Chinese Type 05 Amphibious Assault Family

We’ve frequently noted that the US amphibious doctrine cannot be executed for a variety of reasons.  It’s pure fantasy.  China, on the other hand, is building a very capable and credible amphibious assault capability and is seemingly leaping right over the obstacles that have plagued the US. 

One example of a problem that has stymied the US is as basic as amphibious vehicles themselves.  Sure, we have the AAV/ACV but it’s a landing craft that, once landed, becomes a poor man’s Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) of sorts.  It has no significant firepower and little armor.  It’s not a combat vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.

The Marines played around with a high speed Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) for many years before finally admitting failure and cancelling the program.

We’re left, currently, with an AAV which is slow, has no significant firepower, is limited to a few miles of effective swimming range, and lacks significant armor.

Leaping right over these problems, the Chinese have developed and are fielding a family of amphibious vehicles that put what we have to shame.  The vehicle family is the Type 05 which is made up of multiple, specialized variants all based on the common Type 05 chassis. 

Characteristics common to all the variants include:

• Planing hull powered by two water jets
• Diesel engine with 1475 hp water / 550 hp land
• 15 kts (28 km/h) water / 40 mph (65 km/h) land
• Hydraulic actuated, hinged bow plane that deploys out from the vehicle to create a low drag, hydrodynamic effect for high speed; steering is accomplished via water jets and transom flaps
• Standard hull armor provides (1):

• protection at the front against 12.7 mm AP round up to 100 m
• protection at the sides against 7.62 mm AP rounds
• protection at the rear against 7.62 mm AP rounds

Production began in 2006.  Production numbers are difficult to come by but estimates suggest 200+ vehicles deliver as of 2016.  The breakdown of variant types is unknown.

Let’s take a bit closer look at the major variants.

ZBD-05 Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle

This is essentially an amphibious Bradley and gives the Chinese the ability to land a mechanized, semi-armored infantry force with mobility and serious firepower and anti-tank capability.

• Front engine,  rear passenger compartment
• 30 mm turret;  300 rds/min
• HJ-73C Anti-tank guided missile launcher; 2x single rail launchers each side of the turret
• 7.62 mm co-axial gun
• Crew of 3
• 7-8 troops (reports vary with some suggesting a carrying capacity of 10 troops)
• 2x 4-barrel smoke grenade launchers
• Rear troop door
• 58,422 lb (26,500 kg)
• Rated for Sea State 4 (2)

ZBD-05 Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle

ZTD-05 Amphibious Tank

This gives China an initial assault wave, heavy firepower vehicle that is very similar in concept to the US WWII LVT(A)-4 amphibious tank.  The US found this type of vehicle to be absolutely essential for amphibious assaults and I see no reason why the requirement has changed today.  In fact, given the absence of naval gun support, an initial wave heavy firepower vehicle is even more essential.

• Front engine,  rear passenger compartment
• 105 mm low recoil, stabilized, rifled gun

• armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS)
• high explosive (HE)
• high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds
• 105mm laser beam riding anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM); indigenous version of the Russian 9M117 Bastion anti-tank missile

• Capable of firing at sea
• 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on the turret
• 7.62 mm co-axial machine gun
• 2x 4-barrel smoke grenade launchers
• Turret face armored against 25 mm (3)
• Crew of 4

ZTD-05 Amphibious Tank

ZTD-05 Amphibious Tank

Type 05 Command Vehicle

Type 05 Recovery Vehicle

Summary

Consider what this family of amphibious vehicles gives China.  It provides a complete package of amphibious capabilities ranging from heavy firepower (105 mm tank gun) to lethal mechanized infantry (IFV with 30 mm and anti-tank missiles) and including command and control and vehicle recovery – all able to swim ashore IN THE INITIAL WAVE.  The US Marines have nothing comparable although they have publicly expressed a desire for a 30 mm turreted variant of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) as well as command and control and recovery variants.  At the moment, however, the Marines have only the old AAV while China is building and deploying the entire family of vehicles.  Perhaps it's time to start copying Chinese assets like they've been copying so many of ours?

