"Our army has nothing to answer to this": Mass use of ST-1 wheeled tanks on maneuvers in China caused concern of Indian experts

India has once again expressed concern about the superiority of the Chinese army in terms of equipping with light tanks... Initially, the emphasis was on the PLA's so-called Type15 mountain tanks, now the ST-24 1-ton wheeled armored personnel carrier (export version of the ZTL-11), which is called the "tank destroyer", is indicated.

In fact, the ZTL-11 can also be classified as a light tank with a wheeled platform. It is made according to the 8x8 scheme. This Chinese armored vehicle attracts special attention from Indian military experts for the reason that it can be transported by air. This indicates the possibility of the Chinese army (PLA) in a short time to transfer a sufficient number of ST-1 to the area of ​​the offensive or defensive operation.

The Chinese wheeled tank ST-1 has a combined armor that protects against bullets of various calibers, as well as from fragments of "low and medium dynamics". Also, Chinese manufacturers have equipped this technique with hinged dynamic protection.

The main armament of the ST-1 (ZTL-11) is a 105mm cannon, which is positioned primarily as an anti-tank gun. The main task of the ST-1 is either to quickly break through the enemy's defensive formations, or to contain tanks.

Some time ago, Chinese troops during large-scale exercises in the central part of the country worked out the massive use of their wheeled tanks. It is this kind of application that has caused concern among Indian military experts, who note that in this regard, the Indian army has nothing to respond to China with.

One of the parts of the maneuvers took place in a 400-km march with access to positions to suppress enemy forces and assets. It should be noted that the range for the ST-1 is about 800 km. At the same time, on relatively flat terrain, a wheeled tank is capable of accelerating to 90-100 km / h.

In India, it is believed that for the needs of its armed forces it is necessary to purchase at least 100 light tanks, including air-transported ones. One of the options under consideration is the Sprut-SDM 18-ton Russian self-propelled airborne anti-tank gun.

Comments

[rotmistr60]

the Indian army has nothing to say to China.

Since India is a great specialist in the hodgepodge of weapons, it remains to turn to the French for help. As far as I remember, they had wheeled tanks that they used in Africa. And the best advice is not to compare with China with whom is longer, but to sit down at the negotiating table and negotiate.

[Finches]

You can recall the historical experience of using war elephants with a crew of 4 people: a mahout, a heavily armed dart thrower and two archers

[novel66]

it is necessary to check whether the elephant will withstand the recoil of 105 mm guns, and so, yes, promising

[potap6509]

You can also buy from pasta, for example, Centauro.

[donavi49]

Patria is a favorite, they have just a new generation for the Arab tenders arrived in time with a 120 mm cannon. Plus in Indian style - the most diverse zoo in the world to collect.

There are also Koreans, with whom the Indians are now very warm friends.

Or you can generally troll Xi and cooperate with Taiwan, which makes its own city tank to resist the landing.

[svp67]

Quote: donavi49

The Koreans also have

In the "freak".
And our sluggishness more and more often turns out to be our side. Where is the declared "wheeled tank" based on the "Boomerang"? Is it hard to combine the Octopus turret with the Boomerang BS?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

We don't need it. This is a kind of colonial technique for local conflicts against an obviously weak enemy. And even for local conflicts, there is a better option in the form of a wheeled ACS with a large barrel lift.
A wheeled vehicle with a tank gun presupposes either the presence of roads or flat terrain.
The tank is designed for direct fire, and therefore must have a high cross-country ability, the ability to maneuver, choose positions regardless of the availability of roads.

[svp67]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

We don't need it.

You may not, but the RF Armed Forces will not interfere. And as an export car.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And even for local conflicts, there is a better option in the form of a wheeled ACS with a large barrel lift.

What?

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

A wheeled vehicle with a tank gun presupposes either the presence of roads or flat terrain.

And in the European part of the country, what are the problems with that?

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The tank is designed for direct fire, and therefore must have a high cross-country ability, the ability to maneuver, choose positions regardless of the availability of roads.

These combat vehicles have all this, having in the plus a high speed and great operational maneuverability, which allows them, both to make large marches themselves, and to be transported by all types of transport, including air. Well, they are cheaper than similar tracked ones, both in terms of production price and in operation.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Since there is no such equipment in the RF Armed Forces, it means that it is not needed. Few are willing to fight in a tall vehicle like tankmen, but without armor, and rightly so.
The approach in the RF Armed Forces is absolutely correct. Light equipment for direct fire is prepared only for the Airborne Forces, in the form of an SPRUT, and it even floats on tracks and with increased cross-country ability.
It is in our European part that high cross-country ability is required; these are not African savannas without snow and muddy roads. And in our European part, there is certainly no one to resist on wheeled tanks.
The ability to march at high speed is certainly good, that's just what to do at the end of the march. You can't do much without armor and limited maneuverability. And with air transportation, everything is not so simple, the height is obviously higher than that of tracked vehicles, it may not fit into the IL-76.
And for export, because the competition in this sector is very high, and the sales market is limited, there you can also pick up a sample of a wheeled ACS to your taste. Wheeled self-propelled guns will be more versatile, which only sometimes, if absolutely necessary, can be brought to direct fire.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It is in our European part that high cross-country ability is required; these are not African savannas without snow and muddy roads. And in our European part, there is certainly no one to resist on wheeled tanks.

