests and trenches for monts now and only one was destroyed (crew abandoned it and ukrainians used heavy artillery to fully destroy it by hitting it's roof). Lots of videos and photos of this vehicle taking hits and making it back during high intensity combat situations, so yeah, heavy IFV with lots of firepower is a good thing to have, especially in infantry centric warfare we see these days. BTRT program soviets had back in the days - closest thing to prefect heavy IFV/APC in my opinion.
@@lovepeace9727 shredding forests is not a good use of military hardware, I believe... Generally, I think fielding heavy weaponry should be done on a dedicated platform - MBTs and similar. A well armored APC paired with a light tank will give you about the same amount of fire power in a much more effective package (in both hardware cost, personnel costs and deployment flexibility). If you can afford an MBT - so much better. For example, the German Puma IFV cost is about EUR 17M / unit. A Merkava 4 + Namer combo will set you back ~EUR 6 M , for which you get more infantry, more fire power and better trained operators (you don't have to train infantry troops to do all they do and on top of that operate a highly technical fighting vehicle).
@@jimmothy3012 i mean most Merkavas have space for 3-4 infantry inside if they carry a reduced ammunition load even the Merkava IV with the 120mm gun can fit 4 dudes in the back that's the whole schtick of the Merkava MBT
It already used by the ZBD-04A IFV (100mm/30mm/coax mg). The original ZBD-04 was known as the Type 97 IFV so this weapons fit has been used by the PLA for well over 20 years.
Whoever designed that thing is DEFINATELY in love with me and pink and belongs to an orthograde species of 40 million years pedigree that cannot be defeated
@@siberiantiger3917 no sht, IFVs don't primarily transport infantry, that's what APCs do. IFVs support or transport infantry that are meant to travel with tanks, like in the Persian Gulf War.
@@DeReAntiqua dont like that, Please use your brain before talking. Try to put other ifv to figh this guy, this guy is for mainland defense than other ifv that lighter and can be used anywhere. this guy is made to obliterating other ifv and infantry and what do you expect? Dont be arrogant please
The first versions of the Marder IFV had an R/C machine gun station moutend at the top rear. It was dismantled because it was ineffective and to mount more armour on the top.
considering it's built on the main battle tank, and the big turret is replaced for a smaller one, i dont think the added side armor would slow it down to much
My problem with this type of vehicle is it’s gonna be expensive to run do to the weight and fuel hungry to boot. I mean maybe it could work if it was to be assaulting with tanks to keep up with them? This seems like overkill on a vehicle meaning it’s simply not gonna be worth the added cost compared to say a Bradley or a BMP.
Uh no, it's lighter than a tank and it drinks as much as a tank. They have thousands of tanks..... This is likely going to cost as much as a Type-99, it has way less tech in it and the exact same armor.
@@Seth9809 You can have 1000s of anything, if it drinks as much as a tank, typically the most fuel hungry vics in an army, congrats, you need a lot more fuel to run your army. That mean more fuel trucks and storage, easier to target by enemy forces, and meaning your army may be brought to a standstill more easily. Ask the Russians what happens when you run out of fuel mid invasion.
The US is not selling Bradleys to third world countries in Africa and South Asia. Buying countries would likely end up using them as light tanks that carries their own supporting infantry. And 9 times out of 10, to keep the gov in power, rather than to fight neighbours.
I always thought it was kinda silly fro Taiwan to order top of the line Abrams Tanks (it seemed weird for a tropical island) but now it is a very reasonable purchase.
I mean, given that they're gonna be used in defensive roles, fuel consumption is less of an issue, and its massive defensive capabilities would help against Chinese guns.
@@andreistoica5519 I mean Javelin has a significantly shorter range than the Abrams' main gun; the reason they've proven so useful in Ukraine is both Russia's poor IR sights (as in much of it is legit civilian-grade) and Ukraine's densely wooded terrain that allows footsoldiers to approach tanks even with drones in the air - coupled with the fact Ukraine's larger land area allows defence in depth/ambush tactics that Taiwan cannot rely on - distance between contested city of Luhansk and Kyiv is over 400 miles, Taiwan at its widest is 140 miles. As such Taiwan needs gear that can stop an enemy assault rather than pick it apart as it passes through, a task which the Abrams was built to do. Also, TOW operationally has similar issues to dug-in tanks regarding their need to be stationary while in use, which leaves them vulnerable to anyone with a gun let alone mortars, artillery, airstrikes etc - all while having none of the armour or active protection systems that are mounted on Abrams to improve survivability. Russia might not give its tanks proper infantry support, but we cannot expect China to make the same mistake. Finally, the biggest strength of tanks isn't in fighting other tanks (a task usually left to helicopters which are far better at it) but in fighting general infantry as its 120mm main gun and multiple .50cal machine guns can cut down massed infantry with impunity as long as they either have none or not enough AT weapons to deal with it. The cost of equipping infantry with the capability to deal with tanks massively increases the overall cost of fielding infantry, reducing the advatange that China's larger population gives it compared to Taiwan. Remember, China has roughly 60 times the population of Taiwan, so preventing overwhelm tactics, maximising the fighting capabilities and preserving the lives of every single soldier is vital if Taiwan is to defend itself. Taiwan cannot afford to pay in red what they could've paid in green.
My dad was an engineer on a lot of military hardware. Funny thing is everything goes out to the cheapest bidder for most parts and come back not the spec and we end up spending more doubling or tripling the budget and time. Everytime. Precision manufacturing is expensive
Id rather take my chances on Toyota Camry reinforced with a positive attitude and a mango arbre magique. 😂 That giant block of metal looks like a death trap. The Ukrainian conflict pretty much showed us how speed and manoeuvrability are the only way to save your ass from portable anti tank weapons.
6 dismounts isn't very much. Particularly when you account for casualties (I seem to recall a post-WW2 infantry conference concluding that squads should be designed on the assumption that they will always be under-strength by at least 25%). In order to get a respectable squad size they will need to either have two IFVs to carry each squad, resulting in either very few squads per platoon, or a lot of IFVs per platoon, or do a complicated cross loading procedure like American Bradley platoons.
@@dustycarrier4413 As mentioned for its marketing, the VN20 is considered a heavy duty vehicle all rolled as one platform. That statement alone just proves that the idea of making an IFV-MBT hybrid is the worst of both worlds.
@VoidTempering The hull armor is the same as the VT-4 (well, it is based on it), and the main gun is 100mm, more or less the same as what most Cold War MBTs were armed with.
@@imgvillasrc1608 It doesn't fulfill the role of an MBT though, the UAE might use it like that though. However, the role of an MBT is determined by doctrine, not its capabilities. Besides, it uses a low-pressure 100mm gun which is just an evolution of the 73mm gun that the original BMP-1 used. It uses almost the same turret as the BMP-3. That is not the gun of an MBT.
To be fair, the machine guns on the back are probably optional and very likely only mounted when the IFV is sent into urban areas. Also they could be likely operated by the crew so when they dismount nobody will be operating them right ?
the crew doesn’t dismount the IFV, there’s the 3 crew and then the infantry complement, the ifv crew stay in the vehicle as tank drivers are good at tank driving, not infantry combat generally
The rear MGs kinda make sense. Firstly, they will be designed to not be able to fire if the door is open. Secondly if the 'main job' of the IFV is to dismount the infantry close to target, then punch though the target, it would be a good idea to have rear facing firepower to pin any 'left over' enemy, whilst keeping main weapons and armour forward facing. This would allow the dismounted infantry to advance to engage the left overs. A tactic that kinda makes sense in theory but would require a lot a training and dare I say luck to function well in real engagements
By punching through an area full of hostiles you're just leaving yourselves more vurnerable to enemy fire. Even if you say that the rear guns are usefull, however by that time an anti-tank squad would've dealt with that 50 ton ifv.
@@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184 anti Tank Squads are as old as Tanks them selfs and at the very least since WWII they are always equipped with AT S*** that can take out every armoured Vehicle(speaking of hypothetical Peer/near Peer Conflicts). Still, armoured Vehicles remained to this Day
Like the Russian vehicles those rear fuel tanks would be only used for road moves to increase range. They would be removed before combat. But then again I have been wrong before.
People are raging on this thing for being the basic idea of a tank turned IFV but this seems like it is built to be first off the ramp on beach landings. Hence the rear guns. Purpose: penetrate shore defences with heavy armor and large caliber firepower, breach fortifications. Stop. Disperse and assault defences from rear with machine guns. Once you have acheived that, dismount troops and clear the fortifications. The fact they use a tank lower structure, means they are planning to pump out the numbers fast. I would suggest taking this thing very seriously. Not looking for affirmation. I know I am 100% correct. To be honest, I wouldn't call it an IFV. This is a new concept.
I'm just realising; For an urban combat environment ,those rear machine guns are the correct height to have a clear line of fire through ground-floor doorways and windows. If they were mounted higher they would have to aim down, limiting their indoor range.
Urban areas have always been problematic for tanks. Remember the last time they used tanks at a protest? They’ve learned some things since then. They can gun down college students 5x easier now!
Mate…Soviet vehicles had weapons that could also fire at same height, only in Chechnya was it shown you simply had to fight from higher grounds, especially in urban areas.
Making an IFV from a tank chassis is possible, but it usually doesn't work out too well. A tank is a very specific vehicle with a very specific task. That doesn't usually translate well when you try to make it modular.
wdym. Israel has a very good APC built from Merkava. This IFV has nothing to do with Taiwan, but engage city targets in either of Chinas bordering countries, OR domestic (just incase) since China is a heavily urbanized China.
@@eduwino151 It is really really unique and is an extreme outlier in that field. To begin the Merkava already has many good APC features so it has a good starting place. Next it was setup to operate in probably the best armored warfare environment in the world outside the southern USA. And lastly it was built strictly for a defensive type war. As far as APC's made from tanks go it is pretty much unique.