_____________________________________

(1)Defense Updates blog, “Chinese Amphibious Type 05 / ZBD05 / ZTD05 Family of IFV / AAV”, 8-Jan-2013,

https://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2013/01/chinese-amphibious-type-05-zbd05-ztd05.html

(2)https://www.janes.com/images/assets/045/88045/Red_seas_Chinas_advancing_amphibious_force_capabilities.pdf

(3)http://ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAAV.html

Landing Craft And Firepower

It is foolish to ignore the lessons of history - those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it - and even more foolish to ignore the lessons when those lessons were learned in combat and paid for in blood.  Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we’re doing, right now, as regards landing craft.

Let’s take a look at our current amphibious assault landing craft capability and then compare it to what we had and how we executed assaults in WWII and see what the trends are and what lessons we’ve learned or forgotten.

Broadly speaking, today’s amphibious assault calls for an initial wave of infantry delivered via Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV).  The initial wave consists of infantry with no firepower beyond machine guns.  Once the initial wave has secured a “safe” beachhead, a follow on wave of troops, vehicles, artillery, tanks, and supplies will be delivered via high speed, air cushioned landing craft (LCAC) and LCU’s. 

One of the significant differences between WWII and now is that the military commanders of WWII understood the importance of firepower in the initial wave and constantly sought better means of delivering it.  Today, we’ve abandoned any pretense of attempting to deliver firepower with the initial wave.  Thus, the initial assault will likely wind up pitting our light infantry, with no significant firepower, against enemy armor and artillery, possibly supported by fortifications and larger guns, and backed up by long range rockets and cruise/ballistic missiles.  This will be a significant mismatch.

The initial wave will have no firepower and no rocket, artillery, mortar, and missile defense (C-RAM). 

In WWII, the main source of firepower during the assault was naval gunfire.  The initial assault force was supported by massive battleship, cruiser, and destroyer gunfire.  Naval gunfire provided days of pre-assault bombardment, suppressive fire as the initial assault waves were landing, and post-assault fire support as additional targets were identified.  Today, our naval gunfire is limited to a single 5” gun per Burke and, worse, even that meager level of gunfire has been rendered moot by our amphibious assault doctrine which calls for ships to stand 25-50+ miles off shore, well beyond the range of our 5” guns.  Thus, today’s initial assault force will not only have no heavy weapons or armor, they will have no naval gunfire support.  That means no pre-assault bombardment, no suppressive fire on landing, and no post-assault fire support.  This simply makes a bad situation worse and is a recipe for defeat.

Close Air Support (CAS - using the term generically) will only be sporadically available against a peer opponent that will likely either own the skies or contest the skies, making for an aerial no-man’s-land in which neither side can muster any useful or sustained CAS.  Helicopters will die a quick death from ubiquitous man-portable surface to air missiles.

Setting aside aerial and naval gun support issues, the main weakness of the overall assault concept is that the follow on wave is only viable and survivable in a low/no threat environment.  Marine/Navy doctrine recognizes that the LCAC’s and LCU’s are large, slow, vulnerable targets that cannot survive a contested landing.  The implied doctrinal assumption is that the initial wave will be sufficient to secure a “safe” landing area for the LCAC’s and LCU’s.  If this does not happen, and happen with sufficient speed, the assault commander will be faced with the no-win choice of not reinforcing and resupplying the initial wave or attempting to reinforce and resupply using landing craft that are unsuited for contested landings and are likely to incur massive losses which would incapacitate our follow on supply efforts.

Let’s return to consideration of the initial wave landing craft, the AAV.  The major problem with the AAV is that it is incapable of executing the Navy/Marine’s doctrinal assault concept of starting the assault from 25-50+ nm offshore.  The AAV is only capable of swimming around two or three miles.  Beyond that, the troops will become incapacitated due to seasickness.  This, however, is a mismatch between doctrine and equipment and, for the purposes of this discussion, we’ll largely ignore the issue (just as the Marines/Navy have been doing!!!).

On the plus side, today’s AAV is actually adequate, as far as dispersal of risk, in getting troops ashore.  The AAV carries around 20 troops.  The problem with the AAV is that it is a one-use vehicle.  It swims ashore and stays ashore where it transitions to a kind of poor man’s Armored Personnel Carrier (APC).  There is no option for it to return to the amphibious ships for more troops or supplies.  Thus, the follow on waves are strictly dependent on LCAC’s and LCU’s.  If the beach has been secured, this is fine.  However, if the beach is not secured then the LCAC/LCU will be entering a contested combat zone for which they are not survivable, according to the Marines/Navy themselves.

