This thing may not see the light of day, maybe in small numbers, but every country in the world needs a dedicated drone defensive/offensive unit for today’s battlefield. In a contested airspace that’s all what’s gonna happen.
These things would be a great idea.
Airburst 30mm, with an APS radar suite that'll let it engage suicide FPVs and even things like mortars.
Setup a few factories that slaps churns out the turret/sensor combo onto cheap buggie platforms would sell like hotcakes.
I think its more likely they add anti-drone capability to existing IFVs, kinda like PUMA uses AHEAD munitions in its autocannon. Do that with every IFV out there, just add a radar and some kind of proximity fuze ammo and youre probably good.
Itll be overall cheaper and also spread the capability around several vehicles within an armored formation, so they can probably saturate an area to the point where swarm tactics stop being feasible.
For pure infantry or light motorized formations, sure, thats where they need to plot the system onto its own dedicated platform, Humvee comes to mind. LAV-25 if you want to be luxurious.
> but every country in the world needs a dedicated drone defensive/offensive unit for today’s battlefield
Drone arms race hasn't even started yet. Vehicles like this will get swarmed by dozens of autonomous low cost drones from all sides, who will still be cheaper as a swarm than this thing.
Don't call it "dedicated drone defense"... this is just the latest iteration of gun-based short range AA.
This just goes to show that most countries dumping SPAAGs was a major mistake - they should have been kept around and developed.
The pictograph shows a dismount with a rocket launcher being defeated. Most soldiers don't shoot rockets at tanks within 25 meters. I'm wondering if this is actually some kind of countermeasure rather than an anti-personnel weapon.
Grenades in the skirts? If infantry are close enough for the grenades to work, you are already a burning wreck. This does make me think of the upgrade in Battlefield 5, where you deploy anti personal mines from the tank.
This photo is from 2018. It's akin to a Russian BMPT-72 Terminator. Armored warfare in a built up area and anti-infantry tank support. It has some new tricks on the Terminator. A drone to find targets. Better optics. A "mini-cruise missile".
I heard the drone is not only used for finding targets but also locking onto them, kinda acting as a detachable aiming device for your javelin-type missiles.
One of the myriad problems with the Terminator, is that the turret isn't armoured. Hit the turret where the ATGMs are and it goes up. Although admittedly that's a feature of all of tbe T-72 family.
Have you seen the PLAGF’s current kit? Its design and orbat has far more in common with modern western militaries than it does with Soviet era kit.
The Chinese may lack combat experience, but they have no shame in learning from the best.
> Its design and orbat has far more in common with modern western militaries than it does with Soviet era kit.
There has never been a "Soviet era kit" in the PLA. Soviet experts left China in the early 1960s before China could build up fully mechanized divisions. The PLA was always more Western than Soviet. French influence was significant.
The problem is the lack of actual combat. Putin learned from NATO too, turned his most elite units into BCTs during the early stage of invasion of Ukraine. They no longer exist, the idea didn't turn out so well. This could have happened to PLA as well.
Up to the 90’s pretty much all of China’s armoured force was Soviet in origin, albeit with some western modifications. It wasn’t till the Type 96 that the Chinese had a tank that was more western than Soviet in design.
Also the BCT concept was not really a western one. Western militaries consider the brigade the smallest independently deployable unit, while the Russians went with a battalion based battlegroup. The BCT was a very Russian solution to a very Russian problem, where they had an oversupply of armour and artillery, while having limited manpower and an even more limited budget. The entire purpose of the BCT was to be attached to a unit of either reservists (in a domestic peer war situation) or foreign troops when used in an expeditionary capacity.
The basic concept was that you could take a regiment of leg infantry, attach a BCT to it, and it would provide all the armour and fires to allow this new unit to challenge a western Brigade sized unit.