And what about the Trans-Volga steppes?
And Central Asia?
And in Syria, wouldn't such a technique be useful to our military and the Syrian army?
Egypt?
Libya?
India wanted to.
And there is no problem to put the Octopus tower on the Boomerang.
And this is not a tank at all, but a highly mobile self-propelled anti-tank gun (as the Sprut itself is positioned).
Selling weapons to other countries is not only business, but also politics. This is the export of influence. And it is a sin to neglect such influence.
Today the Russian Federation is included in many African countries, restoring or creating from scratch their Armed Forces. Aren't such vehicles preferable there over tracked vehicles?
And wouldn't such export deliveries make the production and purchase of such equipment for our aircraft cheaper?
Although perhaps for our conditions it would be more interesting to install a BMP-3 turret on the Boomerang - a brutal move when two in one.

[svp67]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Since there is no such equipment in the RF Armed Forces, it means that it is not needed.

Until recently, we did not have shock UAVs either, but why are there shock, reconnaissance and they were not needed the same? What you just said is not an argument, it is just a statement of the fact - there is no such equipment in the RF Armed Forces

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It is in our European part that high cross-country ability is required; these are not African savannas without snow and muddy roads. And in our European part, there is certainly no one to resist on wheeled tanks.

Of course, of course ... we will give all the roads to our opponents for action ... but really, why do we need them?

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

You can't do much without armor and limited maneuverability.

Just that time to ensure the advancement and deployment of "heavy" brigades and divisions

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And with air transportation, everything is not so simple, the height is obviously higher than that of tracked vehicles, it may not fit into the IL-76.

For the Chinese, the entire VTA was created on the basis of the Soviet legacy and for them this technique "not only enters, but also exits."
Seriously, the height of the cargo hold of the Il-76 and the promising Il-276 is the same and equal to 3,4 m, the height of the Boomerang BS on the roof of the hull is 2,25 m ... "Ilyush" you can

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Wheeled ACS will be more versatile,

Forgive me, but when a customer asks for "just water", he will not accept from you not "tea", not "coffee" ... he needs WATER ...
Who told you that "universalism" is required? In this case, the buyer asks for a "specialized tool", but we do not have it

[mvg]

To shove something unpushy is to "Gruzovichkoff" "tel. [phone]
This is how many Il476 sorties need to be made in order to create a more or less combat-ready grouping. After all, we need ammunition and more infantry.
Sput has 28 rounds of ammunition. Half an hour of work.

[svp67]

Quote: mvg

This is how many Il476 sorties need to be made in order to create a more or less combat-ready grouping.

Here, according to the situation, it is necessary to look ...

[mvg]

you need to look at the situation

You also need to find an airfield in the mountains with 2.5 - 3 km of concrete, capable of receiving a J-20 or Il-76. Something tells me that this is not easy.
Or, as practice shows, dropping military equipment by parachute, and even in the mountains ... there is no good.

[svp67]

Quote: mvg

You also need to find an airfield in the mountains with 2.5 - 3 km of concrete, capable of receiving a J-20 or Il-76.

They will be able to get there and on their own from the nearest airfield quickly by road

[Old tanker]

These combat vehicles have all this, having in the plus a high speed and great operational maneuverability, which allows them, how to make large marches themselves, ... Well, they are cheaper than similar tracked vehicles both at the cost of production and in operation

Here, the BT series tanks were recalled and their non-embodied capabilities due to the complete vulnerability of the enemy's PTS.
It was the Chinese who did not go through the tank pogrom of 1041. And we will not step on the same rake a second time.

[mvg]

Why BT-5/7 is worse than the same T-60/70 which were produced in thousands ??? Same gun, comparable or better armor. And then there were fewer roads. That's just the Octopus unnecessary weight

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

It was the Chinese who did not go through the tank pogrom of 1041.

And the heavily thick armor of the T-34 and KV then helped from him?

[Old tanker]

It helped a lot. Remember at least the battle at Rasenyay and the battle of Kolobanov's company. At Brody, the T-34s also surprised the Germans very much, in contrast to the BT and T-26. The losses of the T-34 and KV at the initial stage are not due to their performance characteristics, but often to stupid use.

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

not due to their performance characteristics, but often stupid use.

I agree 100%. Even by 200%, since this fully applies to the use of BT and T-26 tanks

Quote: Old Tankman

Remember at least the battle at Rasenay and the battle of Kolobanov's company. At Brody, the T-34s also surprised the Germans very much, in contrast to the BT and T-26.

Here we know how to exalt some and completely try to forget others, but what about this?
So, on June 23, 1941, Lieutenant Sovik from the 93rd TP of the 47th TD, attacked the BT-7 seven times, destroying three tanks, two vehicles, three guns and up to 200 enemy infantry. On June 25, the consolidated group of the 9th TP of the 5th TD, consisting of 4 BT-7 and 6 BA-10, under the command of Captain Novikov, having received the order to capture Oshmyany, bypassed the enemy from the rear and attacked Oshmyany from the west. In this battle, Senior Lieutenant Vedeneev on BT-7 destroyed 5 enemy tanks and 4 anti-tank guns!
Two days later, the crew of the BT-7, consisting of senior sergeant Naidin and the Red Army soldier Kopytov, from the same 5th TD, were in ambush. Finding a convoy of 12 enemy tanks, they knocked out the lead vehicle in the convoy, and then the last one. Taking advantage of the confusion of the Germans, the crew also knocked out the remaining 10 tanks!

[Old tanker]

The question was asked not specifically about light tanks. And more seriously armored. Did the armor help them? So, specific examples of the use of the T-34 and KV are given. What does light tanks have to do with it?
On BT, one can cite as an example the actions from the ambushes of the Katukov brigade. And for the light ones, an example of senior l-that Pegov, who knocked out 70 Panthers on the T-2. And such examples for a whole book.
But the essence of my answer is not in the heroism of the tankers, but in the fact that the concept of light high-speed tanks did not justify itself. Both in our country and in the West. With their cruiser and cavalry tanks. And now she is just as wrong.

