Military Review

The Chinese showed their wheeled tank

46
China has demonstrated its wheeled tank. This type of armored vehicles is in service with the armies of the United States, Japan, Italy and several other countries. Now China has joined them, Warspot reports.


The Chinese showed their wheeled tank


About creating a wheeled tank based on the VP10 armored personnel carrier, it became known in August last year. A new modification of the VP10 is an anti-tank self-propelled artillery mount, which, according to Western classification, is called a Tank Destroying Vehicle (TDV). The machine is armed with a 105-mm gun, the claimed armor penetration of which is 650 mm steel, covered by dynamic protection.

Initially, it was reported that the new combat module weighs significantly more than the "native", so VP10 with the 105-mm gun lost amphibious capabilities. At the same time, the machines shown in the video have propellers. In addition, earlier it was reported that the new tank destroyers were intended for export, while the CCTV-7 TV show showed Chinese army vehicles.

Photos used:
janes.com
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. demiurg
    demiurg 26 March 2018 17: 41
    +2
    Something modest, only 650mm for dynamic protection.
    They would write right away, one and a half meters after an active, dynamic defense when firing for 7 kilometers.
    1. svp67
      svp67 26 March 2018 17: 44
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      Something modest, only 650mm for dynamic protection.

      So, this is the old NATO cannon in 105 mm, wait a minute, they will push it there and 125 mm faster than we can do it on the Boomerang. And they will do it precisely for their army.
      Initially, it was reported that the new combat module weighs significantly more than the "native", so the VP10 with a 105-mm cannon lost amphibious capabilities. At the same time, the cars shown in the video have propellers.
      Screws REMOVE forgot
      1. seos
        seos 28 March 2018 07: 41
        0
        With such armor penetration (650 mm) we need to think about replacing the 125 mm gun in the tanks with the Chinese 105 mm ...
        And recently, the Italians wheeled a tank tank rolled out with a 105 mm gun and there they declared the same about 650 mm .....
        1. svp67
          svp67 28 March 2018 11: 27
          0
          Quote: seos
          With such armor penetration (650 mm) we need to think about replacing the 125 mm gun in the tanks with the Chinese 105 mm ...
          Oh, and the 125mm 2A75M Octopus 800 mm guns ...
          Quote: seos
          with 105 mm push and there they said the same about 650 mm .....
          So, I repeat again, this is a NATO cannon
          1. seos
            seos 28 March 2018 17: 10
            0
            According to all sources, the 125 mm Lead shell penetrates 650 mm for 2 km ...
            1. svp67
              svp67 28 March 2018 20: 15
              0
              Quote: seos
              According to all sources, the 125 mm Lead shell penetrates 650 mm for 2 km ...

              Is BPS the ONLY type of projectile capable of penetrating armor in a tank’s tank?
              1. seos
                seos 28 March 2018 20: 32
                0
                No, not the only one, but he is the most reliable ....
                When armor penetration of a tank gun is declared, then it is kinetic ammunition that is meant ..
                If you mean the "very effective" tank KUV "Reflex" with 900mm armor penetration, which was conceived as the long arm of Soviet tanks, today it is unable to penetrate any modern tank into the forehead ... (Leopard 2a4 (1987) 1300 -1700 mm from Kuma)
                1. svp67
                  svp67 28 March 2018 20: 54
                  0
                  Quote: seos
                  When armor penetration of a tank gun is declared, then it is kinetic ammunition that is meant ..

                  You're not right. For each type of ammunition, this is indicated specifically, and in this case, "guess guess it yourself"
                  Quote: seos
                  If you mean the "very effective" tank KUV "Reflex" with 900mm armor penetration, which was conceived as the long arm of Soviet tanks, today it is unable to penetrate any modern tank into the forehead ... (Leopard 2a4 (1987) 1300 -1700 mm from Kuma)