Honestly, I think this is just an MBT that has room for dismounts. One or the biggest lessons from the Ukraine War was that tanks without infantry support are pretty much just sitting ducks. The ability to defend the infantry from fire while the tank pushes would be very useful-- and, as an additional benefit, it could provide rest for soldiers while moving to the frontlines, and maybe even a safe(r) place to sleep.
Did everyone just forget about anti tank munitions that have been available for nigh on a century now? Also the logistics of fueling a 50T battle bus only works if you're not expecting to drive it very far. A big armored IFV isn't the hammer to break down obstacles, it's a target that might as well have "warheads on foreheads" on the border of it. Besides, the single biggest reason China wouldn't invade Taiwan is everything worth a damn to the CCP is wired up to be burned to the ground on a moment's notice to spite the communists trying to steal it.
Everything you just listed there can be done by lighter, smaller IFV. There's a reason that IFVs and tanks fill different roles in western doctrine. You really don't need much armor at all for rapid maneuver or providing fire support. Armored infantry can still move quickly and have more firepower than light infantry without their vehicles needing all the same bells and whistles as an MBT.
@@truedemoknight6784 this. Specialization in a given role is much better than jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none vehicles, and makes it much easier to assemble battlegroups for specific purposes. NATO doctrine is hard to ignore here
I agree with most of your analysis. And I think you are correct that the machine guns on the rear are for suppression in urban environments, before deploying troops. And the extra fuel tanks could be dumped before entering action to avoid the scenario you described. As to the precision gap, eh, maybe. Don't forget the lesson of the Russian T-34, which was good enough and could be made in huge quantities, thereby overwhelming the "more precise" German tanks. This number over quality is something that both Russia and China have practiced in warfare. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. But I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
this was true in ww2. But we are now talking about a world where we very easily could mass produce these precise vehicles. After all, additive printing makes them less complicated compared to good ol german overengineering. The chinese will have more parts wich require more parts to be assembled and more maintenance. Together with this. No matter how amazingly good their vehicles may be. They only had a few skirmishes with the indians so far and still deploy 70s tactics. Nato forces on the other hand are already pretty accustomed to combined warfare.
The lessen of the Russian T-34 was not Quantity over Quality, in fact Quantity over Quality has not once worked on a modern Battlefield. The lessen of the Russian T-34 was that if you let your tanks be build by unskilled labor and give them unrealistic quotas to archive / bad quality materials most of your tanks will never properly work and be destroyed mostly by PzKpfw III's who should not be able to damage them in the first place.
The rear MGs are probably meant for when you're turning your hull around and backtracking. In that fashion the rear MGs can fire whilst retreating. Or in urban environments when you need rear cover from buildings or nests etc.
So the plan is to dump the remaining ammo after wasting your soldiers and losing the fight? A machine gun firing from a speeding away vehicle while being crewed by a terrified child isn't going to hit much
Or maybe suppression while the men dismount. But any issues with the turrets would be impossible to fix in an active urban fight. It just seems like a bad idea with no evidence it works in practice
@@eVill420 because it doesnt share components with their the pla ordonance mbt, if it was for the pla itself they would build it off the type 99, and the designation VNxx previouls was exclusively for export vehicles by norinco
as an RTS nerd whenever there's news about IFV the first thing that comes to mind is the GDI's Guardian APC or Hunter from Command and Conquer. seeing one shaped like a tank is... odd to say the least.
@@GreenLeafUponTheSky Dig a hole put stick and dirt on top. Heavy tank falls in hole. Laughing defenders dump gasoline in the hole and light it on fire. Instant Chinese BBQ
I bet the logistics of moving that thing around are fun, and likely still a juicy target for Javelins and a ton of other munitions that are much cheaper to produce.
The Kangaroo type APC is not unknown, but certainly uncommon beyond WW2. The shared tank platform, heavy protection and mobility identical to armour is an interesting concept, probably design specifically for a narrow set of missions.
@@jmnapigkit yup, and urban terrain and steep mountainous terrain such as in China, Korea, or Taiwan is hell for tanks, and heaven for the Javelin, NLAW, etc.
I feel like it’s a extremely poor decision to make a IFV that doesn’t really have a good means of defending itself this freaking huge. Especially since it’s armor is really only rated to protect against 30mm. This thing would be extremely hard to miss with most AT munitions considering it’s the size of a small building.
Honestly yeah thats the thing that primarily confuses me, they take to the effort of using an MBT hull to achieve highest possible armor and it weighs 50 fucken tons, yet it can only stop 30 mills, even if impressive by IFV standard that does not justify the 50 tons
This behemoth would last a few minutes on a modern high tech battlefield. In a Taiwan war scenario It would be instantly targeted and destroyed assuming that the ship carrying it to Taiwan wasn't sunk on its way to Taiwan.
Possibly. It depends on how many they make. We are already having problems supplying arms to destroy these in Ukraine. As the US has essentially dismantled our bulk warfighting arms production facilities and used our stockpiles over the last 50 years we are no longer the arsenal we once were. Edit: By destroying these I mean armored vehicles in general.
The rear guns are no doubt operated by the Infantry. One of the problems exiting an APC is you have no idea what's outside. I do agree it's an assault vehicle the guns give it rear protection in built up areas. It's a MOCK UP I would be guessing they will fit a method of ejecting those spare drums at some time. They have already developed a specialist High Altitude tank.
Get a 14-day free trial with our sponsor Aura and see where your personal information is being sold online: Aura.com/task
It's like a fuckin' modern nazzi tank The Maus WTF🤨!?
Its obviously taken influence from the Israeli Heavy "Namer" APC. Which is based on a Merkava Chasis. Its a heavy assault APC. And its clearly been given a huge cannon so it can double as a fire support vehicle.
Amazing work
sir... that is not an ifv, that is a tank with extra crew compartment :P
More propaganda. Have a Bud light.
Wait, that giant maus of an IFV carries only 6 soldiers? I was thinking it must at least carry 12 to 15.
That might make it useful.
All that meat and no potatoes.
The Bradley is taller by half a meter
I was thinking the exact same. A giant battle bus with a cannon would explain the weight, but only 6? Then it's the same as most other IFVs.
The booty's too thick bruv
Whoever designed that thing is DEFINITELY an Imperial Guard Warhammer 40k player.
They’re getting closer to making a Chimera with a bigger gun
@@ivanivanovitchivanovsky7123 Maybe...Multilasers incoming?
I was looking for this comment. China is 40k years "ahead" 😂
The drums at the rear - we just need sponsons to have ourselves a troop carrying Baneblade
There most likely not, they just saw that design and thought it’s good and effective, and given the average iq and experience Chinese army officials have. . . . Well
One thing to note is that with the weight of the vehicle, it'll be limited by which bridges can handle it's weigh.
Shhhhhh! Don't talk about her weight out loud! Xi's already got an eating disorder!
@@rush1er xi isn't overweight, he's just storing honey in his belly so he can hibernate in his bunker when his war fails too
I sure hope they dont plan to attack anyone across a body of water with it...the logistics just to haul 6 dudes around...oof
@@rush1er Can you confirm or deny Xi is 5 months pregnant?
Not to mention transport will be a pain in the ass
The problem with it is that it is not designed for self use, but for selling abroad (you can guess to who by looking at the camouflage). The buyers don't lack money. The Pla is equipping the 04a at the moment and is having a new type soon
who? do tell
@@daaaniel21 Desert dominant country, Pakistan and Nigeria
@@daaaniel21 Target customers are Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Iraq, etc.
The rear facing machine guns are for stopping tailgating and keeps the dismounted troops from getting back into the vehicle if not authorized to do so.
😂😂😂
Nice
"keeps the dismounted troops from getting back into the vehicle if not authorized to do so"
wouldn't just keeping the door closed be simpler?
They already have the suicide helmet for that
Commie 101, always casualties, no mater whoes.
@@kuhluhOGit’s not about that, it’s about sending a message to the rest of their soldiers.
Looks like the design team plays Imperial Guard (40k) and wanted to try making a Baneblade but wanted a starting experience.
😂😂😂
My thoughts exactly, when he showed the image of the rear with the man as comparison, I immediately thought it looked so much like a baneblade
FEEL THE MIGHT OF THE BAAAAAAAAANEBLADE!
My thoughts too. They forgot the side sponsons with the 100 mm and heavy bolter guns though. On the other hand, it does look pretty cool for the parade ground.
This is better that my first thought of the Landraider.
This looks like a fighting vehicle designed by committee. They had to keep making it bigger and bigger to accommodate everyone's ideas for what an infantry fighting vehicle should have.
It’s for export though. I think it’s meant for African countries with heavy bush vegetation. In the bush, really large vehicles are preferred in order to actually see over the grass.
VN = export. Target market is the Middle East, particularly the UAE as a BMP-3 replacement.
Probably saw the Namer AFV and decided to take a try at it, only to make a Namer Heavier, Carry less troops, and have less armor overall, but hey it has a cannon like a tank, the troop capacity if provably because of a carousel turret design, probably an autoloader like the Russians, so its a big PHAT juicy target for any grunt with a top attack ATGM
Made in China, during night shift.
Funnily enough height wise its smaller than the bradley and puma I think it was just a bad picture or the guy was short
This reminds me of an army story my dad told me that he got from a buddy that was there. Apparently, some years ago, there was an initiative to turn an Apache into an electronic warfare vehicle. The original design called for a modest system suite, and someone higher up in the command structure liked it and approved it. However, word got around of what the project's intent was, and that it had been approved already. Pretty soon all the senior R&D officers with any pull on the base were having their own pet systems added on to it. Everything from signal monitoring, to radar jamming equipment.
Then the big day came. A bunch of generals came down from Washington to see the initial test flight. So they powered up the Apache...and brought it full power...and it couldn't lift off the tarmac. They had put so many systems on it that they had exceeded it's maximum lift capacity. The end result was a scathing memo regarding changes to approved designs, and a lesson for everyone of what design by committee actually looks like.
