Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Chinese Systems videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LoJXFBUYN75biwfUhMq1osE Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LpFkS9hH3KD9uTEKBDVQZRp
Please add more content about the Chinese military because it is very rarely discussed, most of what is discussed is only about the NATO and Russian military, so in-depth Chinese military content is really very valuable.
I'm sure people would love to see more info about Chinese military weaponry, gear, vehicles, tanks, fighters, tec. Problem is most of it is difficult to find and obtain given heavy censorship and information control from the CCP. Not to mention the difficulty of translating any Chinese info or intel sources to English and other lingua franca languages like French and Spanish
@@worldwanderer91 this is often the likeliest reason, any info on Chinese AFVs either can only be obtained through state-controlled media or foreign operators.
@@novaskies5538 I couldn’t access Chinese internet and my ability to read Chinese is dubious at best and unable at worst. Besides the information on the vehicles are also highly censored in China so I couldn’t just take the numbers as fact, the Chinese government has every incentive to downplay foreign vehicles while praising their own.
I think it's purpose is for fire support rather than combating mbt. They can escort the infantry and take care any obstacles on the way. Therefore it suit for African countries where their adversaries was only insurgency. Why bought expensive and sophisticated toys if the simplest one can do the job done.
I think Chinese AFVs are pretty decent but the reason why some of their stuff get sales is because they often have no to little strings attached and at an affordable price. The Chinese government subsidized its military industry quite substantially with cheap materials and direct subsidies to manufacturers to reduce the cost of equipment.
@@jussi8111 every military equipment that China produces is from a state-owned entity like Norinco which they subsidize heavily. It may look cheap on the price tag but China sold them usually at a loss or break even to the Chinese economy, they do this to infiltrate the market for low cost AFVs so they could create future customers who would be dependent on China for military hardware. This method works in the short term but it disincentivized growth and innovation as Norinco has no incentive to innovate so they could make a profit like Lockheed Martin does, that means China would just be stuck playing catchup to the United States or resorting to espionage which could damage the Chinese technological growth in the military sector even further.
@@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn i dont think the off the shelf bolt that normally would cost at max 1 dollar breaks any more than the literally same bolt with a 1000 times the price tag just cus its being sold to the military
@@dannyzero692 What subsidy. You must have been brainwashed by the West. Northern Industry is a state-owned enterprise, and the equipment sold to the People's Liberation Army does not consider any profit. Plus, artificial materials are cheap. It is reasonable for equipment of the same quality to be 3-5 times cheaper than in the West. Western military industrial enterprises are private enterprises that aim to make money. For the same screw, the cost of labor and materials in China is $1, and the cost of transportation in China is $1. It costs $2 to produce a screw in the United States, but the United States also adds $500 in profit. Do you understand? clown?
another thing to mention here, PTL-02 is a artillery weapon, it is operated by brigade artillery campany, the later replace of PTL-02 is AFT-10 heavy antitank missile loaded on different chassis, however ZTL-11 is a armored weapon, it is used by tank company of brigade, it is used as wheeled light tank, it is a direct replace of legacy type 59/62/69/88 tank in older tank division, it will be replaced by either another wheeled tank or ZTQ-15 light tank in the future the concept of PTL, or wheeled assault gun, has been proven to be less survivallblity
Z means armored weapon, ZSL92 which use same chassis of PTL-02, is consider to be a APC, in fact, ZSL is wheeled APC, Soviet BTR also means wheeled APC in Russian in 90s, PLA start to replace all APC with IFV, the ZSL92 was just in the middle, and ZSL92 is also the last APC of PLA the ZBL-08 is wheeled IFV, and the warrior 4x4 high mobility vehicle which more like a APC, are now being equiped with a remote control little turret, which makes it feels more and more like a little IFV the age of APC is gone😢
one thing to mention here shell of type 86 smoothbore gun is much larger than British L7 105, and shells of Chinese type 94 105 cannon is a bit larger than those on type 86 Chinese domestic used 105 tank cannon, aka type 94 105mm/L60 tank cannon, can not use NATO standard ammo, WMA301 is equipped with Chinese produced NATO standard M68 105 barrel
Why Russia doesn't use wheeled tank destroyers tho ? They already tested the Centauro till 2014 & liked it. Also they can ask the Cubans & Chinese for help .