                  How is it all mixed up with you. Having built up their “foreheads”, the Germans somehow forgot to build up their “sides”, especially the towers, and “Leo2A4” completely discredited themselves in Syria.
    2. RASKAT
      RASKAT 26 March 2018 18: 14
      +7
      Damn the car without DZ at all, it will be burned from any RPG and ATGM.
      I am generally skeptical of the wheeled vehicles of the first battle line. Almost any bullet is a guaranteed punctured wheel. It is clear that there is a swap, etc., and if you get a lot or what kind of explosive projectile the 23-mm or Vog-17 or large fragments from artillery fly to, the wheel of the khan immediately, leave the battle or wait until the suitcase of gifts arrives. Undermining an anti-tank mine is guaranteed to tear off the wheel, or maybe two at once, then what? The same caterpillar can be stitched, if desired, even if the rink is torn off and at least temporarily move. Wheel armored personnel carriers, yes, bring away, wheeled mobile artillery, too, yes. A tank and even without DZ, I don’t know. In my opinion, Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan were already stepping on this Rake on an armored personnel carrier. Bradley M1128 MGS. This is how it looked. They built them already 134 pieces and calmed down on this. Even against barefoot Afghans, the idea did not materialize itself.
      I think so.
      1. Vadim851
        Vadim851 26 March 2018 19: 02
        +1
        Unless the movement speed is much higher, and the engine is much more economical and replacing 100-105mm guns on the battlefield (although there are questions), it is clear that with normal roads, which does not always happen. Allow me to correct you, yet the M 1128 is a Stryker. In my opinion, such a technique, if needed, is in small quantities.
        1. RASKAT
          RASKAT 26 March 2018 19: 13
          +1
          M 1128 is a "Stryker"

          Sorry, of course Stryker, a reservation.
          In my opinion, such a technique, if needed, is in small quantities.
          Well, if only a little bit, for some mobile parts, and for a war with a knowingly weak enemy. But DZ should not be neglected. It costs a penny, it does not weigh much. I mean something like a 5 contact. The relic is all the same heavy for such machines in my opinion, and it is partially designed for BOPSs.
          1. mvg
            mvg 26 March 2018 21: 15
            0
            You, like, are a tanker. Why so many mistakes?
          2. Vadim851
            Vadim851 26 March 2018 22: 35
            0
            Nowhere without DZ, especially RPG
            and ATGM now at least one place chew.
            Given the presence of BMP-3, Nona-S, then for special cases 150 wheeled pieces will be enough.
      2. Aqr009
        Aqr009 26 March 2018 20: 22
        +3
        I am generally skeptical of the wheeled vehicles of the first battle line. Almost any bullet is a guaranteed broken wheel ...

        Perhaps this touched the future, progress has reached the production of tires. The wheels of the future are essentially a hybrid of a wheel and a track, and even with auger elements, like the Goodyear Eagle-360 belay
      3. Alf
        Alf 26 March 2018 20: 26
        0
        Quote: RASKAT
        Bradley M1128 MGS That's how it looked

        Actually, this is Stryker.
      4. nikoliski
        nikoliski 27 March 2018 05: 08
        -1
        As the Chechen experience showed, when a caterpillar infantry fighting vehicle and a wheeled BTR80 are blown up by a mine, as a rule, everyone dies in a caterpillar car (from there it’s a fashion to drive outside, leveling the need to put armor in general), and wheeled vehicles when the wheels are wider than the car’s body (they learned how to harness such cars in South Africa) has the best characteristics in terms of crew safety in this case (I will explain, when hitting a mine, the explosion detaches the wheel completely, the blast wave goes up and is reflected from the trough-shaped bottom of the amphibian machine to the side, Uzhen has a very good charge in order to break through such protection, taking into account the distance to the ground, so often a pair of high-explosive 62 mm shells were attached to the TM152 to reliably hit the target) In general, I think wheeled vehicles are a cheap alternative to tracked vehicles — production is cheaper, wheel life is 50 km ( versus 000, caterpillars and track rollers) consume much less fuel (which means longer range), higher maximum speed on the highway, of the minuses it is considered that patency is worse than that of tracked vehicles, although I will say that the BTR10 sometimes climbed on their 000 to in the forests, where the T80 sat on a low belly, hitting an obstacle with clearance and getting stuck, by the way, if a wheel is punched, the armored personnel carrier will not get up as some people write here, driving all 8, turning 64 rows, so the armored personnel carrier can be without a wheel (sometimes without a pair, it depends row) to go, but the tracked vehicle will lose the gusli (and the gusli in Chechnya were lost even when trying to quickly cross the railway track, the gusli jumped right on the rail ... In general, the Chinese fellows, I think ours will do something similar soon, Yes, and about breaking through 8 mm I doubt, as far as I know the best minutes 2mm podkaliber DU hit only 650 mm armor.
        1. Alf
          Alf 27 March 2018 21: 05
          0
          By and large, I agree with you, but there are a few objections.
          1.
          Quote: nikoliski
          consume much less fuel (means more range)