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

namely the use of the T-34 and KV. What does light tanks have to do with it?
On BT, one can cite as an example the actions from the ambushes of the Katukov brigade.

So these will also be used, according to the tactics of tank destroyers

[Old tanker]

Tank destroyer without practically no borne and with a 105mm cannon that is weak against MBT - this is a laugh. Their fast movement along the highway does not play any role here. To come quickly to die quickly is nonsense.

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

and with a 105mm cannon that is weak against MBT - this is laughter.

Actually, we have a 125-mm cannon on the Octopus.

[Old tanker]

And what has the "Octopus" to do with when it comes to the Chinese "wheeled tank"?

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

And what has the "Octopus" to do with when it comes to the Chinese "wheeled tank"?

Have you read carefully what I wrote earlier?

Where is the declared "wheeled tank" based on the "Boomerang"? Is it hard to combine the Octopus turret with the Boomerang BS?

[Old tanker]

And what does our armored vehicle have to do with it, if we are talking about a Chinese wheeled tank? And commented on the concept of its application?
I mean Thomas, and you tell me about Erema.

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

And what does our armored vehicle have to do with it,

An Indian tender was discussed ...

[Old tanker]

I don’t know what tender you discussed, in the conversation that I took part we discussed possible options for using the Chinese "wheeled tank".

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

I do not know which tender you discussed,

But you entered this discussion

[svp67]

Quote: Old Tankman

What have ours to do with it?

Excuse me, but why did you decide that the conversation was only about Chinese cars?

[strannik1985]

And as an export car.

Is that as an export. But the weapons and military equipment that have not been adopted for service are sold cheaply or with their own, tied loans.

What?

Yes, there is a whole "flower garden" of self-propelled guns being developed, from an 82-mm mortar for the Airborne Forces to "Malva".

And here in the European part of the country

In the Russian Federation, transportation over long distances by rail, for short - on its own. It is necessary to count.

This combat vehicle has it all.

Well, how ... depending on what to compare with - MBT or tracked 2S31 are unambiguously inferior in cross-country ability, plus MBT in terms of security, weapon power, "Vienna" - in maneuvering trajectories, versatility of weapons.
It's just that when you have everything you can and lord, and when there is no essentials - for example, the mortar batteries of SMEs are now at the level of the 30-40s of the last century (the Chinese are playing with ST1, but they have a self-propelled mortar - PLL-05), automation kits are needed , or better SM of the "Vienna" type, you need a SPTRK with the ability to work from behind shelters (like a complex based on the NIMR 6x6 BA) or, at least, from the take-off (Belarusian TGM 3T "Mosquito"), the necessary new BRM (optical reconnaissance / detection of optics on a retractable mast, radar, communications equipment, AWPs) / BRDM (communications - satellite / HF / VHF, simpler optical reconnaissance camera-thermal imager, drone for short-range reconnaissance, a set of sensors - TC, sound, seismic + equipment for signal reception and transmission to the gearbox), both types of machines with protection against min. Engineering reconnaissance - MRAP with a ground penetrating radar, followed by a car with a track mine sweep, then with a manipulator and a robot to destroy IEDs, escort - an infantry platoon on the above BRDM, at least one with a surveillance system on the mast, to control the terrain during the neutralization of IEDs. That's when such a set of vehicles in a linear SME will be able to move to wheeled tanks.

[bayard]

Meanwhile, Central Asians are buying wheeled tanks and armored personnel carriers from Turkey, India has nothing to offer.
For your own needs, the same Boomerang can be taken with a turret from the BMP-3, but for export it is possible with the Octopus turret.
Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Central Asia, half of Africa (who has money) is a huge market.
And for myself in the European part, perhaps as shunting groups of anti-tank weapons in the rear areas.

[strannik1985]

Meanwhile

With the money of the enterprise - please pay for R&D cars from the state budget, which your own army does not need ...?

[bayard]

Are we also developing the Boomerang program on our own initiative?
Or is it according to the state order?
Or do you think that we do not need a wheeled BMP?
Enough with a machine gun?
Or cannons 30 mm. ?
"Bakhcha" quite harmoniously fits into the highly protected chassis of "Boomerang", while no special R&D is required - "Bakhcha" is mass-produced, from such unification there is only tremendous benefit.
And since the shoulder strap "Bakhchi" roughly corresponds to the shoulder strap of the "Octopus", then it would be a good idea to get such a vehicle as an option - a highly mobile anti-tank self-propelled gun on a wheeled chassis.
And for their own needs too.
And for export, of course.
For the market for such equipment today is very large, and it is always preferable to offer a line of combat vehicles on one highly protected wheeled chassis at once - it will be better. You can immediately buy armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, wheeled tank and wheeled self-propelled guns - all on one chassis. It is very convenient for the customer. And for the seller.

[strannik1985]

Or do you think that we do not need a wheeled BMP?

"Bakhcha-U" is a low-ballistic 2A70 weapon, not a tank, and, accordingly, the structure is usual, we have a tank company and a 152-mm self-propelled guns battery for a motorized rifle battalion in our MSD. The wheeled tank assumes a cosplay of the American Striker brigades (wheels only).

[bayard]

Quote: strannik1985

The wheeled tank assumes a cosplay of the American Striker brigades (wheels only).