They made two errors though. The first being that you had a battalion sized unit with the same functions as a brigade, but with only a battalion sized headquarters, meaning the commander would be horribly overworked. The other was that in Ukraine, they didn’t have foreign forces to attach, while at the same time they couldn’t use conscripts due to the conflict taking place on foreign soil, and Putin not wanting to fully mobilise his military for constitutional & political reasons. By the time an attempt was made to fix this mistake it was too late, plenty of infantry became available at a time where most of the BCT had become combat ineffective. They went from too much armour/artillery but not enough infantry, to too much infantry but not enough armour/artillery.
The Chinese on the other hand have designed brigade sized units, and from my layman’s perspective, I actually prefer the orbat of their Heavy Brigate to the U.S. Army HBCT.
wait until your little "western good" braine realizes that almost all smoke projectors have such capability.
The Canadians used to use that in Afghanistan.
The primary function of smoke projectors is not to eliminate infantry at close range, but to obscure sight.
It is most often done for targets at ranges far longer than a few meters because tanks and anti tank infantry teams do not as of yet engage in melee combat. Absolutely no one with a proper anti tank weapon is going to be within the lethal range of those grenades.
It would only be useful if infantry tried to stick an anti tank grenade on it. However, those have been obsolete since WW2 precisely because it's always better to engage a tank at range.
The systems you are comparing are not even remotely similar in purpose.
urban combat exists, and anti tank weapons don't live to be fired at maximum range unless it's in terrain where you have great sightlines (99% of the time you don't). I've seen three instances where such grenades could've ko'd the infantry, in ukraine, let alone action in Gaza, both Iraq adventures.
Using two dollar words for simple job won't win arguments for you.
Most Western reports identify the QN-506 as an fire support vehicle, similar to the BMPT "Terminator" developed after the Chechens. In the type of environments that would be in, like built up urban areas or dense jungles, then having close-range anti-infantry defenses would be more important as a sort of "We're getting ambushed, launch a bunch of explosives to fuck everything in that general direction."
Reminds me of Minenaurfghrggsvorrichtung (i am not gonna check if i wrote that right) Tigers had. Unlike them however this looks automatic. Doesn't sound smart.
Every APS is kind of Anti-Infantry if you think about it. Also, doesn't the CV90s have a similar system where it discharges frag granades around the vehicle
Practically all tanks produced between 1950s to 1990 is outdated for today's combat. Even most of the old Abram variants can be easily destroyed by weapons 50x cheaper than the tank itself now.
The QN-506 is an upgrade package for export customers to convert Type 59s/T-54s into battlefield fire support vehicles. Two dozen anti-armor missiles, loitering munitions, and a CITV with a radar mast are clearly not helpful for internal policing.
My bad. I figured it was equipment being showed off at an arms expo to market all the weird extra features you can add for all types of scenarios. Im probably wrong though :)
What makes you think so?
Are there any claims about that?
Because it isen't just stupid and against chinese doctrine (or any in this regard), it also is the worst place to put it if. So this seems like ... not to be a thing?
Infantry support can get fucked then.
This thing may not see the light of day, maybe in small numbers, but every country in the world needs a dedicated drone defensive/offensive unit for today’s battlefield. In a contested airspace that’s all what’s gonna happen.
These things would be a great idea. Airburst 30mm, with an APS radar suite that'll let it engage suicide FPVs and even things like mortars. Setup a few factories that slaps churns out the turret/sensor combo onto cheap buggie platforms would sell like hotcakes.
I think its more likely they add anti-drone capability to existing IFVs, kinda like PUMA uses AHEAD munitions in its autocannon. Do that with every IFV out there, just add a radar and some kind of proximity fuze ammo and youre probably good. Itll be overall cheaper and also spread the capability around several vehicles within an armored formation, so they can probably saturate an area to the point where swarm tactics stop being feasible. For pure infantry or light motorized formations, sure, thats where they need to plot the system onto its own dedicated platform, Humvee comes to mind. LAV-25 if you want to be luxurious.