Your dad was so right. There's many such stories in industrial design. A famous world leading Korean seeing machine maker, circa 1970s 80s, decided to make the most advanced sewing machine ever. Every homemaker would die to have one. They added so many features, functions, automation, The thing could practically cut you a suit or dress on it's own. Only problem, nobody could figure out how to use it. Zero sales. It was sometimes taught by professors in business s
Also reminds me of Bill Gates in 80s 90s Microsoft. As the new operating system or apps came together, he'd make them do a build every night. It had to work with thousands of 3rd party programs, insane, at a certain point he'd say say stop. Good enough. Not a quote. But we used to call it good enough software development. It was the same in WWII, we mass manufactured tanks, Germans made the best, by hand. Game over
Toyota in the 80s did the same. An engineering group designed the perfect exhaust system, costly but it would outlast the damned car! It was a marvel. A wise man killed the project. These nutty things arise throughout history.
Look into the history of the British R-101 airship program designed by a government committee with almost unlimited funding using innovative, but untested and redundant systems vs. the rival R-100 built by private industry with a limited budget and employing known and proven technology. The end results are self evident.
There probably was the one smart higher-up who was told "this thing will never lift of, its too heavy!" by the Engineers. And his Response was: "Good, lets show them their Stupidity".
At least in my Head-Canon that's how it went ^^.
The inherent risk of larger IFVs is that if they are disabled/destroyed in battle, that’s a whole lot of weapons and materials lost in one instance. Also, a totaled 50 ton IFV is far more difficult to retrieve than a smaller 15 ton IFV. For the VN-20 to prove effective, it needs to be amazing as it has been advertised. This is the sort of risk America isn’t desperate enough or dumb enough to take.
It is a Chinese Merkava with smaller main cannon but additional auto cannon. It obviously can handle every target except MBT.
@@joelau2383The problem is, even a drone can zero it.
@@skeletonofwisdom2922 It is a 50ton armor vehicle, it has more armor than most vehicles against whatever hit it.
Besides, they probably have drone station in the heavy vehicle to zero exposed enemy drone operators too.
@@joelau2383 Huh!! No. The bigger the vehicle the bigger the target. There is no apparent drone launching pod on this land whale and drone operators do their job sitting thousands of miles away.
There are a number of US made missiles and drop bombs that would be happy to launch its turret up in the air.
@@joelau2383 even if that were true, which definitely remains to be seen, armor isn't generally getting killed by armor in Ukraine. It is getting killed by precision artillery fires. This thing is a sitting duck when it comes to artillery.
Weight has always been an issue for crossing bridges. The larger size also makes it an easier target. No matter what armor you use. There is a munition that can penetrate it.
Correct
yes, but your enemy might not be fielding that munition that can penetrate it, better armor means better protection, aka more likely that whatever the enemy is using can't defeat the armor
@@alexmarlow2508 yes however before any armor becomes common use on the battle field. The United States has ways to defeat it. Such as in the case of hypersonic missiles. The Untitled States already has a laser system being deployed to shoot them down. As is often the case nations like Russia and China are really trying to play catch up.
It still weighs less than average mbt...
It depends. Do you think you can shoot missiles without limits at any time?
They forgot to add a flame thrower and fuel tanks for it next to the fuel tanks. It also lacks a mine plow in front and helicopter rotors to get over large obstacles. It looks like a weapon out of Starship Troopers.
They don't need helicopter rotors if they just spin the turret fast enough, like those Russian tanks.
They didn't forget. The fuel in the rear is meant to be ignited by the rear machine guns. The flames will spew all over the place.
Flamethrower is great against trenches. In WWII Crocodile was excellent against trenches, especially when they used "wet squirt" (just splashing the flammable liquid, but not setting it on fire), because when you hold a rifle and somebody dumps a bucket of gasoline on you, do you want to pull the trigger? I'm not a gun expert, but I noticed that when you fire a rifle (gun, machinegun, musket, whatever), it goes with a nice flash of fire. Do you want an open fire when you are covered in gasoline or similar flammable liquid? If your other option is tossing the gun away, raising hands and surrendering of course.
This made me bust out laughing. I'm still waiting for the day we actually implement some form of the crazy "metal storm" weapon system that could fire a (theoretical) 1 million rounds a minute. Those prototype vids were wild. Can you imagine a IFV with pods of those things using air burst or canister shot munitions....I think that would show the chines who can build the craziest bs, I mean, TOTALLY REAL AND FEASIBLE best IFV.
You know, they should really just make the turret work as a self contained system, so it can be pulled off and used as a gun by mechsuits and supersoldiers
One key point that is missing is that weapons beginning with "VN" and "VT" are foreign trade products, the PLA does not equip them, and these weapons are heavily customised according to the customer's requirements, so a lot of the features look interesting.
Hauling 50 ton vehicles across the Tiwan Strait en-mass sounds like an excellent idea.
It is heavier (!) then the T-90 MBT.
There maded from south in America which is very dry and hard land
China thinking way ahead
@@philliphall5198 Getting them across the Taiwan straight would be a logistical nightmare on its own, much less crossing the Pacific.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he's doing a mistake." - some famous guy
@@john236613 Why would they be going to Taiwan?
*Oh my gosh.*
This infantry fighting vehicle can transport a maximum of *NINE PEOPLE?!* (3 crew + 6 passengers)
I feel like a minivan would have similar carrying capacity, and perhaps greater maneuverability!
For an army whose main advantage is people.
Imagine if China put its resources to copying Toyota trucks, mounted with 50cal/manpads.
ROAST OF THE CENTURY
You're clearly a person who has no idea what a Bradley is.
Yeah, FUCK Norinco. Toyota Sienna all the way
You all listen to these people 😆😆He never seen it or used it smh imagine getting information from a person who has never seen it in person or used it. VERY RELIABLE
Think a former Command and Conquer player who loved giant tanks as a teen got to see their dream come true in the PLA.
how long until unveiling of Overlords?
Mammoth tanks when?
@@TheMetalfreak360 I think we’ll see a Kirov airship or equivalent first, as the problem with a Mammoth Tank is that it’s really big and heavy, making it difficult to transport and requiring fording water instead of using a bridge (which is one of the things that did in the Maus, along with various production difficulties).
Get out of my head.
As a C&C fan and their country neighbor, it's not my dream to be invaded by giant tank.
The main armament is a version of the weapon system fitted to the BMP-3. In that case the 100mm main gun is actually a gun/missile launcher which fires all sorts of conventional rounds AND the BM-117 ATGM. Why carry spare twin ATGM launchers also?
More anti tank capability and maybe they just want to lob 100mm HE using the 100mm cannon, and leave the anti armour for the dedicated ATGMs.
@@NationalI4578You couldn't really use both of them at the same time anyway.
Besides this is meant for breakthroughs. They have lighter IFVs, but they want this for when they need to break through dug in enemy frontlines.
The external fuel barrels instantly reminded me of the BMP-1 where the doors of the passenger compartment are fuel tanks.
- Comrade Lead Designer are you sure about it?
- Da, you just have to advance all the time. If you don't turn around the enemy can't shoot at it!
Tbf that was generally an auxiliary fuel tank used for travel so by the time combat started it would be empty. I'd hope this IFV does the same.
@@ruler898 yeah good point actually. Though still, you can get into combat earlier than expected and then you're screwed. In Chechnya, this happened to the Russians.
@@DeReAntiqua yeah I think you're right that this VN-20 will go the way of the Armata. Imagine how many of the freaking things you'd need to deploy just a company of soldiers, just the cost of that alone, not to mention the upkeep.
@@MrZebeda costs don't really matter when you have slaves for a workforce.
If you’re getting shot in the ass on a vehicle I think that leaking fuel is among the last things on your mind. Personally I’d be more concerned about the projectiles penetrating the rear of my vehicle.
1 of criticisms of original Bradley was it was so tall it would be an easy target, this thing dwarfs it.
Wait, they mounted MGs facing rear UNDER fuel tanks-I get it's diesel, but when those tanks get shot, spew fuel, the guns would ignite it, so soldiers could be exiting IFV into burning fuel. Who needs flamethrowers when enemy is already burning their own men. FLAME ON!
Fried Chinese is pretty good!
@Thomas Zhang That would require common sense, something most militaries lack. As a 15 year US Army veteran, I can attest to that, and China hasn't been in war since 1979, where lessons are learned, usually the hard way.
Those fuel tanks get taken off for the battle.
@@zach11241 😁😄😁😄
Consider how much fuel it would use. Those tanks would be needed especially if it had to idle to power electronics.
This is probably the PLA's attempt to create a real life Space Marine Land Raider
That was my first thought upon seeing the tiny “guardsman” next to the rear hatch. I have no respect for Chinese leadership but hot damn if them being WH40k fans might change that.
@@KungfufightU they don't actively fight wars since 1979 so all they could do is play UN peacekeeper and play wargames. I am sure 40K is in the menu...
Now i'm INTERESTED. Should be a primarch somewhere
I had the same thought and scrolled before making my own comment. If it can only carry 6 Chinese troopers, good luck in getting a terminator squad in there.
@@tali3san337Maybe those soldiers are wearing Terminator armor... they never specified what equipment they carry. 😮
I'm guessing the machine guns are supposed to be used by the infantry to clear opposition before dismounting. A bit like a port gun.
The two barrels of fuel look like they're long range fuel tanks supposed to be dumped before entering combat. There was a BMP design with a similar feature at one point: The exit hatch was a hollow fuel tank, but any remaining fuel was supposed to be dumped before getting near the enemy.
Lmao because fuel vapor isn't highly highly explosive 😂
@@Schimml0rd just a fireball it will create, wont do shit to that 50 ton metal beast tho
This is like the WW2 German tank idea that was described as a land ship. It failed... Never came to fruition due to MANY holes in its ability to actually navigate various land types successfully without lots of maintenance and risk.
