VN 20 IFV, China's "AT AT"?

[ArmyRick]

Check this beast out and let me know some of your thoughts

 

[ArmyRick]

Canons on canons, with 4 AT missiles. A bunch of MGs for fun tickling. Yikes

 

[OldSolduer]

Big target. All you ATGM guys might wanna think about this one.

 

[ArmyRick]

Big target. All you ATGM guys might wanna think about this one.

As long as they don't see you first. I wonder if its networked?

 

[ArmyRick]

2 aft machine guns, remote controlled. Good points brought up by Cappy (The host) is it can disorient soldiers dismounted. I am assuming the Chinese have at least considered this fact.
@KevinB you got any int on this thing? @Kirkhill you didn't design this, did you?

 

[Kirkhill]

2 aft machine guns, remote controlled. Good points brought up by Cappy (The host) is it can disorient soldiers dismounted. I am assuming the Chinese have at least considered this fact.
@KevinB you got any int on this thing? @Kirkhill you didn't design this, did you?

Naaah!

Too many people.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

High tech Merkava?

 

[KevinB]

Honestly I don’t think it’s crazy.

When you look at the weight of current MBT’s you’re generally in the 50-75t category. So having an IFV that weighs around the same as your MBT and has the same sort of protection and mobility, you get a true Combined Arms assault system.

The rear MG’s, well it’s not a First. The German Marders used to have a rear remote mounted MG (over the troop area). The concept was for if one as has enemy behind you can engage them while still buttoned up.
The Germans removed it due to issues - (read concern over injuries to friendly forces) As far as the concept goes if you dismount past the front enemy trenches - and your turret is still focused on enemies forward, or in an urban environment like the video host pointed out, it’s not a bad idea.
- but as soon as the ramp goes down, you better have a kill switch affixed…

Rear fuel barrels - that’s going to be a non starter for any of the GIB’s as nothing says ‘never get off the boat’ like the potential for a flaming diesel shower upon exit.

Dual Cannon, well it’s an idea, I’ll give it that.
But the 100mm and 30mm cannon ammunition is going to take up a lot of room, I think one would be better served by a single cannon, and alternating the guns in the carriers at the Platoon IF you really felt you needed both.
I think a single 45-60mm cannon would make more sense in that respect.

4 Integral ATGM; well everyone who know me knows I like missiles on IFV’s…
Curious if they can be reloaded under armor.



For the TL;DR crowd - I think this is the true future of IFV’s. There isn’t any reason to have a Light Armored Infantry Vehicle work with tanks, when it really can’t fight beside them.

I suspect there will be more of these sorts of vehicles coming out when some of the LL from Ukraine are fully understood.

But I also suspect you will see more ‘Light’ Tanks to work with the lighter IFV and a differentiation between types of Armor/Mech formations.

A Breakthrough Heavy Armored Bde to punch holes or blunt enemy armor attacks, and the ‘Lighter’ Armor to exploit gaps or hold positions.

 

[McG]

If you have a tank division, then you already have an organization with the resources to support an APC that matches your tanks for mass. Might need a few more refuelling trucks though.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I suspect there will be more of these sorts of vehicles coming out when some of the LL from Ukraine are fully understood.

Lessons Learned for most of our NATO allies (Are we still part of that or did someone burn that bridge?)

Lessons Identified for Canada.

 

[FJAG]

Honestly I don’t think it’s crazy.

You would think that with 50 tonnes you would be able to build something that carries more than 6 dismounts though.

Rear fuel barrels - that’s going to be a non starter for any of the GIB’s as nothing says ‘never get off the boat’ like the potential for a flaming diesel shower upon exit.

I don't think that they are an issue. They are there for admin moves. Like the old Russian T34s, I think those things were droppable before going into any combat mode.

Dual Cannon, well it’s an idea, I’ll give it that.
But the 100mm and 30mm cannon ammunition is going to take up a lot of room, I think one would be better served by a single cannon, and alternating the guns in the carriers at the Platoon IF you really felt you needed both.

That probably explains the 6 dismounts.

I think a single 45-60mm cannon would make more sense in that respect.

Right enough. You don't need a 100mm for anti-APC/IFV work and it probably won't do for anti-armour. Strikes me more as an anti-bunker round.

4 Integral ATGM; well everyone who know me knows I like missiles on IFV’s…
Curious if they can be reloaded under armor.

Didn't look like it, did it?

For the TL;DR crowd - I think this is the true future of IFV’s. There isn’t any reason to have a Light Armored Infantry Vehicle work with tanks, when it really can’t fight beside them.

I suspect there will be more of these sorts of vehicles coming out when some of the LL from Ukraine are fully understood.

Agreed, but as battle taxis with a decent # of dismounts or as fighting vehicles where much of the space is given up to weaponry. Has anyone done a study to determine just how much and what type of weaponry an IFV needs to carry out its principle task of getting dismounts into the fight. Or has the role become as an anti-IFV/Anti-tank fighting vehicle with the dismounts almost incidental? You know what they say about Jacks-of-all-trades.