I think that has mostly to do with concrete heads in the Russian "management" of the army, who still are stuck in old Soviet ways. I might be wrong, but it's what comes to mind first imo
Old T-62s are enough to fill those gap. The russian probably think why do they need to design and buy a new wheeled assault gun when they already have something that is reliable and cheap as T-62 or T-55 that could deal with the same prblem?
@@Spicysauced The old soviets also tested for the 2S14 Zhalo S . problem was they neither could figure out out to fit a large caliber gun like 125mm on a wheeled platform , unlike the Italians & South Africans , who managed to strap their Centauros & Rooikats with 120mm & successfully test them ( South Africa could mass produce them tho ) .
Russia doesnt need wheeled tank destroyers as nations who use wheeled platforms most likely have to rely on their roads and bridges to transport heavy equipment. Russia relies on its rail network instead so they would get more bang for their buck by staying with a more effective tracked chassis. Japan developed the Type 16 because it cant carry the Type 10 and Type 90 across all the bridges in Japan. South Africa developed the Rooikat because aside from there being barely any rail network in South Africa, the environmental conditions in South Africa allow the ground to remain dry and solid for the most part but it cannot support that much weight so they went for wheeled tanks to limit the ground pressure. Italy developed the Centauro because of similar reasons with Japan, not all the bridges in Italy can support the weight of the Ariete.
@@SpicysaucedPlus Russia under Putin is under financial difficulty. Armata is not mass-produced yet, Su-57 development is not fully finished, etc. And now China is taking over Russia's arms sales, making Russia's arm industry situation even more difficult.
It baffles me that China made an export variant that has ammunition compatibility with the rest of its military but doesn’t have the same ability with its domestic variant. It’s the same thing how Chinese export tanks have better side protection than their own vehicles. I’ve never seen a domestic Chinese tank with side ERA, but export tanks like VT-5 have been seen with their entire sides covered. I get that they haven’t actually used these tanks in a conflict so there’s no pressing need, but not a single domestic example in the public eye is just so strange.
I actually like this platform. It's decent, low cost, a 6*6. And it'll do fine against a Rooikat. Where it won't beat the Rooikat though, mine resistance.
Em essência, um EE-11 Urutu brasileiro mas o fabricante e o governo decidiram colocar esforço no desenvolvimento da plataforma e nas vendas... por que a indústria não dá mais atenção ao simples e em quantidade mas com utilidade hoje em dia?
Brazil has never understand the concept of armored assault, a cannon on a truck chassis is not a assault gun at all, to be more frankly, all southern American army can never real fight, except Cuba Brazil used to have several battle ship, but even in WWI, Brazil army has proven not suitable for real fight southern American nations should first understand what is a nation and how to make a nation, than talk about the army to be more honest, i do not think most nations of the world is real nation
The amount of recoil when they fire is atrocious. I can’t see the suspension lasting very long. Watch a video of the AMX-10RC firing and the difference between Western and Chinese equipment will become apparent. Chinese equipment now looks the part, but underneath it’s the same old substandard quality.
@@tetraxis3011 there is VAB VTT variant with 6x6, mainly exported. Used by countries like Morocco and later Indonesia (produced under license "Pindad Anoa")
God that weapons sway after firing, that thing is not stable AT ALL. The Japanese Type 16 has a 105 and even that doesnt sway as much as this. They shouldve just made it longer and shorter so that it wont fucking go attempt a backflip every firing. This is what happens when you insist on keeping a chassis built for IFVs and turn it into a Gun Carrier.