Yep, the same exact problem the King Tiger faced.
The whole 🌎 only able to supply metal enough for half of P1000 Ratte.
The Bradley claimed the Title of Land Ship many years ago...
@@Bob-hb5tr I thought it was the LVTP-5
@@Bob-hb5trBradley only weighs around 27 tons.
This IFV is sure to strain Chinese logistics in actually fueling the thing.
It's going to drink as much as a regular tank, which they have thousands of...are you stupid?
Finally someone here finds the real problem and biggest problem with this vehicle. It's weights as much as a main battle tank and that means it GUZZLES fuel, fuel that China does not produce and must import and must preserve in a war to maintain supply lines. There is a reason why Japan, another country with no oil, was building small vehicles in WW2. In a war, China will quickly find out why this IFV is terrible when all the fuel depots it has to stick on the front line start getting blown up
Yes, considering as soon as they get froggy, the west stops letting them get oil. Odd design.
Wouldn't they just get oil from Russia? I mean they have plenty of it and are kinda allies.
@@maximonkey1 Russia has lots of oil and yet but has trouble supplying its vehicles on the front, there is a big difference between having it and getting to where it should go
I was armouring KBR trucks in Kuwait during the while the US was in Iraq. We were offered Chinese armour rated to stop AK47 rounds. The armour was so bad AK rounds blew right threw it. The 1/4 inch plate was made to metric 6mm where as US 1/4 inch armour is closer to 7mm. The armour was so soft we could drill trough it in seconds. My feeling is the Chinese have never mastered the manufacturing of armour plate which is why it NEEDS to be so heavy just to stand up to IFVs from the west.
Chinese steel is notoriously inconsistent. They are capable of high quality steel for their sales samples, then once the contract is signed, the dogshit starts flowing in
Government pays for armor plate, industry installs mild steel. Fortunes to be made.
to be fair, during the gulf war china was apparantly forced to reconsidder their quantity minded militairy
They have issues manufacturing quality in lots of areas. Their jet engines aren't exactly top notch
@@nHautamaki honestly that sounds like every $60 knife set at least one of those knifes will last forever but the rest are trash.
[Quote from 'The Pentagon Wars' HBO movie]
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: That's one hell of a cannon.
Jones: That's the problem.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: What is?
Jones: You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy's going to unload on you with everything they got. Might as well put a big red bullseye on the side.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: But it's a troop carrier, not a tank.
Jones: Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank, please don't shoot at me"?
thats a funny movie, but I hate to tell you, its also a complete farce. not only is it a slue of 'bad takes' on military doctrine, but the main character "protagonist" was, in real life, a career monkey who was out to sabatage the bradley project in favor of HIS project, and didnt understand the first thing about mil-tech R&D. Pentagon Wars is NOT a good reference for insight on military procurement or intelligent design.
Go check out the video LazerPig did on it for a close and in depth look at it. I cant communicate everything he covers in it in a youtube post.
dude was seriously thinking vietnam era M113 battle bus doctrine, completely unaware that the IFV wasn't just the future, it had already arrived with the soviet BMP series of vehicles.
it's the same bullshit with the "IT TOOK 50 SHERMANS TO TAKE DOWN ONE TIGER", someone said it in a book, and now everyone can't help but repeat it despite how many times it's been debunked
The rear-mounted mgs, exit ramp, and extra fuel tanks are a complete system. The muzzle flash of the heavy mgs ignites the fuel-soaked infantry, shocking the crap out of opposing forces and making them easier targets for supporting forces. It also motivates infantry to succeed. The 6 worst-performing infantry in each company get to ride in the first vehicle.
And they're completely deaf too
not that the amount who exits will ever matter.
Each of those holds 6 dudes?? 6
Reminds me of the T14!
Forget not that diesel does not ignite nearly as easily as gasoline does.
@@MrRoblcopterbut it does keep a lovely long burning flame
The full name of this vehicles is the VN20 is internally referred to as the "Fuqitaditon", and whenever an enhancement was suggested, the design team would say the say the vehicle's name, and work on integrating the enhancement.
Also the main two guns seems to be inspired by the BMP-3, so that is kind of retro.
The concept of the gun was liked by the Chinese from the BMP3 so it was used on the ZBD-97 which started production in 1999 and the concept is now used on the vn20
Severely underrated comment
BMP-3's 100mm gun is a genius design for that kind of vehicle. Allows you to carry fuck tonn of HE shells for fire support purposes, as well as ATGMs of all types.
The machine gun placement is.....unusual.
Indeed unusual possibly revolutionary
I can easily imagine a panicked gunner chopping up his own guys.
A safety override can be included so the MGs will not fire with the ramp open.
China mounted rear facing machineguns to shoot retreating PLA soldiers.
Would have been better imo to do what pmv,s like the bushmaster do and have hatches at the rear that soldiers can pop up and shoot from.
-"How many canons do you want on the new IFV ?"
-"Yes."
i want more companies to make weird things like this so i have cool stuff to use in warthunder in 10 years
You forget how important the Chinese market is to Gaijin. Probably see it in game in a year.
@@obsidianjane4413 Gaijin is a russian company.Russian will rather to suck USA ass,but they wont admit that China is better than Russian.
there are so many vehicles that can place on the CN tec tree, like VT4 VT4-2 VT5 ZTQ15 ZBD 04a
@@arnoldli890 next time use a comma (,) when typing more than one examples. it hurts my eyes reading chinese vehicle name, especially witout the use of a comma
Can't wait to see the leaked specs too
You can make any war machine as big as possible. But at the end of the day it can still be punched through, you just made yourself a big target.
It doesnt matter how big a military vehicle is, it would still be detected by its thermal signatures
As proven in the war in Ukraine. The anti-tank systems available just makes these kinds of vehicles obsolete, unless you are fighting a bunch of dudes equipped with just Aks, sandals, and a couple of RPGs.
The Chinese name for VN20 is '战斗要塞' or battle fortress. Its designed to draw fire and be as big of a target as possiable. Not sure if that is a good tactic, but it sure can get the job of been shot at done putty well.
which is why the Russian tanks are so small
The current war proves that size doesn't matter that much anymore. What matters more is that it has adequate protection.
I love the illustration of slat armour showing it totally failing to do anything to disrupt the incoming projectile.
Why don't they rotate those blades to minimise gaps?
@@vinylrebellion the basic idea is not to set off the projectile but to break it. Thus the slats need to be close enough to catch it it, but to present a minimal surface area, but also be strong enough. Hence the slats are a certain size and set a particular distance apart and set sideways.
The other thing to realise is that they only work against slow moving contact projectiles (e.g. RPG), which is why those top cover cope cages are utterly useless against missiles such as the top attack Javelin.
@peter b I am pretty sure that it doesn't work against Javalin because it is a tandem charge warhead. I am pretty sure that slat armour doesn't work against any tandem warhead, even for RPG.
@@will19125 You are correct, it wont work at all against Javelin, mainly because Javelin is not a relatively slow moving contact detonation projectile like an RPG7. And a tandem charge is there to defeat ERA. Slat armour is not ERA.
@@peterb2272
If we speak about perfect conditions where tanks is standing still, with a good andgle around 90° and you do not miss with javelin because of low acc.
I think the standards/precision is more significant from a maintenance/interchangeability standpoint. We've seen going all the way back to WW2 that an impressive vehicle on paper isn't much use if it can't be maintained in the field with easily sourced replacement parts. The VN-20 seems like it could have similar issues.
The whole vehicle design philosophy reminds me of Soviet era frigates with the firepower of a battleship. One huge problem with this concept, lots of ammo in a small space = enemy can aim just about anywhere and hit an ammunition magazine, then "BOOM".
It worked both ways, any shot against it and it becomes the next space program, but if you get hit by it you, your ship, and your existence is getting vaporized
So you're now saying big US vehicles have a huge problem getting blown up.
@@tritium1998 54 comments on this channel alone by you, yet nobody gives af. 👍😅
BMP-3's should basically be classified as VBIEDs at this point. There are some very striking images of BMP-3's lost in Ukraine that genuinely look worse than the Sheridan wrecks from Vietnam.
It’s actually only designed to drop off 6 biologically tainted soldiers.
The rear machine guns is reminiscent of multi turreted tank designs of the interwar period of the 1920s-1930s (The T28 and T35 etc) . It may be utilized to fire in trenches as the vehicle crosses over/drives over the trench in a side firing configuration- to suppress enemy infantry in the trench. I would assume the rear mg only fire when troops are inside the vehicle.
Rear machine guns good for firing when running away
Yeah I think there would be disable switch while door is open, so weakness is likely unfounded
It's made in China. I'm sure it doesn't rely on safety features
@@vinylrebellion ok but what's the point of the guns....
That’s a great point; crossing trenches it could fire right down the line. Because trenches would have anti-armor weapons of some sort.
Like something similar to RKG-3. Those things are perfect for trench urban warfare.
Had to deal with those in Iraq and they always came out of alley to throw when we passed in deep urban areas. Harder to move around.
50 tons is a logistical nightmare
lmao an abrams is 60 tons
@@aleemesmail8096 Abrams is a mbt it would clear like 12 ifvs if used correctly
but made in china is mostly always done with shortcuts and cheaper materials and that goes also for their military as we seen (nukes filled with water???? wtf) @@aleemesmail8096
@@aleemesmail8096you are comparing an IFV with an MBT.
@@isaacpahl690 alr idk sht
It’s kind of like you combined the Namer with the BMP-3, then added ATGMs for good measure. It has the exact same main armament (100mm with coaxial 30mm) as the BMP-3, with the same basic hull layout as the Namer.