          Is there data on a BIG difference?
          2.
          Quote: nikoliski
          means more range)

          Cruising range BTR-80 600 km, T-72 600 km.
          3.
          Quote: nikoliski
          higher maximum speed on the highway

          Does a lot of technology drive at maximum speed? Not at all.
          You should take into account the average speed, and it is the same for BTR-80 and T-72 and is 30-
          40 km / h.
    3. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 26 March 2018 19: 26
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      Something modest, only 650mm for dynamic protection.
      They would write right away, one and a half meters after an active, dynamic defense when firing for 7 kilometers.

      The distance is not specified. Maybe 200 meters. Then, why not 650mm (although at such a distance there should be a very good shell).
  2. Sergey985
    Sergey985 26 March 2018 17: 43
    0
    Impression: tyap-blap, blinded.
  3. purple
    purple 26 March 2018 17: 45
    +2
    The Chinese .... copy everything they saw ... just in case

    I saw a live Chinese humvi ... it looks cool, almost like a real one
    1. Borik
      Borik 26 March 2018 17: 52
      +3
      ] China has demonstrated its wheeled tank. This type of armored vehicles is in service with the armies of the United States, Japan, Italy and several other countries. Now China has joined them, reports "Warspot"[

      Presented as if the Chinese had already adopted it. This is still an experimental instance. And we had similar ones but weren’t accepted into service.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 23
        +2
        They are in Djibouti on the BD.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 30
          +2
          But in the PLA in the parade.
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 32
            +3
            And they also have an 122mm howitzer on the same chassis. In addition to the armored personnel carrier itself. Tablets. Staff. EW. Plus there are prototype air defense systems.

            In general, they organically develop their wheeled units. On a single chassis, they have a lot of cars. Without disagreement (well, in the sense of a disagreement of an armored personnel carrier of the last generation by the whole family).
            1. mvg
              mvg 26 March 2018 21: 16
              0
              As usual, on top. No humor.
  4. konstantin68
    konstantin68 26 March 2018 17: 53
    0
    Not tall? The tank is still not a gantrack. Though...
    1. purple
      purple 26 March 2018 17: 56
      0
      As for the height, this is a V-shaped bottom, so fashionable now
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 35
      +2
      On Boomerang it will be even higher. This is the current generation of armored personnel carriers. They are all tall. For landmines everywhere. And the ephemeral gain in the projection area does not justify itself in other respects (cramped space, less volume for equipment, weapons, again mine protection). Moreover, modern SLAs and anti-tank systems - 30cm will not especially feel the difference. And the guy with the RPG is no longer so scary (the main losses in recent wars are land mines, aircraft, Toe / Bassoons / Cornets / Milan).
  5. Yrec
    Yrec 26 March 2018 18: 07
    +1
    Not a tank, but a wheeled self-propelled gun. Passability only on roads and hard ground. Settlements no higher than 2 floors, otherwise it will break the broken concrete and reinforcement of the wheel. Applicability is very doubtful.
    1. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 26 March 2018 19: 29
      0
      Quote: Yrec
      Not a tank, but a wheeled self-propelled gun. Passability only on roads and hard ground. Settlements no higher than 2 floors, otherwise it will break the broken concrete and reinforcement of the wheel. Applicability is very doubtful.