But I also suspect you will see more ‘Light’ Tanks to work with the lighter IFV and a differentiation between types of Armor/Mech formations.

MGS was a good idea but a bad vehicle.

A Breakthrough Heavy Armored Bde to punch holes or blunt enemy armor attacks, and the ‘Lighter’ Armor to exploit gaps or hold positions.

 

[KevinB]

You would think that with 50 tonnes you would be able to build something that carries more than 6 dismounts though.

Yes, but again the issue pops up everywhere in how big does the dismounted Squad/Section need to be, and then you design the vehicle.
Or do you opt for more vehicle at the Platoon level (point with our new 6&8 Bradley platoon tests)

I don't think that they are an issue. They are there for admin moves. Like the old Russian T34s, I think those things were droppable before going into any combat mode.

Lots of T-72, T-80 and T-90 footage with those still on in combat in Ukraine.
But yes ideally they would be removed prior to direct combat operations

That probably explains the 6 dismounts.

Also taking a rear engine tank and trying to add GIB’s back there probably didn’t help looking at the engine swap portion of the video, the dismounts aren’t going to be comfy.

Right enough. You don't need a 100mm for anti-APC/IFV work and it probably won't do for anti-armour. Strikes me more as an anti-bunker round.

Agreed, but I think a 45-60mm could do both.

Didn't look like it, did it?

Honestly no, but the design change of turret from the original exposed missile to the later missile box seems to have some sort of internal elevator for launch so I was curious if there was room to reload.

Agreed, but as battle taxis with a decent # of dismounts or as fighting vehicles where much of the space is given up to weaponry. Has anyone done a study to determine just how much and what type of weaponry an IFV needs to carry out its principle task of getting dismounts into the fight. Or has the role become as an anti-IFV/Anti-tank fighting vehicle with the dismounts almost incidental? You know what they say about Jacks-of-all-trades.

The range of the stowed ATGM is longer than the effective range of the tank cannon. I see ATGM equipped vehicles with tanks as a symbiotic relationship. The AFV deals with anti armor at the longer ranges, and the tank can deal with them in the closer fight. Plus the ATGM gives the AFV the chance in a solo engagement against armor if no tank of around.

MGS was a good idea but a bad vehicle.

I don’t think this is a good vehicle either.
I think the concept is valid - but I think they cheaped out using the existing tank design.

The Merkava/Namer works much better as the Merkava has the engine in the front, and had integrated GIB room already so it provided a lot of GIB room when the turret was removed.

You would have the same issues as the Chinese if you tried to make an Abrams variant AIFV. Most APC/IFV have their engines up front for a reason.

 

[FJAG]

The Merkava/Namer works much better as the Merkava has the engine in the front, and had integrated GIB room already so it provided a lot of GIB room when the turret was removed.

I really don't know why they don't do a basic engine front design for tanks from square one.

It creates the ability to have a common chassis for tanks, IFVs and SPs and various log vehicles and it provides a bunch more steel to keep incoming frontal rounds out of the crew compartment/turret. It clearly works for generations of APCs/IFVs. I'm not sure what the technological issues might be to keep from scaling that up for the weight of the tank. As you say, it works for the Merkava.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's a bit of a BMP-4 with some Namer tossed in and nod to the Marder. Looks impressive, but how it really performs we will likley never know. If a few hundred are built for parades, then it's a dud, if thousands are built and issued, then it's likely doing the job they want.

 

[KevinB]

I really don't know why they don't do a basic engine front design for tanks from square one.

I brought that up to a a few folks.
One of the GD Engineering folks pointed out that swapping out the power pack is much easier with the rear deck
As well the front glacis plate can have a more angular shape without significant length added to the vehicle.
There are a number of issues - that basically means ‘it’s easier this way’

TBH, I don’t think any of them are insurmountable and given the Merkava did it, it’s not impossible.
But probably not easy with the turbine on the Abrams.

It creates the ability to have a common chassis for tanks, IFVs and SPs and various log vehicles and it provides a bunch more steel to keep incoming frontal rounds out of the crew compartment/turret. It clearly works for generations of APCs/IFVs. I'm not sure what the technological issues might be to keep from scaling that up for the weight of the tank. As you say, it works for the Merkava.

Agreed. I think the Common Chassis for an AFV would make sense in both an economy of scale and from a Battlefield effectiveness standpoint.

 

[GR66]

Lessons Learned for most of our NATO allies (Are we still part of that or did someone burn that bridge?)

Lessons Identified Ignored for Canada.

FTFY

 

[dimsum]

FTFY

Interestingly, the first time I heard the "Lessons Identified/ignored" quip was from a Brit officer, about their military.

The second was an Australian, for a similar situation.