We've seen what drones do to much better than these vehicles but it's still worth while having boots and vehicles on the ground. Drones would likely target higher value vehicles than these and most of the African neighbours won't have fleets of drones
@@sm_91 The final occupation still requires the army. Only China can invest over 20 million suicide drones in a war. The army will not disappear. The suicide drones on the Russia Ukraine battlefield are mostly Chinese products or assembled with Chinese parts. Both sides have bypassed China's drone export sanctions.
Hogwash. No Stab, no firing on the move, next to no off road capability with only 6 wheels. Complete POS. 7.62 will easily penetrate all sides. A very poor copy of the Canadian AVGP type Cougar.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D
Please click the link to watch our other Chinese Systems videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LoJXFBUYN75biwfUhMq1osE
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LpFkS9hH3KD9uTEKBDVQZRp
"conquered the Africa" Click bait tittle much?
Please add more content about the Chinese military because it is very rarely discussed, most of what is discussed is only about the NATO and Russian military, so in-depth Chinese military content is really very valuable.
I'm sure people would love to see more info about Chinese military weaponry, gear, vehicles, tanks, fighters, tec. Problem is most of it is difficult to find and obtain given heavy censorship and information control from the CCP. Not to mention the difficulty of translating any Chinese info or intel sources to English and other lingua franca languages like French and Spanish
@@worldwanderer91 this is often the likeliest reason, any info on Chinese AFVs either can only be obtained through state-controlled media or foreign operators.
@@dannyzero692 obviously you dont read chinese bc plenty of military fan boys in china
It's because chinese stuff hasn't been used in war very much, because they haven't been in war much..
@@novaskies5538 I couldn’t access Chinese internet and my ability to read Chinese is dubious at best and unable at worst. Besides the information on the vehicles are also highly censored in China so I couldn’t just take the numbers as fact, the Chinese government has every incentive to downplay foreign vehicles while praising their own.
The assaulter. They finally named a military vehicle after Diddy
they renamed the breach "the Hart"
I think it's purpose is for fire support rather than combating mbt. They can escort the infantry and take care any obstacles on the way. Therefore it suit for African countries where their adversaries was only insurgency. Why bought expensive and sophisticated toys if the simplest one can do the job done.
I think Chinese AFVs are pretty decent but the reason why some of their stuff get sales is because they often have no to little strings attached and at an affordable price. The Chinese government subsidized its military industry quite substantially with cheap materials and direct subsidies to manufacturers to reduce the cost of equipment.
what??? not making a single bolt cost 10k dollars makes equipment affordable? i sure know which military could learn from this
@@jussi8111just don’t expect the vehicles to work
@@jussi8111 every military equipment that China produces is from a state-owned entity like Norinco which they subsidize heavily.
It may look cheap on the price tag but China sold them usually at a loss or break even to the Chinese economy, they do this to infiltrate the market for low cost AFVs so they could create future customers who would be dependent on China for military hardware.
This method works in the short term but it disincentivized growth and innovation as Norinco has no incentive to innovate so they could make a profit like Lockheed Martin does, that means China would just be stuck playing catchup to the United States or resorting to espionage which could damage the Chinese technological growth in the military sector even further.
@@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn i dont think the off the shelf bolt that normally would cost at max 1 dollar breaks any more than the literally same bolt with a 1000 times the price tag just cus its being sold to the military
@@dannyzero692 What subsidy. You must have been brainwashed by the West. Northern Industry is a state-owned enterprise, and the equipment sold to the People's Liberation Army does not consider any profit. Plus, artificial materials are cheap. It is reasonable for equipment of the same quality to be 3-5 times cheaper than in the West. Western military industrial enterprises are private enterprises that aim to make money. For the same screw, the cost of labor and materials in China is $1, and the cost of transportation in China is $1. It costs $2 to produce a screw in the United States, but the United States also adds $500 in profit. Do you understand? clown?