Theoretically seems to have a pretty solid use as an armored fire support vehicle that can also be integrated into front line armored combat without the same vulnerability as the Stryker MGS. Since it's based on a tank hull with similar protection, a 100mm gun that will likely be for anti-infantry and anti-emplacement operations with HEAT or HE, a 30mm auto cannon, an ATGM Launcher, and can carry 6 infantry, it should be pretty versatile and great in urban combat. This won't be the main Chinese IFV, but should still be able to be built in large enough numbers to allow the Chinese Army to integrate it on a doctrinal level.
I wanted to say this and you have done it, good. Since IFV would get mostly into urban warfare, namer concept is most ideal but give it unmanned turret and thick top armor + mini CIWS to overcome top down attack missiles. Large IFV would give better protection too looking at Bradley & LAVTP-7 vulnerability in Iraqi Freedom
The Namer has Spike ATGMs
Same layout who the t15 armata ifv and the same era
@@accept00The HJ-12 is roughly analogous with the Javelin, so it should be comparable to the Spike.
It doesn't seem like the optimal design for an IFV: Only carries 6 soldiers, but needs a crew of three. Weighs almost as much as an MBT, but can't take the hits that an MBT can. It's going to burn through a lot of fuel as well. So, bigger hit on logistics.
cant take hits that a mbt can? actually it can prob take more. its frontal armor is likely simillar if not greater than the vt4 giving it MBT levels of protection. it also has era on the side which alot of MBTs dont even have.
remember this weighs 50 tons, which is 2 tons less than the vt4 (The main battle tank this IFV is built on) but it lacks a tank turret and 125mm cannon and autoloader+ammo. so where is all that weight going? obviously extremely thick composite armor for its hull
Even modern ATGM can absolutely trash MBT, this thing is basically IFV, that's bigger, heavier and more armoured than typical IFV. BUT the armour level didn't reached MBT, so basically just a big target
These things are as big as MBTs. If they have less pew pew, less armour... then what do they have inside? A sauna?
@@Phantom-bh5ru Good lord can you quit with the RU-CHINA propaganda? All your comments are out here claiming Russian and China has the best shit. It doesn't matter if this thing has ERA on the side when we've seen during the fighting in Ukraine that there's tons of ways to just hit vics from above.
@@Phantom-bh5ru The extra Weight went into the 100 MM cannon, the 30 MM Coaxil, The ammo and auto loader for both of those, the AT missiles, the machine guns, and probably a bunch into those barrels in the back. As well as the Seats and hydraulic for the hatch in the back for the infantry. In short, It has maybe the same protection as a tank, though in that case enjoy the giant fuel hungry monster that's gonna fuck up your logistics even more.
Size wise, it looks like something out of 40k
I was thinking the same.... Paint it blue, add some transfer sheets and it's a damn marine Repulsor, weirdly placed machine guns included...
FOR THE EMPEROR!
Likewise 😂
The emperor protects...sounds like the Chinese army is just as expendable as the imperial guard.
Mom can we get Baneblade?
No we have Baneblade at home.
Baneblade at home: Ni Hao comrade
The Bradley is taller!
You’d think a massive target would be bad to use for island hopping, but what do I know?
Especially since transport boats are China's biggest weakness.
as demonstrated in Ukraine armor vehicles are vulnerable regardless of their size
As long as it fits on an LCAC....
it is an island
exactly, that's why Japan had few and smaller tanks in WW2.
I was with the first Stryker brigade to get the slat armor, actually the first Stryker brigade for the Army. I had no idea we had issues with the mobility other than extending the vehicle's size. I don't remember hearing anything negative about it, other than it was a pain to put on in Kuwait. Given we never trained on the vehicle after the armor was added, and just adapted to it in combat, I think we did well.
3-2ID circa 2003? Good times.
@@redredleg4051 Yeah brother. 1-23 Tomahawk battalion.
I was in a Marine LAV company and the word we got about the striker is they kept rolling into canals due to the excessive weight collapsing the banks. We took over canal patrol duty from there and strykers ended up on patrol duty in the desert.
@@DirectedVerdict We had 2 in my regiment that did that. Maybe at some other time as well, I never heard. The way it happened, it would've happened without the slat armor, and would've happened to a LAV too. We lost 3 that night.
"We took over canal patrol duty from there and strykers ended up on patrol duty in the desert."
That's not what we were doing to my knowledge. We hit Samarra doing direct action missions, in city patrols, and traffic stops. The company I was with slept outside the city on the ground for that. Then we moved to Mosul to do the same, with some going to Balad and Tal-Afar. We didn't "patrol the desert", at least not my unit. This was 2004.
Slat could be a pain in the ass when bent against the turn wheels. We had to winch the cage off the tires a couple of times.
Stupid winch.
My battalion had a couple run-ins with RKG-3s, to the best of my knowledge none of our Strykers took a RPG hit. I guess the slats were at least a deterrent?
Luckily we carried 'MRE/water armor' on the top deck! Shaped charges lose steam RAPIDLY when the slug hits water.
Doc got a concussion but it could have been worse.
2 SCBT 25th ID, N/NW of BIAP & Abu Ghraib AO 2007-09
Thank you to prior Stryker units for all the lessons-learned and advice!!
Thanks Cappy for always being curious and learning this stuff so that the average viewer can learn from the average infantryman.
There is no such thing as an average infantryman!
7:19 he does not understand, that the machineguns are there to prevent either a brave or very st**** people, from sneaking in back of the tank.
Still does not matter if the bloody thing is deployed wrong, it is just a tombstone.
@@detleffegers3780 To be fair there is no such thing as an average human
I subscribed purely for the fact that you segmented your ad read in the playbar
I only watch because he's sort of hot.
Reminds me of the landships that were built pre-WWII. There is a reason they stopped making them. They were too big and the multitude of weapons systems made them unable to focus on the one thing it was supposed to do really well...
I was thinking something similar. It’s trying to fit into one too many roles
The Infantry can now have missiles that can turn them into scrape .
Exactly my first thought. "Did they just get the ww2 update?" It's just a sitting target for hand-held anti tank weapons.
they say people learn from the last war. but you go way back.
@@user-rmb7749 no further than their inspiration...
Size and weight by themselves aren't always the problem, but what an IFV needs to excel at are mobility, reliably and operational distance. An IFV should never have to expect to face armor in a direct fight. ATGMs can even the playing field a little, but like the name suggests, an IFV only wants to go up against infantry and other light armor.
The VN-20 will likely operate as if it was a lighter tank, and get absolutely obliterated by anti-tank weapons.
Not only that, but the design has to fit the use case. Currently the main conflict that China has on the horizon is against Taiwan, which is, ya know, an island. Imagine trying to lug a platoon of these monstrosities over the Taiwan strait. That's north of 250 tons, for IFVs for a whopping 30 soldiers, not counting crew.
@@cplpuddingpopand besides, sea and air warfare will be far more crucial when fighting against an island
@@cplpuddingpopstop your nonsense dream. The weapons named VNxx is only for export, never in PLA. This op know nothing and talk 20 min nothing
This seems to be a lesson that can't be learned easiy. The US scolded South Vietam for using the M113 like a tank, and a few years later were scolding themselves for doing the same thing.
They are probably just trying to export them to people who bought the VF-4
Japan in WW2: built smaller tanks, had few of them, because of mountainous and island terrain made armored warfare difficult to impractical at times.
China 2023: builds massive IFVs ignoring their terrain issues.
Japan's small tanks, in terms of size and number, was due mostly to competition for steel. The Navy won that competition.
Besides, China is not Japan.
that's a false equivalence, most of Taiwan's main cities are facing China. If an invasion is to occur in Taiwan, there's going to be brutal city fights from day 1. Such a heavy IFV would almost be essential to push through defensive lines.
@@SpaghetteManyeah you don’t get stuck in mud in cities. Mobility is not as important.
@@kurtwicklund8901 China needs these IFVs to fight Tibet when it declares independence
@@miked999 they going to make the pedo lama president
Seems like a similar design philosophy to the Bradley. It's got decent armour from the start but that 50 tonne weight limit is going to be horrible for going over bridges.
We won't know how good it is until and unless it is trialled in battle.
That was a PRECISE explanation of the IFV big enough to carry all six infantry men in total comfort.
A very large IFV of such specifications sounds like a good idea on paper, as the larger size and heavier tonnage would enable the vehicle to carry heavier engines, more firepower and larger capacity for more infantry...but then reality sets in. Larger profile means larger target for everything from man-portable anti-tank to kamikaze drones to artillery. Then the tonnage of the vehicle itself can also be a downside, because if such an IFV is lost or damaged, it becomes more difficult to retrieve and repair because of it's heavier weight. Sturdier and more buoyant pontoon bridges would also be needed to support heavier vehicles in a river crossing operation where such vehicles are not amphibious. Larger IFVs are additionally more expensive to mass-produce than smaller IFVs, in much the same way that MBTs are more expensive than IFVs. The additional space for more or larger caliber ammunition is also offset by the increased risk of ammunition detonation in the event of a successful penetration, but then again, a roomier crew compartment can offset this danger to some degree as well, and wet ammunition stowage has been a thing for a good while now. In theory, an IFV of such size would be able to advance and fight right alongside main battle tanks while carrying mechanized infantry. But in practice, against the popularity of cheap and readily available anti-tank weapons, modern artillery systems, and the relatively recent innovation of kamikaze drones, it would probably end up just becoming another target.
I just want to say that all IFV’s are getting bigger than heavier, for example the puma is a chonker and so is the boxer.
Pretty crazy it only holds 6 infantrymen
@@SpaceAtomz Yeah
At 50 tons that baby must drink fuel like no one buisness and considering china division size its gonna be a fuel intensive army. Which remind me of another fuel intensive army who's a failure.