So, we seem to be at an impasse.  An initial assault wave of AAVs simply lacks the firepower to definitively secure the beachhead which means the follow on firepower can’t be delivered.  We have a classic Catch-22, here.  We can’t secure the beachhead without firepower but the only way to get firepower is to secure the beachhead.

How can we get the firepower we need in the initial wave?  There are two ways to go about it.

• Develop small, reusable landing craft capable of delivering a single tank, artillery piece, or heavy equipment/vehicle.


• Develop an amphibious tank.

Tank Landing Craft

For the initial wave, we need to bring tanks and heavy vehicles/artillery ashore in individual landing craft as opposed to, say, a large LST.  The initial risk is too great for an LST and we would risk too many tank losses from a disabled LST.

There are some landing/transport craft available that somewhat meet the need to transport a single tank but they don’t really meet all the requirements.

Here are some characteristics of an ideal tank landing craft:

• Sized for a single tank or heavy vehicle/artillery and no more


• Two-way, reusable.  The assumption that we’ll be able to use LCACs and LCUs after the first wave is likely to be incorrect.  The beach will, quite likely, still be contested and inappropriate for the LCACs and LCUs.  


• Should ride low in the water and present as flat a topside as possible with as much armor as possible (think Russian Hind helo in the water).  Such an arrangement would present little target area and what there is would be so slanted, relative to the incoming round’s trajectory, as to greatly negate incoming rounds.  The craft should be able to rise for unloading as it beaches, of course.  


• As high a speed as reasonably possible.


• Active protection similar to the Israeli tank mounted Trophy system

We Need A Tank Version Of The Higgins Boat

Amphibious Tank

WWII demonstrated conclusively that tanks or some form of heavy gun must go ashore with the initial wave.  The history of WWII landings in the Pacific was a steady movement towards ways to get heavier firepower (tanks) ashore in the initial wave.  It was found that getting actual tanks ashore was a very difficult task and, as a stopgap measure, the amphibious Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) was developed and armed with heavy firepower.  Specifically, the armored versions, the LVT(A), were fitted with various guns and weapons including a 75mm howitzer (the M8 Gun Motor Carriage turret), 0.30 and 0.50 machine guns,  a turret mounted 37mm M6 anti-tank gun, and Ronson flamethrowers. 

LVT(A) Amphibious Light Tank

Thus, an amphibious light tank, the LVT(A) was created that, while lacking in armor, provided the immediate heavy firepower needed to defeat infantry, obstacles, and fortifications.  Being tracked, it was able to climb over the ubiquitous coral reefs that sometimes stymied other landing craft.

Conceptually, as discussed, we need a landing craft that can carry a single tank to shore.  Failing that, we need a modern fire support LVT(A).  The Marine’s AAVs could possibly be modified to mount heavy guns, howitzers, and mortars.  I don’t know if it can be done but it’s a straightforward engineering exercise and ought to be doable – we did it in WWII so surely we can do it today.

Beyond that, we also need an amphibious anti-air defense vehicle and, again, a suitably modified AAV could provide AAW and C-RAM variants.

Of course, all of this discussion is pointless given the nonsensical 25-50+ mile standoff doctrine.  The maximum time troops can be in a landing craft is an hour, and that’s pushing it.  Any longer and the troops will be rendered combat incapable.  So, unless we can develop a first wave, infantry landing craft that can travel at 30-50 kts, the starting point must be moved back in to the horizon or closer.  The Marines have tried for decades to develop a high speed landing craft and failed miserably.  The conclusion is that the requisite technology is simply unattainable, at this time although, notably, the Chinese have developed a 15-17 knot amphibious light tank very similar to the WWII LVT(A).

China Training Hard

China is training hard.  Here's their amphibious tank firing from the water.

Chinese Type 05 Amphibious Tank 

From China Defense Blog

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2019/06/pla-unit-of-day-14th-combined-arms.html

If you were the defender, would you rather face the US Marine's AAV with a 0.50 cal machine gun or the Chinese ZTD-05 amphibious tank with a 105 mm gun, 12.7 mm gun, and 7.62 mm gun plus 105 mm laser guided anti-tank missiles?