So this is what we are talking about, so that, say, to have a motorized rifle brigade completely on a wheelbase - a quick transfer along highways on its own, the development of success after breaking through the enemy's defenses, actions in the Central Asian theater of operations, where the capabilities of such equipment will be sufficient, control and retention of territories, ensuring security rear.

[strannik1985]

So this is what we are talking about, so that we can say to have a motorized rifle brigade.

Limited suitable for use in mountains, forests, settlements, rough terrain. Only steppe / desert, along the roads. Somehow it does not work out very well, especially if we compare the organization of the march on its own and by rail (as in the Russian Federation, parts are usually transferred over long distances).

[bayard]

This is not a universal tool, but we have a very long Central Asian theater of operations, with hard soils and a flat surface.
We have a protracted operation in Syria that could take another 10 years.
In the end, the "Boomerang" as a platform has already been created, and it is most reasonable to make a full line of combat vehicles at once on this base:
- BTR with machine gun or 30 mm. module,
- BMP with BM "Bakhcha",
- ACS 120 mm. with BM from "Lotus",
- anti-tank wheeled ACS with BM from "Sprut".
- well, the command machine - where to go from this.
I think it could turn out to be a very good line for motorized riflemen and for export.

[strannik1985]

It is not a universal tool

Risky experiments with OShS before equipping line units with absolutely necessary equipment? Well ... I don't know, everything costs money.

ACS 120 mm

"Vienna" was hacked to death because of the high price, in theory, a machine based on "Boomerang", but based on "Keshet", "Aybat", М1129, etc., it should be cheaper without losing important characteristics (ASUNO, self-reference systems, pickup recovery should allow the minimum preparation time for firing at an unplanned target (30 seconds - standard for IDF mortars), work in the mode: short fire raid - movement - short ...

anti-tank wheeled self-propelled gun

Self-propelled ATGM, "Sprut" is kept at the expense of the paratroopers, more precisely due to the fact that the MBT is not parachuted.

well, the command machine

Not one, in terms of equipment, they partially or completely coincide - BRM, BRDM, KShM field, rocket artillery, mortars, PRP, pro-sabotage vehicles of the Strategic Missile Forces.
The scale for the military-industrial complex is simply enormous.

[svp67]

Quote: strannik1985

Yes, there is a whole "flower garden" of self-propelled guns being developed, from an 82-mm mortar for the Airborne Forces to "Malva".

Yes, what are you saying ... but I didn't even know. I remember the Germans once used the self-propelled guns Ferdinand as a tank, and he was not even able to defend his infantry, he could not protect himself from our infantry ... it turns out they did not even have a machine gun for self-defense ...

[shinobi]

And what does the BMP-3 not suit you? A machine of the same level and with the same tasks.

[venik]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

We don't need it. This is a kind of colonial technique for local conflicts against an obviously weak enemy.

=========
Well, this one is kind of not entirely true ...... For example, in the European theater of operations (with its abundance of beautiful highways), wheeled versions are also very useful!
But for the time being, the Sprut-SDM is being used by the troops in a tracked version. For us now it is more relevant ...... By the way, the Indians are very interested in them.
Well, how will it go into the Boomerang series - wheeled BMOS will appear there too ... Moreover, they have been working on this topic for a long time

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There is no war on the highway, sooner or later you will have to leave the highway. And there will be many threats to a weakly protected machine. Even a meeting with an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle armed with a 30-mm automatic cannon may be the last, a heavy cannon may not have time to be deployed in the direction of such an enemy.

[venik]

Quote: svp67

And our sluggishness more and more often turns out to be our side. Where is the declared "wheeled tank" based on the "Boomerang"? Is it hard to combine the Octopus turret with the Boomerang BS?

=========
"Boomerang" with a tower from "Octopus" ordered? Pli-and-out!

Receive and sign!

PS Folto made over 3 years ago .....

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: venik

PS Folto made over 3 years ago

This is Photoshop, and it's very crooked.

[YOUR]

Quote: svp67

Is it hard to combine the Octopus tower with the Boomerang BS?

Very hard. So, for example, when testing the BTR90A, it turned out that after the shooting of a couple of hundred ammunition, the roof of the BTR cracked. And the armored personnel carrier rocked very impressively. As a result, the weight of the armored personnel carrier has almost doubled.
You want to put on a 125 mm cannon right away. Just think there is a platform, let's go ahead.
Wheeled mountain tank sounds strange. For steppes, deserts for such actions, the Americans have created their own striker, this is permissible, but for mountainous terrain.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

An agreement with China can only be made by making concessions and fulfilling their conditions, which would be humiliation for India.

China is not going to concede in anything, it feels its strength.

Therefore, there will be no peace.

[Crabong]

It will not work to negotiate. First, they need to clash properly, but then it will already be seen ...

[smart ass]

The wheelers bend over here too!

[rocket757]

In India, they believe that for the needs of their armed forces it is necessary to purchase at least 100 light tanks, including air-transported ones.

The question is ... who needs a conflict, even a "smoldering" one, between the two largest world powers ???
Who is most afraid of the fact that an alliance between them could take place ???

[Alex777]

I believe that competition contributes to their conflict.
And the path to Pakistan, which China needs, annoys India.

[rocket757]

Irritation does not help in international affairs.
It is good that it does not reach the intensification of the intensity of the conflict ... only the loaded gun has been hanging on the wall for a long time. Better if it didn't fire.

[Alex777]

It would be very important not to let India go to the States.
And clashes between Indians and Chinese are not needed at all.
And how to reconcile them, taking into account the contradictions, is not clear.
The Anglo-Saxons, leaving, laid an irreconcilable conflict.
And now they are "helping" India in this conflict. Ambush...