By looking at modern war between relatively new tech, with Russia and Ukraine, basically NATO vs Soviets, we saw how well or bad certain types of weapons do in reality. We all that it's way easier to destroy a tank then to defend it, that it's almost impossible to use it in urban areas and in the open you'll blow it up either from RPG, drones, Aircrafts, Mines and artillery. So MAYBE the Chinese wunderwaffen can do well in an Urban situation, as the heavy armor would have no problem at tanking RPG while all the firepower can and would suppress enemy troops. In this age, you either build an extremely tanky and expensive tank, or you go cheap. A T-55AGM costs roughly 500k, while a leopard 2 costs 6 millions. Why should you buy a Leopard 2 that can still get oneshotted by a T-55AGM, when you can buy 12 T-55AGM?
The assumption with the rear mounted machine guns is that they can even be fired when the rear hatch is open. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to write a few lines of code to disable them when the hatch opens. Also, if you need to shoot those guns(because the enemy is out there), why would you open the hatch and give the six commandos the opportunity to become hamburger from enemy fire?
Yeah but if the enemy is in your 6, everything is wrong already. Where is your support infantry, where are the other armoured units to support you, and why isn't the turret trained on the enemy yet?
Rear mounted machine guns is an idea that was made obsolete in early WW2
@@riograndedosulball248 They're planning for the Zombie Virus they unleash next......
@riograndedosulball248 it's like Japan making cruiser/carriers in ww2. If you are having to design for something like that, you have already lost the situation.
If you think about it the design makes perfect sense. See the biggest enemy of CCP isn't US, Taiwan nor India, it's the Chinese people. Human rights activists, democratic protestors, Qi gong practitioners, martial arts instructors, real estate investment scam victims etc. It serves the ccp to have their IFV look huge and intimidating with a lot of guns to scare its civilians,.
If the enemy is behind you to the point that you need a machine gun the crew will soon be hamburger from missiles lol
Don't forget, China has A LOT of CARGO SHIPS, Mobility is really NOT AN ISSUE!
I'm pretty sure they took the 40k Space marine repulsor design (rear mounted machine gun shooting at dismounted troop included) and gave it tracks.
Imperium of Man vehicle design is sexy
@@indiasuperclean6969 50 rein minh bee credited to a lovely ccp worker.
As i keep mentioning, a drone capable of carrying a 4 lb shape charge and detonating on it engine block a
Shape charge pointed down can turn vehicles into very expensive lawn ornaments. Doing this while the troops are formed up behind said to be lawn ornament in a MINEFIELD and you not only halt an enemy push, you create a kill box for tank crew, infantry, and a nations economy.
Tank warfare is dying for many reasons
The other issue is top down missile fire. The javellin has proven time and time again that no matter how much ERA and armor you slap on something your roof is still the most vulnerable thing on any vehicle, and this thing just screams BIG target for any javellins or AT systems. (I also saw on the vn20 it doesnt appear to have any ability to counter top down missile fire save suppressing the operator prior to launch. which is suprising because of how much we've seen from ukraine on the effectiveness on both top down missiles and drone based Armor fighting tech.
@joemancool im also looking at, cost, needed training, availability, and speed of manufacture. I missile takes at least hundreds of thousands to produce. For that a lot of suicide drones like mine could be made.
@@buddybraxnot necessarily, you need to realize WHY tanks came about in the first place. you may see more drones being utilized to the point that tanks become obsolete because of drones being able to cheaply and reliably destroy tanks and armored vehicles safely and ,most importantly economical. you will see that you don’t need to spend billions of dollars on a single tank when a $100 drone from wal-mart and some shaped charges can destroy it in seconds. mark my words. you will see a greater emphasis on remote controlled vehicles that will be smaller and more efficient due to lack of needing a crew to man it. same thing goes for cyber warfare. you will reach a point of stalemate until innovation comes back to counter it
@@buddybrax tank warfare will never die. There’s no substitution and many people who study war history have said this countless times. Will they most likely become lighter, faster and better overhead protection? Sure but tank warfare IS NEVER going to end. Holy. So many people commenting the same useless shit.
3:06 for clarification, do the 6 infantry have to be Chinese? If so, are they included for free in the export version?
Depending on the particular "export" location I'm sure that's the intention 😂
That thing was built for a zombie apocalypse , yes, that explains the 2 machine guns in the back.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
dont point out the flaws, encourage them.
for instance, diesel fuel tanks placement, very cool. Give the IFV great retro lines. Like a T62.
The rear machineguns, have that IS7 ""deadly fortress of death" vibe.
For me this looks like a vehicle designed by manufacturers to be advertised as the ideal vehicle to attack hardened trench positions, where it could hit the positions with heavy weapons while approaching to clear a path, cross the trench, then use the rear MGs to fire to the left and right to suppress the trench while infantry dismounts and makes a beeline for the spot the vehicle crossed over
Looks big and easy to shoot
Infantry should not be dismounting while those rear facing guns are firing...
@@seaofenergy2765 and that is why no one will remember your name
@@jacobnormann6678 🤣 coherent response there Jacob Normann. Have you taken your medication? Btw its Ironic that someone with such a forgettable name would say that.
@@jaketwigg1065 And is armored enough to need anti tank weapons to stop. Also becomes a bunker/turret when the tracks break but the hull itself isn't breached.
On the topic of precision manufacturing, I once sent out a drawing with dimensions out to four decimal places. Instead of saying "no", like a sane person, they came back and asked "are you sure?". 0.0001 inches is getting down to the size of larger microbes.
Precision manufacturing in inches? 😬
@@specialnewb9821 ya, in the us inches is pretty standard in machine shops. As a die maker, inches is a more accurate scale if you're using normal micrometers. Metric mics measure to .01mm and standard mics measure to .0001 inch. .01 mm is .0004 inches, so I can accurately measure quite a bit smaller with my standard mics.
Does it matter? Not unless you're in a climate controled room. You'll see more than .0003 of an inch change in size between summer and winter out doors with metal parts.
10ths matter for fine fits, particularly in unyielding materials.
Also a cultural thing. The concept of “face” means they try to assume that the person meant what they want, and if they wanted something unreasonable like micron-level precision, they’d try in a slightly roundabout way to ask for you to reconsider what you’re asking. They’re trying to respect your wishes while telling you that you’re asking for something impossible. That, and language barriers too.
@@the-fantabulous-g no, this was a us shop with an edm machine. I think they could have done it, but at higher cost and longer lead time than I would have wanted, but the fact that's even possible is wild. The dimensions were only supposed to go out to three places.
those fuel tanks look like something i'd see in a video game and go "lmao those silly gameplay balancing mechanics, that would never happen irl"
Instead of the two remote guns, I would add a pillar to the tank with a remote controlled machine-gun blister at the top. The idea being, that would allow the guntower blister to rotate around, up, and down, to get at any infantry or drones within reach. The downsides would be visibility, and whether such a design can actually work.
Add sails to the mast too. Added speed. And it can be a bigger target.
That's actually a great solution! Reminds me of the M3 Lee. Another possible downside to this would be raising vehicle height, thus providing a larger target, but I think the Chinese would actually consider this a bonus: more visibility!!!
Germany's Marder IFV did tried that before but removed it in later variants.
Instead of 2 machine guns it should be 2 40 mm grenade launchers. Shit make the smoke launchers shoot 40 mm grenades too
@@bobthebuilder1360 That's some Warhammer 400k sht
Regarding China’s lack of high precision manufacturing, I’m old enough to remember we all dismissed Japan in a similar fashion. Now they’re among the top 3 countries in terms of capability in this area.
I mean, if you are older than 20, you'd remember what people were saying about China back in 2008 right? Could any of them have predicted what they are now?
What's dangerous is, people don't like to be proven wrong, so instead of admitting that their prediction was off, they try extra hard to literally dismiss or bend reality to suit their narrative.
Litterly all of intels cpus are made in china
Oh don't worry Yankee, our dear president X is destroying China just like what Trump do to US. Considering Trump has fucked off and Mr X gonna rule China till death, U Americans still have chance to be great again by our suicide!
Name one Chinese vehicle civilian or military that's any good . The Japanese always cared about quality. The Chinese, on the other hand, have produced nothing but garbage.
thats why they want to stop them before they get ahold of the technical abilities to be able to do that like they did to japan but worse
Regarding the rear machinegun placements, I was wondering if they could switch the fuel tank and the machinegun placements. So that when fuel tanks are punctured by enemy fire or environment hazards, it will not bathe the infantry in fuel and potentially set them on fire easily given the circumstance. But then again, that will limit the machinegun cone coverage and infantry will now bathe in freshly extracted shells from the guns. XD
Indeed, I seem to recall that early versions of the German Marder had a 7.62 remote-controlled weapons station on the rear deck. Not sure why they removed it; it must have given a pretty good arc of fire....
Eggs dee
The name code suggests that these are for international sale. China's hilly & Taiwan's mountainous/amphibious environment both don't support heavy vehicles. The tanks that Chinese use are lighter than its competitors. The manufacturer particularly bragged about its protection gainst mines & roadside bombs so it is probably made for Middle Eastern old customers.
Reminds me of a Merkava MBT infantry carrier. The Merkava operates with essentially 0 logistical tail as it only drive around Israel (for now). Another angle could be reports of the BMP Terminator's combat effectiveness in Ukraine. Depending on which side's reports you subscribe to, it would heavily influence your perception of such a concept.
The comparison to the Namer IFV is apt - over engineered and under speced (though from this review the Namer specs will eat a VN20 for breakfast), it is so not cost effective that it isn't deployed in any capability except for vanity purposes - the Namer IFV never got a non prototype build, and Namer APC deployments are so behind the original hopes of 100 units in service, that AVD managed to develop a whole new (and much more cost effective) wheeled IFV from scratch in the time it took to deploy the few Namers that are currently in service.
Russia lies at every single step they take. How can you even belive any of the russian claims at this point?
Merkava's armor is good, tho main problem of this vehicle is lack of firepower, but they are fixing it now, cuz M2 50 cal. on CROWS is simply not enough.