We kick around the idea of an amphibious tank, though not very seriously, while the Chinese actually have built and deployed them.

WWII LVT(A) Amphibious Tank

In WWII, the military quickly realized that amphibious assaults would require efficient and effective means of getting men, machines, and supplies ashore.  More to the point, they quickly learned from bloody experience that they needed to get heavy firepower ashore in the initial wave and they needed to provide better protection for the assault troops than the open and unarmored Higgins boat, the iconic landing craft.  The solution to both needs, firepower and protection, was found in the Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) family of amphibious, armored vehicles.

I’d like to examine the armored firepower version, the LVT(A), of which there were several evolutionary variants.  The end result was the LVT(A)-4, essentially an amphibious light tank.  Take a look at the specifications.

LVT(A)-4 (1)

• Armament – M8 turret with 75 mm M3 howitzer or Canadian Ronson flamethrower plus 1x 0.50 cal machine gun or 3x 0.30 cal machine guns
• Armor – 6-38 mm
• Weight – 20 tons
• Speed – 20 mph land, 7.5 mph water
• Range – 150 miles land, 75 miles water
• Length – 7.95 m
• Engine – gasoline radial, 250 hp; 12.5 hp/ton

Around 1890 LVT(A)-4’s were built during the war and continued in service until the mid-1950’s.  They were first used in combat at Saipan in June 1944.  Being in the initial assault wave and then used at the front line of combat once ashore, the LVT(A)-4’s often experienced high loss rates.

LVT(A)-4

A few things jump out when looking at this vehicle.  First, the LVT has essentially the same specifications as today’s Marine Corps Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV).  That we have been unable to produce a significantly better vehicle in seventy some years is depressing and disturbing. 

For comparison, here are some specs on the AAV.

AAV (formerly LVTP-7)

• Armament – turret with Mk19 40 mm grenade launcher and M2 0.50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun
• Armor – 45 mm
• Weight – 29 tons
• Speed – 20 mph land, 8.2 mph water
• Range – 300 miles land, 20 miles water
• Length – 7.94 m
• Engine – diesel, 400 hp; 13.8 hp/ton

Now, before anyone starts pounding out replies disputing some specification, just relax.  The exact specs are all over the map depending on exactly which version of the AAV we’re talking about and which upgrades it’s had.  The point of this comparison is not to discuss exact specs but to note the lack of significant improvement since WWII.

The most notable aspect of the comparison lies in the armament.  The LVT(A) had a heavy 75 mm howitzer whereas the AAV has only machine guns and grenade launchers.  To be fair, today’s AAV is not intended as a “tank” whereas that was exactly the purpose of the LVT(A).  The AAV is simply an armored personnel carrier and is not meant to provide heavy firepower.

LVT(A)-4 at Okinawa

While today’s military continues to flounder around with the dilemma of firepower in the initial assault wave the WWII military solved the problem with a light amphibious assault tank.  Today, China has developed light amphibious assault tanks and the US military views that as cutting edge and a controversial concept.  Hey, it’s just reinventing the WWII wheel.

We also need to keep the role of a light amphibious tank firmly in mind.  It's role is not to stand toe-to-toe with main battle tanks - no light tank can prevail in such a match up.  The role of the amphibious light tank is to provide heavy infantry support with suppressing fire and to reduce enemy strongholds, fortifications, and emplacements.  Thus, an amphibious light tank does not need to be a water-going Abrams - though figuring how to get an Abrams ashore in the initial assault wave would be great!

LVT(A)-4 Providing Infantry Support

We lack any kind of significant firepower in the initial assault wave and the Navy has doctrinally stated that they will not risk ships close enough to shore to be able to use even the small 5” guns.  Airpower, against a peer, will be only sporadically available and, in any event, is unable to provide the sheer volume of sustained heavy firepower needed to support an assault. 

The only viable solution is to provide heavy firepower in the assault wave and the only way to do that is with a tank of some sort.  We would do well to consider the lesson of the WWII LVT(A)-4 as we continue to ponder our amphibious assault doctrine and operations.

___________________________________

(1)World War II Database,

http://ww2db.com/vehicle_spec.php?q=301