[rocket757]

Well, yes, even there the impudent Saxon dog rummaged, and even now it yaps.

[Rome]

A large-scale war, Ala the USSR and Germany will not work between India and China! They are separated by mountains, so such a conflict is not possible due to the impossibility of providing an offensive into the depths of the enemy. Only border skirmishes, with peak escalation it is a war at sea and a war in the air with missile strikes on each other's territory

[rocket757]

There are common ground, but ... well, the fig knows what they are ready to go for.

[zwlad]

which is called "tank destroyer"

105 mm is not enough for a PTO? Taking into account the fact that any projectile arriving from the MBT will turn this armored personnel carrier, even a land mine.
I also understand to fight against infantry and lightly armored vehicles, but as a means of anti-tank equipment it is doubtful somehow.

[2 Level Advisor]

they can shoot ATGMs too .. so against a tank without a KAZ, it is quite a weapon for itself ... that is. against modern tanks it is rather weak, if especially in the forehead .. but the overwhelming majority of tanks in the world (koi "old models") will "pull" quite ..

[Old tanker]

they can shoot ATGMs too .. so against a tank without a KAZ, it is quite a weapon for itself ... that is. against modern tanks, it is rather weak, if especially in the forehead ..

The power of the TUR warhead fired through the barrel with a caliber of 105 is not enough to pierce the frontal armor of temporary tanks, even without a remote control. Proven by our 100 and even 115mm rockets. And if the tank is equipped with a modern DZ, then it is unlikely to take on board.
So these Chinese high-speed "tanks" obviously do not pull on the means of PTO. I do not understand that the Indians were alarmed with their number of T-90s. Or is this just an excuse for the maharajas to get hold of a new toy?

[donavi49]

And who will they be against? Plus they have Chinese missiles. Again, they will be able to hit the Indian T-72M with a long crowbar. And at the same time they will be able to detect it much earlier and with a greater probability, for a powerful MSA, thermal imagers, commander sights and that's all.

Their task is not a head-on collision with tank divisions. And bypassing them or overtaking them on the march. Actually, the entire tactics of wheeled units is based on this - the march is much faster, more uniform and we are ahead of a heavy brigade or motorized infantry on BMPhs, imposing a battle on them / cutting them off / occupying important points.

And again, there are 100500 production cars on this chassis. In addition to the armored personnel carrier, there is an ACS, there is also a Spykonosets with ATGMs that make a slide and have the ability to retarget in flight. Here KAZs are already needed in the upper hemisphere of the tank.

The main achievement of the Chinese here is not this wheeled tank, which, by the way, is being actively improved, but the creation of a successful and relevant universal platform, on which a lot of things have been hung and can be produced in huge batches.

[Rome]

As a platform, this is understandable, a good thing, but the idea of ​​a light tank, from my point of view, is a dubious thing for a big war!
Light tanks were of little relevance even in the second half of the Second World War! The Israelis also quickly realized that speed does not replace armor, and that was back in the 60s of the last century!
Today, the PTO is several orders of magnitude more powerful and multifaceted than even 20 years ago, and the 105mm gun lost its relevance back in the 80s of the last century because of the T72, and you don't have to try against the T90.

[donavi49]

It is the T-72M that is confidently amazed by the long crowbar, which was made in response to the reflection. And after that, a few more even better crowbars were made. Here China actively cooperated with Israel, so crowbars and lahat are good there.

I repeat, it is not a tank that is fighting, but a unit on a single platform. Which includes staff vehicles, its own 122 mm artillery battery, infantry in armored personnel carriers, and these wheeled tanks. In a war with an industrialized enemy, wheeled units are the new tank divisions of the war of 39-40. And again in the war 888 - such groups were actively used, only on the BTR-80, without tanks (because speed is the guarantee of victory, and tanks will not withstand such a march), without support. And if they were squeezed, it would be hard there.

A similar tactic was used in the same Syria. For example, the Raid on Raqqa with the T-90 / T-72 / BMPs was collapsed by the Toyota Infantry, which nightmarized the rear, constantly cut the track behind the strike group, did not allow them to relax, and then when they ran, they overtook the fugitives and gave them a 20-km highway of death with the loss of over 30 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, Gradov.

[Rome]

The success of tank wedges led by light tanks in 39-40 is explained by the absence at that time of massive anti-tank weapons capable of fighting any tanks, including light ones. After 43 years, when the anti-tank defense system was full on both sides of the front, light tanks disappeared from the tank units.

The war of 888 and Syria is still a low-intensity conflict, Georgia did not expect Russian intervention and was openly afraid to engage in battle with the Russian army. Therefore, it was enough for our units to just appear where needed and get ahead of the Georgians, in such a situation, wheeled vehicles work with a bang in Syria, there are not enough forces to fully support the offensive, if you believe the TV at the time of Russia's intervention in the conflict, the number of opponents was comparable, so there was an opportunity to rush around the attackers in Toyota and cut the rear. I think today this is no longer possible. And such an operation can be called a failure and not prepared.

In the Soviet army in the 50s, there were units on armored personnel carriers and used PT76 for reinforcement, then bmp1 appeared and light tanks disappeared as unnecessary.

I think in battle groups it is still better to have a T90 instead of an armored personnel carrier with a cannon. Wheeled vehicles are not so much about speed as they are about saving money; after all, it is cheaper to operate wheeled vehicles and they are also cheaper. Therefore, where armor is not critical, it is better to make wheels, and where armor is important, it is better not to save money. Dashing breakthroughs in depth and detours along the flanks, these are purely claimative opportunities with an equal opponent, almost unreal. And creating units for such tasks is a waste of energy.

