photos via China Defense Mashup
I've been focused like a laser on Chinese naval developments, on their Marine Corps and on their new Mechanized Infantry Brigades. Which means I took my eyes off the what many foreign armies consider their rapid deployment force. The airborne.
It doesn't receive much coverage (and to be honest outside of Tanks and their supposed EFV "in ability" amphibious vehicle not much is found on the net regarding Chinese armored vehicles) and at first glance it might not seem formidable but the ZBD-03 gives the Chinese Airborne what few units have....mechanized assault capability right off the drop zone.
It sports a 30mm cannon, 7.62 coax, has a crew of 3 and carries 5 airborne troops. It is extremely light weight coming in at 8 tons. This weight class indicates that it is only proof against small arms fire and maybe shell splinters....maybe. It definitely lacks IED protection and my assumption is that its intended to go where they ain't.
Couple this vehicle with China's new air transport and all the pieces of a truly expeditionary force...land, sea and air....are coming together nicely for them.
Is the legacy of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars hurting US armored vehicle development? We're expecting IED protection in all our vehicles while our enemies are putting into service armor that is designed to arrive quickly, and defeat the enemy without becoming involved in nation building. Perhaps its time to clearly delineate between combat and nation building/peacekeeping vehicles. Our combat vehicles will be light, lethal and easily transported. Our peacekeeping vehicles will be MRAPs. That will mean that the Army will get the Stryker as it was intended and not over armored to the point where it can't climb a damn hill and the Marines will get its Marine Personnel Carrier that can get the job done without costing an arm and a leg.
I've been focused like a laser on Chinese naval developments, on their Marine Corps and on their new Mechanized Infantry Brigades. Which means I took my eyes off the what many foreign armies consider their rapid deployment force. The airborne.
It doesn't receive much coverage (and to be honest outside of Tanks and their supposed EFV "in ability" amphibious vehicle not much is found on the net regarding Chinese armored vehicles) and at first glance it might not seem formidable but the ZBD-03 gives the Chinese Airborne what few units have....mechanized assault capability right off the drop zone.
It sports a 30mm cannon, 7.62 coax, has a crew of 3 and carries 5 airborne troops. It is extremely light weight coming in at 8 tons. This weight class indicates that it is only proof against small arms fire and maybe shell splinters....maybe. It definitely lacks IED protection and my assumption is that its intended to go where they ain't.
Couple this vehicle with China's new air transport and all the pieces of a truly expeditionary force...land, sea and air....are coming together nicely for them.
Is the legacy of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars hurting US armored vehicle development? We're expecting IED protection in all our vehicles while our enemies are putting into service armor that is designed to arrive quickly, and defeat the enemy without becoming involved in nation building. Perhaps its time to clearly delineate between combat and nation building/peacekeeping vehicles. Our combat vehicles will be light, lethal and easily transported. Our peacekeeping vehicles will be MRAPs. That will mean that the Army will get the Stryker as it was intended and not over armored to the point where it can't climb a damn hill and the Marines will get its Marine Personnel Carrier that can get the job done without costing an arm and a leg.