another thing to mention here, PTL-02 is a artillery weapon, it is operated by brigade artillery campany, the later replace of PTL-02 is AFT-10 heavy antitank missile loaded on different chassis, however ZTL-11 is a armored weapon, it is used by tank company of brigade, it is used as wheeled light tank, it is a direct replace of legacy type 59/62/69/88 tank in older tank division, it will be replaced by either another wheeled tank or ZTQ-15 light tank in the future
the concept of PTL, or wheeled assault gun, has been proven to be less survivallblity
Z means armored weapon, ZSL92 which use same chassis of PTL-02, is consider to be a APC, in fact, ZSL is wheeled APC, Soviet BTR also means wheeled APC in Russian
in 90s, PLA start to replace all APC with IFV, the ZSL92 was just in the middle, and ZSL92 is also the last APC of PLA
the ZBL-08 is wheeled IFV, and the warrior 4x4 high mobility vehicle which more like a APC, are now being equiped with a remote control little turret, which makes it feels more and more like a little IFV
the age of APC is gone😢
One of my favorite Wheeled Infantry mobile gun platforms .
one thing to mention here
shell of type 86 smoothbore gun is much larger than British L7 105, and shells of Chinese type 94 105 cannon is a bit larger than those on type 86
Chinese domestic used 105 tank cannon, aka type 94 105mm/L60 tank cannon, can not use NATO standard ammo, WMA301 is equipped with Chinese produced NATO standard M68 105 barrel
Excellent report. Internal threats and terrorism, and money money says it all. Thank you.
Excellent presentation. You used Gary Busey's quote and I laughed again.
6:04 those cars look kinda dope
Do they battle proven?
Why Russia doesn't use wheeled tank destroyers tho ? They already tested the Centauro till 2014 & liked it. Also they can ask the Cubans & Chinese for help .
I think that has mostly to do with concrete heads in the Russian "management" of the army, who still are stuck in old Soviet ways. I might be wrong, but it's what comes to mind first imo
Old T-62s are enough to fill those gap. The russian probably think why do they need to design and buy a new wheeled assault gun when they already have something that is reliable and cheap as T-62 or T-55 that could deal with the same prblem?
@@Spicysauced The old soviets also tested for the 2S14 Zhalo S . problem was they neither could figure out out to fit a large caliber gun like 125mm on a wheeled platform , unlike the Italians & South Africans , who managed to strap their Centauros & Rooikats with 120mm & successfully test them ( South Africa could mass produce them tho ) .
Russia doesnt need wheeled tank destroyers as nations who use wheeled platforms most likely have to rely on their roads and bridges to transport heavy equipment. Russia relies on its rail network instead so they would get more bang for their buck by staying with a more effective tracked chassis.
Japan developed the Type 16 because it cant carry the Type 10 and Type 90 across all the bridges in Japan. South Africa developed the Rooikat because aside from there being barely any rail network in South Africa, the environmental conditions in South Africa allow the ground to remain dry and solid for the most part but it cannot support that much weight so they went for wheeled tanks to limit the ground pressure. Italy developed the Centauro because of similar reasons with Japan, not all the bridges in Italy can support the weight of the Ariete.
@@SpicysaucedPlus Russia under Putin is under financial difficulty. Armata is not mass-produced yet, Su-57 development is not fully finished, etc. And now China is taking over Russia's arms sales, making Russia's arm industry situation even more difficult.
good enough and cheap enough, could be upgraded
It baffles me that China made an export variant that has ammunition compatibility with the rest of its military but doesn’t have the same ability with its domestic variant. It’s the same thing how Chinese export tanks have better side protection than their own vehicles. I’ve never seen a domestic Chinese tank with side ERA, but export tanks like VT-5 have been seen with their entire sides covered. I get that they haven’t actually used these tanks in a conflict so there’s no pressing need, but not a single domestic example in the public eye is just so strange.