[just exp]

do not lead people into fornication.
The 105mm crowbars were only relevant against the first export T-72s, which had homogeneous armor without DZ.
With some luck, the 105mm crowbars could compete with the T-72A, but already the T-72B did not leave any chances for the 105mm crowbar (we are talking about the frontal armor, because any tank will take 105mm on the side even in 10 years).
I generally keep quiet about the T-90.
If in Canada they fired at the T-72M1, which is an analogue of the T-72A, and then somehow they were upset about this.

[Old tanker]

And again, in the 888 war - such groups were actively used, only on the BTR-80, without tanks (because speed is a guarantee of victory, and tanks cannot withstand such a march),

In the photo you presented, the grouping of the 45th Airborne Special Forces Regiment, which entered through Abkhazia.
The first to enter South Ossetia was the BtGR 135 MSR on the BMP (!) And tanks. The peacekeepers, by the way, the tank pulled out, the first to break through to them. And already without shells. Covered with armor and PKT fire.
It’s ridiculous about the passage that tanks cannot withstand long high-speed marches.
Then BTGR 429 MSR entered in general on MT-LB and only then 503 MSR on APCs.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In such a machine, one should not only be afraid of a projectile from an MBT, there one should also be afraid of the BMP-2, which can make holes with its 30 mm cannon.

[Mountain shooter]

Gypsies are Gypsies. We saw a "shiny" from a neighbor - and we wanted to do it ourselves ...

[Crabong]

100%! These gypsies are utterly stupid ...

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Gypsies are people too. Look how they decorated their wagon-taratais with us, and the horses too! And nothing, won!

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

How will a Chinese "tank destroyer" resist conventional tanks with a 105mm cannon?

A modern tank in frontal projection cannot be penetrated by this Chinese wheeled tank.

Most likely this is just an infantry support vehicle, when there is no tank, then an armored personnel carrier with a 105 mm cannon will almost cover the tank and the infantry and destroy the enemy's fortified position.

The absence of KAZ is the weak point of this technique (like any other without KAZ), the Indians will knock them out with ATGMs.

[novel66]

but ours did not show off and called it an armored car

and the tank ... the tank

[Zaurbek]

And at the present stage such projects are difficult for us.

[novel66]

but patamushta! not very compatible parameters and it is difficult to give a damn about something

[sen]

Ours are also going to put "Sprut-SDM1" on wheels. If India contributed financially, it would get it first.
https://news.rambler.ru/army/47169416-voennye-eksperty-nazvali-unikalnye-harakteristiki-novogo-tanka-sprut/

[Dilettante grandfather]

Explain to me why the trick of the marketer who called the armored car a wheeled tank is so tenacious in the minds? Tank - fighting vehicle on caterpillar... And neither an armored car nor an imperial AT-AT walker is a tank. Yes, there is a gun, yes there is a tower, yes, there is armor ... But whatever you call an armored car, it will not transform into a tank.

[Zaurbek]

by analogy with the BTR-Wheeled BMP ....

[Dilettante grandfather]

An armored personnel carrier and an Infantry Fighting Vehicle are still different in potential and in application ... I mean, there are no tanks on a car base. From the word - at all. Armored vehicles, not wheeled tanks.

[Zaurbek]

As well as fashionable "light tanks". This is a wheeled or tracked tank destroyer. For a tank, anti-cannon armor is more important than the type of propeller

[Dilettante grandfather]

Not at all. There are clear definitions, do you understand? Open at least EVE. Plus, I note: the armored car appeared before the tank. And the first tank was tracked.

[Rome]

Probably all the same, you greatly simplify, calling all wheeled vehicles armored vehicles all the same, this name appeared at the beginning of the 20th century and referred to armored vehicles based on cars. Today, there is practically no such equipment, but there are wheeled and tracked armored vehicles, and they are named depending on the purpose of this armored vehicle. Therefore, a tank, since this wheeled armored vehicle should be used as a tank, more precisely as a light tank.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Sorry, but what kind of simplification can we talk about? Any wheeled vehicle is automatically a vehicle-based vehicle. Again, he answered the comrade above: the first tanks appeared after the armored car, and differed from it, among other things, in the tracked chassis. It is not entirely clear to me where I am wrong.

[Rome]

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but explaining why a wheeled armored vehicle is called a WHEEL TANK many wheeled armored vehicles with an automobile base have nothing in common, except that both vehicles are on wheels. There is a unique chassis, a unique transmission, engines can probably still be commercial, and some other elements and that's it.

[Zaurbek]

The question can be resolved pretty quickly if you don't reinvent the wheel. There is a South African chassis 6x6, 8x8 ... which uses civilian components. India has its own production of trucks ..... modules with 100-105-120-125mm cannons and ATGMs to them with a shaft and in any variations.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And why? The Serbs have already installed the 57-mm "Air Defense Derivation" on the wheeled chassis of their armored personnel carriers. Such a vehicle, which also has air defense capabilities, will crumble a wheeled tank into cabbage.

[Zaurbek]

You are confusing air defense derivation. With 57mm module for bmp ... ..

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You are confusing this, watch the video from the exhibition in Serbia, unfortunately I don’t remember what topic was the link from the participant from Serbia, there was a plate with the characteristics of the gun. The Serbs installed a high-ballistic cannon on their armored personnel carriers, and it was they who carried out the "Air Defense Derivation" on a wheelbase.