      Outside of settlements, as a weapon of fire support, and even with the possibility of fighting tanks, it is a very useful self-propelled gun. Especially in low-intensity conflicts like the Syrian.
      1. Alf
        Alf 26 March 2018 20: 31
        +1
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        Yes, even with the possibility of fighting tanks,

        Watching which ones. If with Abrams, T-90 or Challenger, then only on board. If the Chinese are Type 69, then Yes. If this British woman could fight with Tanks (and not with antiquity on tracks), then the calibers of modern tank guns would not so quickly rush up.
      2. Yrec
        Yrec 27 March 2018 09: 10
        0
        The Americans were one of the first to put such guns on the strikers, but they quickly abandoned them, too heavy, the wheels quickly turned into trash. It seems that such units in South Africa are somehow used. They are useless against tanks, for fire support the gun is weak, you need a normal self-propelled gun with the ability to fire from closed positions. Roll out for direct fire - wait for the ATGM. You can’t get off the road into the field - it will immediately get stuck.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 45
      +5
      Field Marshal Haftar also thought roughly. He had Mi-24. T-72. Grad. 100500 soldier. The enemy is Toyota with Milan.

      Toyota won.
      1. Yrec
        Yrec 27 March 2018 09: 12
        0
        Because it’s not iron that fights, but people, and the coalition burned all the equipment.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 27 March 2018 09: 25
          0
          There was no coalition in that war. There was only Chad + Zaire with military-technical support from France (mainly in training Baboons and deliveries of Milans + training for operators) and Libya with the Chadian separatists - which they supported.

          In that war - where the coalition burned all the equipment, Field Marshal Haftar was on the side of Toyota and the Coalition. wink
          1. Yrec
            Yrec 27 March 2018 09: 36
            0
            And, definitely, I got it. But anyway, giving arms to unprepared and unmotivated fighters is a dumb thing.
  6. konstantin68
    konstantin68 26 March 2018 18: 09
    0
    Quote: purple
    As for the height, this is a V-shaped bottom, so fashionable now

    That is not, everything is fine with height. But how cool it is to see the battlefield from above. Good tank. laughing
  7. Lex.
    Lex. 26 March 2018 18: 10
    0
    I wonder how the terminator would look like a wheeled chassis
  8. Graz
    Graz 26 March 2018 18: 30
    0
    experience is experience, even if it is unsuccessful, they are going in the right direction, the main thing is that they can afford experiments finance
  9. Xenofont
    Xenofont 26 March 2018 18: 51
    0

    These are the serial ZTL-09 machines that have been used by the Rapid Reaction Forces for quite some time. They carry the old English 105 mm smooth-bore gun of low ballistics. For export, they make a bunch of wheeled “tanks” of both three-axle and four-axle based on the ZBL-09 armor.
    1. Borik
      Borik 26 March 2018 19: 02
      +3
      For our Siberian roads is not suitable. So we will not be upset.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 26 March 2018 19: 44
        +5
        Well, in general, the tactics of wheel joints are quite progressive. It was repeatedly used and it gave success - if there were no serious punctures in the planning. Yes, we will not even take the Americans. Take the native Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - the 45 raid was wheeled and achieved the greatest success, cutting Georgia off from the sea. However, they also faced a big problem. Tanks far in the rear. They had only the BTR-80 and all.

        Modern wheel joints - incorporate air defense systems, artillery, anti-tank systems and all this on a single (or similar in running and resource characteristics) chassis. That is, such a connection breaks and rides at a single fast pace. Going around heavy mechanized enemy units.
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 27 March 2018 05: 09
          0
          And while no one is bombing them, they are not subjected to shelling. Well, there is no solid front line. And so everything is correct.
        2. Yrec
          Yrec 27 March 2018 09: 16
          0
          For raid tasks, you can slip on the greats. Everything rests on the training and motivation of the fighters. Hacking defense requires heavy equipment and artillery, here an armored personnel carrier with an attached gun will not work.
      2. gorenina91
        gorenina91 27 March 2018 05: 49
        +1
        -Yes ... it’s just right ... -first, numerous heavy Chinese tanks will crush and push the defenses and cause serious damage .. and then “these” will go ...- lighter, faster and more maneuverable with quite serious weapons (weapons) ...- and also numerous ...
        -Not in the tropical jungle, the Chinese are going to use them ... -and for the fields and unpaved Russian roads they just fit ...
  10. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 27 March 2018 10: 28
    0
    All of these, the so-called wheeled tanks are nothing else in my opinion, like our caterpillar Acacias and Carnations. Only with the advantages inherent in wheeled vehicles. In any case, neither one nor the other is suitable for battle formations.