BMPT terminator fucking shreds forests and trenches for monts now and only one was destroyed (crew abandoned it and ukrainians used heavy artillery to fully destroy it by hitting it's roof). Lots of videos and photos of this vehicle taking hits and making it back during high intensity combat situations, so yeah, heavy IFV with lots of firepower is a good thing to have, especially in infantry centric warfare we see these days. BTRT program soviets had back in the days - closest thing to prefect heavy IFV/APC in my opinion.
@@lovepeace9727 shredding forests is not a good use of military hardware, I believe... Generally, I think fielding heavy weaponry should be done on a dedicated platform - MBTs and similar. A well armored APC paired with a light tank will give you about the same amount of fire power in a much more effective package (in both hardware cost, personnel costs and deployment flexibility). If you can afford an MBT - so much better.
For example, the German Puma IFV cost is about EUR 17M / unit. A Merkava 4 + Namer combo will set you back ~EUR 6 M , for which you get more infantry, more fire power and better trained operators (you don't have to train infantry troops to do all they do and on top of that operate a highly technical fighting vehicle).
Please forgive my ignorance, but the BMP Terminator is the BMP modified for urban combat?
Kinds feels like a Merkava IIB but more IFV less tank
except Israel fights in a desert, and China will be fighting on islands and very wet/mountainous terrain.
the Namer is what you're looking for, it's basically the Merkava but IFV
@@rrenkrieg7988 no not the namer, there was a variant of the Merkava II that could carry infantry but had a 105mm gun
@@jimmothy3012 i mean most Merkavas have space for 3-4 infantry inside if they carry a reduced ammunition load even the Merkava IV with the 120mm gun can fit 4 dudes in the back
that's the whole schtick of the Merkava MBT
@@jimmothy3012 Namer does not have a 105mm. Its early Merkava hulls with the turret removed and only some MGs.
I love the fact that it's using a BMP-3 set up for it's main armament.
It already used by the ZBD-04A IFV (100mm/30mm/coax mg). The original ZBD-04 was known as the Type 97 IFV so this weapons fit has been used by the PLA for well over 20 years.
Whoever designed that thing is DEFINATELY in love with me and pink and belongs to an orthograde species of 40 million years pedigree that cannot be defeated
With its armor, size and weapons it kind of has the feeling of a fire support Merkava meant to take on enemy infantry instead of tanks.
you got it - it's clearly not designed for transporting infantry!
@@siberiantiger3917 no sht, IFVs don't primarily transport infantry, that's what APCs do. IFVs support or transport infantry that are meant to travel with tanks, like in the Persian Gulf War.
@@DeReAntiqua yeah, the T-15 is based on the T-14, another tank IFV hybrid
@@DeReAntiqua dont like that, Please use your brain before talking.
Try to put other ifv to figh this guy, this guy is for mainland defense than other ifv that lighter and can be used anywhere. this guy is made to obliterating other ifv and infantry and what do you expect? Dont be arrogant please
The first versions of the Marder IFV had an R/C machine gun station moutend at the top rear. It was dismantled because it was ineffective and to mount more armour on the top.
considering it's built on the main battle tank, and the big turret is replaced for a smaller one, i dont think the added side armor would slow it down to much
All of the 3D printers are made in China, precision is not a problem for them
My problem with this type of vehicle is it’s gonna be expensive to run do to the weight and fuel hungry to boot. I mean maybe it could work if it was to be assaulting with tanks to keep up with them? This seems like overkill on a vehicle meaning it’s simply not gonna be worth the added cost compared to say a Bradley or a BMP.
Uh no, it's lighter than a tank and it drinks as much as a tank.
They have thousands of tanks.....
This is likely going to cost as much as a Type-99, it has way less tech in it and the exact same armor.
@@Seth9809 You can have 1000s of anything, if it drinks as much as a tank, typically the most fuel hungry vics in an army, congrats, you need a lot more fuel to run your army. That mean more fuel trucks and storage, easier to target by enemy forces, and meaning your army may be brought to a standstill more easily. Ask the Russians what happens when you run out of fuel mid invasion.
The US is not selling Bradleys to third world countries in Africa and South Asia. Buying countries would likely end up using them as light tanks that carries their own supporting infantry. And 9 times out of 10, to keep the gov in power, rather than to fight neighbours.
Wonderfully awful for amphibious warfare. How many could carried on a landing ship.
@@arthurmosel808 Shy would they be in a landing ship?
Those are going to look awesome for scuba divers 10 years from now.
China's going to collapse 🥸
I always thought it was kinda silly fro Taiwan to order top of the line Abrams Tanks (it seemed weird for a tropical island) but now it is a very reasonable purchase.
I mean, given that they're gonna be used in defensive roles, fuel consumption is less of an issue, and its massive defensive capabilities would help against Chinese guns.
It is silly. Javelins or tows or other antitank systems would serve them much better and be much more cost effective.
@@andreistoica5519 I mean Javelin has a significantly shorter range than the Abrams' main gun; the reason they've proven so useful in Ukraine is both Russia's poor IR sights (as in much of it is legit civilian-grade) and Ukraine's densely wooded terrain that allows footsoldiers to approach tanks even with drones in the air - coupled with the fact Ukraine's larger land area allows defence in depth/ambush tactics that Taiwan cannot rely on - distance between contested city of Luhansk and Kyiv is over 400 miles, Taiwan at its widest is 140 miles. As such Taiwan needs gear that can stop an enemy assault rather than pick it apart as it passes through, a task which the Abrams was built to do. Also, TOW operationally has similar issues to dug-in tanks regarding their need to be stationary while in use, which leaves them vulnerable to anyone with a gun let alone mortars, artillery, airstrikes etc - all while having none of the armour or active protection systems that are mounted on Abrams to improve survivability. Russia might not give its tanks proper infantry support, but we cannot expect China to make the same mistake.
Finally, the biggest strength of tanks isn't in fighting other tanks (a task usually left to helicopters which are far better at it) but in fighting general infantry as its 120mm main gun and multiple .50cal machine guns can cut down massed infantry with impunity as long as they either have none or not enough AT weapons to deal with it. The cost of equipping infantry with the capability to deal with tanks massively increases the overall cost of fielding infantry, reducing the advatange that China's larger population gives it compared to Taiwan. Remember, China has roughly 60 times the population of Taiwan, so preventing overwhelm tactics, maximising the fighting capabilities and preserving the lives of every single soldier is vital if Taiwan is to defend itself. Taiwan cannot afford to pay in red what they could've paid in green.
@@andreistoica5519 To be fully effective you need to have both. You cannot counterattack an enemy that has armor if you lack any tanks.
@@ianmason96 Abrams burns the same amount of fuel idle as they do running, fuel is still a problem.
My dad was an engineer on a lot of military hardware. Funny thing is everything goes out to the cheapest bidder for most parts and come back not the spec and we end up spending more doubling or tripling the budget and time. Everytime. Precision manufacturing is expensive
It reminds me of the Yamato with its ridiculous size and massive amounts of guns on it.
And we all know what happened there lol.
Id rather take my chances on Toyota Camry reinforced with a positive attitude and a mango arbre magique. 😂
That giant block of metal looks like a death trap. The Ukrainian conflict pretty much showed us how speed and manoeuvrability are the only way to save your ass from portable anti tank weapons.
It's an aluminum mockup, it's not that big irl
@@Bhethar Give me Toyota Hilux any day..Those things would survive a nuke.
It's smaller than the german KF-41 ifv. How is this big ?
6 dismounts isn't very much. Particularly when you account for casualties (I seem to recall a post-WW2 infantry conference concluding that squads should be designed on the assumption that they will always be under-strength by at least 25%). In order to get a respectable squad size they will need to either have two IFVs to carry each squad, resulting in either very few squads per platoon, or a lot of IFVs per platoon, or do a complicated cross loading procedure like American Bradley platoons.
Really, the biggest problem with this is that it's a light tank designed to be an IFV.
@@dustycarrier4413 As mentioned for its marketing, the VN20 is considered a heavy duty vehicle all rolled as one platform. That statement alone just proves that the idea of making an IFV-MBT hybrid is the worst of both worlds.
@@imgvillasrc1608 How is it an MBT hybrid, nothing about its role shows it to perform similar to an MBT.
@VoidTempering The hull armor is the same as the VT-4 (well, it is based on it), and the main gun is 100mm, more or less the same as what most Cold War MBTs were armed with.
@@imgvillasrc1608 It doesn't fulfill the role of an MBT though, the UAE might use it like that though. However, the role of an MBT is determined by doctrine, not its capabilities. Besides, it uses a low-pressure 100mm gun which is just an evolution of the 73mm gun that the original BMP-1 used. It uses almost the same turret as the BMP-3. That is not the gun of an MBT.
To be fair, the machine guns on the back are probably optional and very likely only mounted when the IFV is sent into urban areas. Also they could be likely operated by the crew so when they dismount nobody will be operating them right ?
the crew doesn’t dismount the IFV, there’s the 3 crew and then the infantry complement, the ifv crew stay in the vehicle as tank drivers are good at tank driving, not infantry combat generally
@@sage5296He didn't say the crew dismounts. He said the infantry being taxied could operate the mgs before dismounting.
"not enuf dakka!" - chinese engineer probably
I feel like someone saw 40k Imperial Guard Vehicles and was like "This is exactly what we need!"
Now that you mention it....
The rear MGs kinda make sense. Firstly, they will be designed to not be able to fire if the door is open. Secondly if the 'main job' of the IFV is to dismount the infantry close to target, then punch though the target, it would be a good idea to have rear facing firepower to pin any 'left over' enemy, whilst keeping main weapons and armour forward facing. This would allow the dismounted infantry to advance to engage the left overs. A tactic that kinda makes sense in theory but would require a lot a training and dare I say luck to function well in real engagements
By punching through an area full of hostiles you're just leaving yourselves more vurnerable to enemy fire. Even if you say that the rear guns are usefull, however by that time an anti-tank squad would've dealt with that 50 ton ifv.