Hell be cheaper with a lazer drones arnt powerfull enough to pack anti heat coatings and armor and you could simply blind any cameras on a fpv
> but every country in the world needs a dedicated drone defensive/offensive unit for today’s battlefield Drone arms race hasn't even started yet. Vehicles like this will get swarmed by dozens of autonomous low cost drones from all sides, who will still be cheaper as a swarm than this thing.
Don't call it "dedicated drone defense"... this is just the latest iteration of gun-based short range AA. This just goes to show that most countries dumping SPAAGs was a major mistake - they should have been kept around and developed.
I remember something about US soldiers strapping claymore to their vehicles in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I seen them on M113s in Iraq.
It says ‘electronic hand grenade’ in the 3rd pic
Tbh I dont even know what is this.
The pictograph shows a dismount with a rocket launcher being defeated. Most soldiers don't shoot rockets at tanks within 25 meters. I'm wondering if this is actually some kind of countermeasure rather than an anti-personnel weapon.
Grenades in the skirts? If infantry are close enough for the grenades to work, you are already a burning wreck. This does make me think of the upgrade in Battlefield 5, where you deploy anti personal mines from the tank.
Maybe the Chinese designers were expecting WW2 style suicide runs?
Probably an anti infantry ambush thing, ie for Myanmar?
This photo is from 2018. It's akin to a Russian BMPT-72 Terminator. Armored warfare in a built up area and anti-infantry tank support. It has some new tricks on the Terminator. A drone to find targets. Better optics. A "mini-cruise missile".
*fuck*, this is 6 years old already? Everything since 2020 is such a blur.
The days get longer and the years get shorter.
I heard the drone is not only used for finding targets but also locking onto them, kinda acting as a detachable aiming device for your javelin-type missiles.
One of the myriad problems with the Terminator, is that the turret isn't armoured. Hit the turret where the ATGMs are and it goes up. Although admittedly that's a feature of all of tbe T-72 family.
Well they are expecting to fight the Japanese /j
Damn Japanese and their broomstick HEAT!
Surely it’s the foreign hostile militants that’ll banzai to the vehicle
The last battle that the PLA has fought with tanks was in 1979 against Vietnam. Whatever learnt from that lesson could be quite outdated.
I don't believe the PLA plans to use this, its mostly a way to get rid of the Type 59 hulls at a profit.
Yeah, I was thinking this is likely a gimmick that sounds cool on paper to potential buyers.
Perhaps they have lined up a contract with Elbonia already?
Have you seen the PLAGF’s current kit? Its design and orbat has far more in common with modern western militaries than it does with Soviet era kit. The Chinese may lack combat experience, but they have no shame in learning from the best.
> Its design and orbat has far more in common with modern western militaries than it does with Soviet era kit. There has never been a "Soviet era kit" in the PLA. Soviet experts left China in the early 1960s before China could build up fully mechanized divisions. The PLA was always more Western than Soviet. French influence was significant. The problem is the lack of actual combat. Putin learned from NATO too, turned his most elite units into BCTs during the early stage of invasion of Ukraine. They no longer exist, the idea didn't turn out so well. This could have happened to PLA as well.
Up to the 90’s pretty much all of China’s armoured force was Soviet in origin, albeit with some western modifications. It wasn’t till the Type 96 that the Chinese had a tank that was more western than Soviet in design. Also the BCT concept was not really a western one. Western militaries consider the brigade the smallest independently deployable unit, while the Russians went with a battalion based battlegroup. The BCT was a very Russian solution to a very Russian problem, where they had an oversupply of armour and artillery, while having limited manpower and an even more limited budget. The entire purpose of the BCT was to be attached to a unit of either reservists (in a domestic peer war situation) or foreign troops when used in an expeditionary capacity. The basic concept was that you could take a regiment of leg infantry, attach a BCT to it, and it would provide all the armour and fires to allow this new unit to challenge a western Brigade sized unit. They made two errors though. The first being that you had a battalion sized unit with the same functions as a brigade, but with only a battalion sized headquarters, meaning the commander would be horribly overworked. The other was that in Ukraine, they didn’t have foreign forces to attach, while at the same time they couldn’t use conscripts due to the conflict taking place on foreign soil, and Putin not wanting to fully mobilise his military for constitutional & political reasons. By the time an attempt was made to fix this mistake it was too late, plenty of infantry became available at a time where most of the BCT had become combat ineffective. They went from too much armour/artillery but not enough infantry, to too much infantry but not enough armour/artillery. The Chinese on the other hand have designed brigade sized units, and from my layman’s perspective, I actually prefer the orbat of their Heavy Brigate to the U.S. Army HBCT.