中国的坦克战争，会用大规模集群远程设计来抵消侧面薄弱。其它小国不具备这种实力。
@@bkbbb-ml1pfdumb strategy i think, unless you are fighting a complete inept enemy then you are f'ed
I actually like this platform. It's decent, low cost, a 6*6. And it'll do fine against a Rooikat.
Where it won't beat the Rooikat though, mine resistance.
Please add more Chinese vehicle
Em essência, um EE-11 Urutu brasileiro mas o fabricante e o governo decidiram colocar esforço no desenvolvimento da plataforma e nas vendas... por que a indústria não dá mais atenção ao simples e em quantidade mas com utilidade hoje em dia?
Brazil has never understand the concept of armored assault, a cannon on a truck chassis is not a assault gun at all, to be more frankly, all southern American army can never real fight, except Cuba
Brazil used to have several battle ship, but even in WWI, Brazil army has proven not suitable for real fight
southern American nations should first understand what is a nation and how to make a nation, than talk about the army
to be more honest, i do not think most nations of the world is real nation
The Africa has been conquered!
The amount of recoil when they fire is atrocious. I can’t see the suspension lasting very long. Watch a video of the AMX-10RC firing and the difference between Western and Chinese equipment will become apparent. Chinese equipment now looks the part, but underneath it’s the same old substandard quality.
Even the Centauro 2, with a much more powerful 120mm cannon, doesn’t rock as much as this vehicle does when it fires.
Dakillzor AI?? 🤔
well when china gives you free gear whos gonna be unhappy lol
In the page holder for this title, it looks like it is made of Legos.
B2 centauro >>>>>>>>> chinese wheeled tanks
Cheap (Chinese) is expensive
Can this take out modern tanks?
copying the VAB so blatantly though...
Yup. This is clearly a copy of Renault VAB & Finnish Sisu
VAB is not a 6x6
@@tetraxis3011 there is VAB VTT variant with 6x6, mainly exported. Used by countries like Morocco and later Indonesia (produced under license "Pindad Anoa")
@@Cyan_Nightingale Oh. Well, do consider that there is only so many ways to make an amphibious light armored vehicle. Some are bound to look similar
@@tetraxis3011 A copy is still a copy. Other country like Germany built its own 6x6 (TPz Fuchs) yet didn't look similar to Renault VAB (as WZ551 does)
Buying chinese gun is a death trap 😂
They are in debt anyway
China Weapons copy Russian same things but Russian did far more better
God that weapons sway after firing, that thing is not stable AT ALL. The Japanese Type 16 has a 105 and even that doesnt sway as much as this. They shouldve just made it longer and shorter so that it wont fucking go attempt a backflip every firing. This is what happens when you insist on keeping a chassis built for IFVs and turn it into a Gun Carrier.
Well all these are waste ..we have seen what drones can do to these vehicles .. better concentrate on how to eliminate the drone threat
Then buy Chinese drones. Chinese drones account for 90% of the world's production
@@SpruceWood-NEG it's better option than to maintaine these junk vehicles getting blown by drones in battlefield
We've seen what drones do to much better than these vehicles but it's still worth while having boots and vehicles on the ground. Drones would likely target higher value vehicles than these and most of the African neighbours won't have fleets of drones
@@sm_91 The final occupation still requires the army. Only China can invest over 20 million suicide drones in a war. The army will not disappear. The suicide drones on the Russia Ukraine battlefield are mostly Chinese products or assembled with Chinese parts. Both sides have bypassed China's drone export sanctions.
Hogwash. No Stab, no firing on the move, next to no off road capability with only 6 wheels. Complete POS. 7.62 will easily penetrate all sides. A very poor copy of the Canadian AVGP type Cougar.
Cope. Not even similar to the Canadian vehicle
@@tetraxis3011 Almost the exact same except for the turret. So ya.
@@gavincross2902lol the JP vids in the playlist 😂. Greater Punjab must be fun nowadays