@@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184 yes I agree. The tactic only kinda makes sense, with the luck thrown in!
@@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184 anti Tank Squads are as old as Tanks them selfs and at the very least since WWII they are always equipped with AT S*** that can take out every armoured Vehicle(speaking of hypothetical Peer/near Peer Conflicts).
Still, armoured Vehicles remained to this Day
What about the fuel cans? Im starting to think the spread of fuel behind it might be on purpose
Like the Russian vehicles those rear fuel tanks would be only used for road moves to increase range. They would be removed before combat. But then again I have been wrong before.
People are raging on this thing for being the basic idea of a tank turned IFV but this seems like it is built to be first off the ramp on beach landings. Hence the rear guns. Purpose: penetrate shore defences with heavy armor and large caliber firepower, breach fortifications. Stop. Disperse and assault defences from rear with machine guns. Once you have acheived that, dismount troops and clear the fortifications.
The fact they use a tank lower structure, means they are planning to pump out the numbers fast.
I would suggest taking this thing very seriously.
Not looking for affirmation. I know I am 100% correct.
To be honest, I wouldn't call it an IFV. This is a new concept.
I'm just realising; For an urban combat environment ,those rear machine guns are the correct height to have a clear line of fire through ground-floor doorways and windows.
If they were mounted higher they would have to aim down, limiting their indoor range.
Urban areas have always been problematic for tanks. Remember the last time they used tanks at a protest? They’ve learned some things since then. They can gun down college students 5x easier now!
@@buddybrax humor switch activated
OK but why are they in the rear next to the door your own men have to exit from. If the RPG team is in a window to the side of you they're useless.
Mate…Soviet vehicles had weapons that could also fire at same height, only in Chechnya was it shown you simply had to fight from higher grounds, especially in urban areas.
@@graemereid5688 Covering fire when exiting.
Making an IFV from a tank chassis is possible, but it usually doesn't work out too well. A tank is a very specific vehicle with a very specific task. That doesn't usually translate well when you try to make it modular.
wdym. Israel has a very good APC built from Merkava. This IFV has nothing to do with Taiwan, but engage city targets in either of Chinas bordering countries, OR domestic (just incase) since China is a heavily urbanized China.
google israels namer ifv before dismissing turning tanks to ifvs as a bad idea
@@sph1988 The same mistake Russia has been making since 2014 when the T-14 and its offshoots were supposed to start production.
@@jodargoofmaztica5071 ...Marder & TAM ?
@@eduwino151 It is really really unique and is an extreme outlier in that field. To begin the Merkava already has many good APC features so it has a good starting place. Next it was setup to operate in probably the best armored warfare environment in the world outside the southern USA. And lastly it was built strictly for a defensive type war. As far as APC's made from tanks go it is pretty much unique.
Honestly, I think this is just an MBT that has room for dismounts. One or the biggest lessons from the Ukraine War was that tanks without infantry support are pretty much just sitting ducks. The ability to defend the infantry from fire while the tank pushes would be very useful-- and, as an additional benefit, it could provide rest for soldiers while moving to the frontlines, and maybe even a safe(r) place to sleep.
Did everyone just forget about anti tank munitions that have been available for nigh on a century now?
Also the logistics of fueling a 50T battle bus only works if you're not expecting to drive it very far.
A big armored IFV isn't the hammer to break down obstacles, it's a target that might as well have "warheads on foreheads" on the border of it.
Besides, the single biggest reason China wouldn't invade Taiwan is everything worth a damn to the CCP is wired up to be burned to the ground on a moment's notice to spite the communists trying to steal it.
Everything you just listed there can be done by lighter, smaller IFV. There's a reason that IFVs and tanks fill different roles in western doctrine. You really don't need much armor at all for rapid maneuver or providing fire support. Armored infantry can still move quickly and have more firepower than light infantry without their vehicles needing all the same bells and whistles as an MBT.
@@truedemoknight6784 this. Specialization in a given role is much better than jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none vehicles, and makes it much easier to assemble battlegroups for specific purposes. NATO doctrine is hard to ignore here
@Acceleration Quanta no one cares
@@truedemoknight6784 western doctrine is also following this bigger is better… look at the lynx and redback
"Private!"
"Yes, sir!"
"Only one 100m gun?"
"Fixed, sir!"
"Good job, private!"
I agree with most of your analysis. And I think you are correct that the machine guns on the rear are for suppression in urban environments, before deploying troops. And the extra fuel tanks could be dumped before entering action to avoid the scenario you described. As to the precision gap, eh, maybe. Don't forget the lesson of the Russian T-34, which was good enough and could be made in huge quantities, thereby overwhelming the "more precise" German tanks. This number over quality is something that both Russia and China have practiced in warfare. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. But I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
this was true in ww2.
But we are now talking about a world where we very easily could mass produce these precise vehicles. After all, additive printing makes them less complicated compared to good ol german overengineering.
The chinese will have more parts wich require more parts to be assembled and more maintenance.
Together with this. No matter how amazingly good their vehicles may be. They only had a few skirmishes with the indians so far and still deploy 70s tactics. Nato forces on the other hand are already pretty accustomed to combined warfare.
The lessen of the Russian T-34 was not Quantity over Quality, in fact Quantity over Quality has not once worked on a modern Battlefield.
The lessen of the Russian T-34 was that if you let your tanks be build by unskilled labor and give them unrealistic quotas to archive / bad quality materials most of your tanks will never properly work and be destroyed mostly by PzKpfw III's who should not be able to damage them in the first place.
NIST supports so much in terms of research and industry. It's phenomenal.
The rear MGs are probably meant for when you're turning your hull around and backtracking. In that fashion the rear MGs can fire whilst retreating. Or in urban environments when you need rear cover from buildings or nests etc.
So the plan is to dump the remaining ammo after wasting your soldiers and losing the fight? A machine gun firing from a speeding away vehicle while being crewed by a terrified child isn't going to hit much
@@tylerward4386 or you are entering in an urban environment and insuring you are covered from behind
Or to cover where the soldiers exit you know.
@@carlost856did you watch the video?
Or maybe suppression while the men dismount. But any issues with the turrets would be impossible to fix in an active urban fight. It just seems like a bad idea with no evidence it works in practice
Cappy, You're quickly becoming THE go to source for technical and tactical information about an array of weapons.
Just to point out he made a stupid mistake at 0:33 saying vn20 would be used for invasion of Taiwan.But the name itself indicates this is export only😂
this is not good right?
he spreaded quite some misinformation and left some facts which i consider important
@@johnwang9730 why would they only use it for exports? that's stupid thinking
@@eVill420 Because PLA wasn’t impressed by the design, I guess?
@@eVill420 because it doesnt share components with their the pla ordonance mbt, if it was for the pla itself they would build it off the type 99, and the designation VNxx previouls was exclusively for export vehicles by norinco
1:44 Ah, so it's like a good portion of Germany's WW2 vehicles.
The noncredibility of Russia's MIC I guess.
@@AbcdEf-lz6oe what?
They had xzibit helping design. "Yo, i heard you like cannons so we put cannons on your cannons."
as an RTS nerd whenever there's news about IFV the first thing that comes to mind is the GDI's Guardian APC or Hunter from Command and Conquer. seeing one shaped like a tank is... odd to say the least.
bruh
makes sense since they can fight with tanks in urban or dangerous environments
Can't wait for the Chinese Overlord Tank.
@@GreenLeafUponTheSky Dig a hole put stick and dirt on top. Heavy tank falls in hole. Laughing defenders dump gasoline in the hole and light it on fire. Instant Chinese BBQ
@@assurhex1449 Lol...dugging hole In the city!
I bet the logistics of moving that thing around are fun, and likely still a juicy target for Javelins and a ton of other munitions that are much cheaper to produce.
The Kangaroo type APC is not unknown, but certainly uncommon beyond WW2. The shared tank platform, heavy protection and mobility identical to armour is an interesting concept, probably design specifically for a narrow set of missions.
rip soldiers having to upkeep thaat thing
@@fourthaeon9418how? It's based on the ram, it's not that hard to maintain.
@@fourthaeon9418the thing about China is that we have more than enough people to upkeep things to the point where it’s basically free
Nothing a javelin couldn't take care of.
China's mountain terrain has entered the chat.
@@SoloRenegade top attack for the win
@@jmnapigkit yup, and urban terrain and steep mountainous terrain such as in China, Korea, or Taiwan is hell for tanks, and heaven for the Javelin, NLAW, etc.
When a NLAW knocking on your door it's saying boom.
I feel like it’s a extremely poor decision to make a IFV that doesn’t really have a good means of defending itself this freaking huge. Especially since it’s armor is really only rated to protect against 30mm. This thing would be extremely hard to miss with most AT munitions considering it’s the size of a small building.
这种东西是用来反步兵的
Honestly yeah thats the thing that primarily confuses me, they take to the effort of using an MBT hull to achieve highest possible armor and it weighs 50 fucken tons, yet it can only stop 30 mills, even if impressive by IFV standard that does not justify the 50 tons
This behemoth would last a few minutes on a modern high tech battlefield. In a Taiwan war scenario It would be instantly targeted and destroyed assuming that the ship carrying it to Taiwan wasn't sunk on its way to Taiwan.
Possibly. It depends on how many they make. We are already having problems supplying arms to destroy these in Ukraine. As the US has essentially dismantled our bulk warfighting arms production facilities and used our stockpiles over the last 50 years we are no longer the arsenal we once were.
Edit: By destroying these I mean armored vehicles in general.
@@derrick9653I agree. I think a lot of people overestimate NATO’s production abilities while underestimating China.
The rear guns are no doubt operated by the Infantry. One of the problems exiting an APC is you have no idea what's outside. I do agree it's an assault vehicle the guns give it rear protection in built up areas. It's a MOCK UP I would be guessing they will fit a method of ejecting those spare drums at some time. They have already developed a specialist High Altitude tank.