[Zaurbek]

Look at that ... ..there is one gun, different towers and LMS and the programmer should be on the muzzle. And he was not there. Not every 57mm module is a derivation.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

What other muzzle programmer? In our country, the blasting is programmed in a different way, with a laser in pursuit, they wrote about it.

[Zaurbek]

Look at the picture at the cross-section of the Derivation of the AA defense barrel and compare with the 57mm module on the T-15 or on the Serbian armored personnel carrier

[Viktor Sergeev]

Yes, buy a BMD3 in Russia if you really want to drop equipment. Interestingly, where in the mountains do you need high speed and airborne capability?

[Zaurbek]

The UAE did so. The bmp3 module was installed on the batch

[strannik1985]

Something is not entirely clear logic of Indian commentators, do they need a car for the sake of a car?
The wheeled tank is definitely worse than the MBT in all respects.
Worse (C) ATGM in the fight against armored vehicles.
Worse than a self-propelled mortar when used to support the infantry (not even mentioning the generals of the "Vienna" type).
Weakly applicable in battles in populated areas (overcoming blockages, barricades, passive protection against the defeat of PTS in a short time).
Weakly applicable in mountains, swampy and forest areas.

In comparison, a self-propelled mortar can be the same as a wheeled tank, plus:
Hit unobserved targets.
To hit targets in the depths of buildings, on the reverse slopes of heights, in lowlands, ravines and other obstacles at ranges of up to 7-8 km, without going into the affected area of ​​the enemy vehicle.
Destroy infantry in trenches and other engineering structures with cheap (mine) ammunition.

Well, why do the Indians need armored combat vehicles for the war in the steppes? And along the roads.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The self-propelled mortar is of little use for dealing with light armored vehicles, the initial velocity of the mine is low, the range of a direct shot is insufficient, as is its adaptability for firing at moving targets. There is an ancient 122-mm "Carnation" or even 152-mm "Akatsia", which with their powerful enough howitzers are more suitable for direct fire.

[strannik1985]

Self-propelled mortar is of little use

There are 3VBK14 and Kitolov-2, you can make an UAS with a cumulative warhead (the Poles are doing this now, based on Ukrainian (Soviet?) Technologies). Well, in the traditional way, with PDO tabular consumption of mines (200 120 mm mines per hectare of target).

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If everything is so good there, why didn't the car go into mass production? The reasons are the same as I mentioned above. It is irrational to put a low ballistics gun on tracks if there is self-propelled howitzer artillery with better characteristics. "Lotus" for the Airborne Forces and "Phlox" for the ground forces is the place for such cannons-mortars, well, maybe there will still appear a wheeled vehicle based on an armored personnel carrier of the Boomerang type.

[strannik1985]

If everything is so good there

On the other hand, it is expensive, self-propelled howitzers are a little from another opera, their level is at least a regiment, and we are talking about battalion artillery. Relatively cheap and acceptable - Kazakh "Aybat" (MTLB + 2B11 + SUAO CARDOM), but we went our own way.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The fact of the matter is that a howitzer self-propelled gun is identical in price to a self-propelled mortar, and in terms of characteristics it is multiple of it, second only in barrel survivability. Place of a self-propelled mortar on wheels in the form of Nona-SVK, Phlox and in special cases for the Airborne Forces on tracks.

[Old tanker]

Self-propelled mortar is of little use for fighting light armored vehicles, the initial speed of the mine is low,

120 caliber with a direct hit on the roof of an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier breaks through it at once and "inflates" the car from the inside. Yes, and with a close gap, heavy fragments pierce the board at a time.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

So how is there, all the same, the situation with the range of a direct shot and the initial velocity of the mine? Back in the Great Patriotic War, they refused to install low ballistics howitzers on the ACS due to the short range of a direct shot. What has changed a lot since then?

[Old tanker]

Why would a mortar have a direct shot? The mortar doesn't fire like that at all. He has only two types of fire: from a closed position (mounted) and semi-direct (also mounted, but more shallow and visible from the position of the target).

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

About that and speech. The mortar self-propelled gun is not suitable as a tank. I even heard such a joke that the spirits manage to escape while the shell from the BMP-1 is flying.

[Michael HORNET]

Only the tank itself is suitable as a tank
A wheeled self-propelled gun performs completely different tasks than a tank. I agree that the term "wheeled tank" is incorrect and meaningless. We are talking either about a MRAP with cannon armament or a wheeled self-propelled gun

[Old tanker]

Only a tank is suitable as a tank. Self-propelled mortars and guns are needed to support the infantry.

[strannik1985]

Since there

Why do we need a direct shot if we can make an UAS based on a cumulative projectile and a Kitolov? Russian military-industrial complex tea is not worse than Polish tea.

[Old tanker]

Infantry units are already well equipped with PTS. Wasting time and expensive UAS fighting armored vehicles in front of the front line is stupidity. UAS is used mainly in a unit allocated to an anti-tank reserve, to repel counterattacks by enemy armored vehicles or eliminate its breakthrough into the depth of defense.

[strannik1985]

Infantry units are already well equipped with PTS.

We discussed one of the applications (not the main one) of a self-propelled mortar - a vehicle that is absolutely necessary for every motorized rifle battalion, regardless of the presence / absence of a wheeled tank.

[Old tanker]

The infantry does not need a wheeled tank. And the mortar is just an infantry weapon. And since the Second World War, there have been and will be mortars in the rifle battalion. For a long time they have been trying to transfer them to a self-propelled base, even from Nona-SVK. But still nothing. Although there are Vienna and Hosts.