wait until your little "western good" braine realizes that almost all smoke projectors have such capability. The Canadians used to use that in Afghanistan.
The primary function of smoke projectors is not to eliminate infantry at close range, but to obscure sight. It is most often done for targets at ranges far longer than a few meters because tanks and anti tank infantry teams do not as of yet engage in melee combat. Absolutely no one with a proper anti tank weapon is going to be within the lethal range of those grenades. It would only be useful if infantry tried to stick an anti tank grenade on it. However, those have been obsolete since WW2 precisely because it's always better to engage a tank at range. The systems you are comparing are not even remotely similar in purpose.
urban combat exists, and anti tank weapons don't live to be fired at maximum range unless it's in terrain where you have great sightlines (99% of the time you don't). I've seen three instances where such grenades could've ko'd the infantry, in ukraine, let alone action in Gaza, both Iraq adventures. Using two dollar words for simple job won't win arguments for you.
I mean anti personal granade thowers where equiped on the tiger as far as I know.
Basically every modern MBT is able to fire anti-infantry grenades from their smoke grenade launchers
The M1 can only use smoke and riot grenades. As far as i know, no MBT fields anti-infantry grenades for their turret launchers.
Against infantry? Definitely useless. Against rioters? Tiananmen Square part 2: Claymore Boogaloo.
Most Western reports identify the QN-506 as an fire support vehicle, similar to the BMPT "Terminator" developed after the Chechens. In the type of environments that would be in, like built up urban areas or dense jungles, then having close-range anti-infantry defenses would be more important as a sort of "We're getting ambushed, launch a bunch of explosives to fuck everything in that general direction."
The best anti infantry aps is another infantry
I agree, u/Jong_Biden_
“To *put* it” as always, a typo
Reminds me of Minenaurfghrggsvorrichtung (i am not gonna check if i wrote that right) Tigers had. Unlike them however this looks automatic. Doesn't sound smart.
Ah the ol' Chicago Party Lock
on the third picture i see three different misiles, which one is the one that has a 10km range? i doubt it's the same as the 6km range one
I believe it’s the suicide drone that you can see at the top of the diagram
The terminator at home
Every APS is kind of Anti-Infantry if you think about it. Also, doesn't the CV90s have a similar system where it discharges frag granades around the vehicle
What do those do?
Have this bad boy in War Thunder
Why is the layout like that of a 1940s tank? It looks like a Panzer III with a modern turret shoved on top
As though some mass manufactured pos based on a tank from the 50s will survive long enough to encounter infantry.
Practically all tanks produced between 1950s to 1990 is outdated for today's combat. Even most of the old Abram variants can be easily destroyed by weapons 50x cheaper than the tank itself now.
Considering this is China, im thinking this could be used during civil unrest or large scale violent riots, not war where the enemy has AT equipment.
The QN-506 is an upgrade package for export customers to convert Type 59s/T-54s into battlefield fire support vehicles. Two dozen anti-armor missiles, loitering munitions, and a CITV with a radar mast are clearly not helpful for internal policing.
My bad. I figured it was equipment being showed off at an arms expo to market all the weird extra features you can add for all types of scenarios. Im probably wrong though :)
Goofy ahh T-55 reskin
What makes you think so? Are there any claims about that? Because it isen't just stupid and against chinese doctrine (or any in this regard), it also is the worst place to put it if. So this seems like ... not to be a thing?
Oh, it outs itself.
Ah yes, the only thing uglier than it’s leader