[voyaka uh]

"Well, why do Indians need armored combat vehicles for war in the steppes" ///
---
Not in the steppes, but in the Himalayas.
There are high-altitude plains at high altitude.
They are the disputed territory between China and India.
But the technique can be transferred there only through the air. Clear?
Therefore, light wheeled self-propelled guns are relevant.

[strannik1985]

But the technique can be transferred there

IL-76 to help. ST1 - 23 tons, Vienna - 20 tons.

[Castro Ruiz]

From the Boomerang with the Octopus turret, a good wheeled tank beat the bi, but see.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Wheeled tanks are never good, only self-propelled guns.

[Vasyan1971]

now refers to the ST-24 1-ton wheeled armored personnel carrier (export version of the ZTL-11), which is called the "tank destroyer".

And the RPG-7 is not called a tank destroyer?

[Split]

The main advantage of wheeled vehicles is that it does not lose mobility in the event of numerous Rifle injuries! up to 12,7mm of the wheels themselves and it seems like emnip is lighter on the base from the gooseneck

105 mm gun, which is positioned primarily as an anti-tank gun. The main task of ST-1 is to either quickly break through the enemy's defensive formations

105 mm in the current conditions can only pierce a can of Coca Cola and some old stuff. A quick breakout? yelled, yes it from a distance, well, maybe in the city ... within 30 seconds with modern LMS any more or less modern PF tank will destroy, not to mention RPGs. The position of the octopus ... is still ambiguous ... in fact, this is a tank destroyer for special units, because it needs training

[nonsense]

I do not understand what their problem is, then? Any armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle with a 30 mm cannon will remove this "tank" from 2 kilometers ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Basically true, but you are slightly exaggerating the capabilities of the 30mm cannons. It is not always possible to even hit from 2 kilometers, and the penetrating ability drops dramatically.

[nonsense]

to the 30 mm Soviet cannon, a bunch of 30x165 armor-piercing shells have been created all over the world, which are an order of magnitude superior to the Soviet ones in armor penetration. Don't want to buy! Already an 18-ton wheeled tank (with the appropriate level of reservation), they will hole through and from two kilometers ... Again, each BMP has an ATGM, and a tall wheeled tank is a very contrasting target (if it is difficult to hit from a 30 mm cannon). .. In general, it is not clear why the Indians were so scared ...

[spectr]

Probably only China can afford such tactics, since they will massively burn this technique when opening a more or less decent defense.

[Baron pardus]

It seems to me that many people miss the specifics of using such heavy armored vehicles.
a) Air transportability. And not only the C-5 Galaxy.
b) Maneuverability and speed.
c) 105mm cannon is not only BOPSs (which by the way will be more powerful than any 30mm and 57mm), but also quite powerful HE shell.
d) In the area where the mahach is planned, T90x and all sorts of other Abrams will simply not be. They will not be brought there corny because of the hard-to-reach terrain .. So whoever can bring as many heavy BA or Light tanks there will have an advantage. Against this background, a heavy BA with a 105mm cannon is a good replacement for a tank IN THESE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The Italians have quite an excellent Kentauro, even with a 120mm cannon, and the French have an AMX10RC
Only the Chinese still hang the Hindus ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Only it seems to me that you are missing the appearance of escort vehicles, like the "Partner" with a 30-mm cannon, and air defense installations like the "Derivation"? They can not only complicate the task of light tanks, but also turn them into smoking wreckage, taking advantage of their faster gun drives and their rapid fire transfer capabilities. And if, nevertheless, an automatic 40-mm Balkan grenade launcher appears, then with its help it will be possible to hit light wheeled vehicles with cumulative fragmentation grenades.

[Baron pardus]

From what distance can 30mm cannons be able to hit heavy armored vehicles? Considering that, for example, the AMX-10RC does not penetrate with 23mm shells in the forehead from 200m, and this is BEFORE additional armor is put on it, by the way, the AMX-10RC with two levels of additional armor (which is 7 tons) weighs 22 tons. So, I think that heavy armored vehicles with 105mm cannons will be able to hit all sorts of "Companions", which apparently are even more cardboard, and generally remind me of the British BA of the Second World War with 2 pounds :-), from much greater distances. Besides, I repeat, 105mm is also a HE shell. And with your 40mm grenade launcher, firstly, your firing range is useless, secondly, the grenades fly in a parabola, good luck hitting a moving target. A burst of 30mm HE cannon shells NEVER be compared to ONE 105mm HE shell. Neither in power nor in range of shooting. I saw what the Bradley line (25mm) does to the stone house and what ONE 105mm Stryker round does to it ...


So how many weapons are you going to shove into this unfortunate Partner? And a 30mm and 40mm grenade launcher, and you do not want to shove a 120mm mortar there for an hour at the same time as a cannon and a grenade launcher?

[Just a Traveler]

Hindus are still clowns ... however, as in parades.

[Mustached Kok]

It is interesting to observe how many arrogantly look at "wheeled tanks". Although the problem is that they began to build - because they work! It’s just that those armies that fought more often and more than us, hello Americans, were faced with the fact that there was not enough anti-tank artillery that could quickly move both across the battlefield and between different parts of the theater of operations. At the same time, a tank that is technically capable of doing this spends a lot of its resource when trying to conduct intensive maneuvers on different sectors of the front. They needed something more mobile and cheaper than a tank, but with the ability to hit the armored vehicles of a potential enemy.
Our command does not order only because they themselves have not yet encountered a situation where classic tank destroyers are too slow and tanks are too expensive and quickly exhaust their resources.