Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Militarysta

APC/IFV armor in details

Recommended Posts

Well known APC Rosomak in Afgan. version armour:

 

aLMMPEK.png

 

Orginally it was israeli but after that it was produced by polish company "Mikanit":

http://www.mikanit.com.pl/produkty/oslony-balistyczne.html

 

Now, we know patent draws and description:

 

Iy506vz.jpg

 

2AexCpl.jpg

 

 

Composition:

2 mm HHS + air + 6,7 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap + 3,5 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap  + 20 mm aluminium + 5 mm aluminium.

There is possibility that layout could be 4+3 (composite) and single composite layer can have up to 6mm thick and single HHS layer can have  4mm thickness. Layers can be separate up to 45mm.

 

Accoding to manufacurer this armour can protect against ATGM and RPG's up to 500mm RHA penetration.

 

Whole armour is combat proven in Afganistan - there are known some "Rosomak" whit 3x RPG's hits diretly in to this armour - no penetration at all, no engine damage. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serial (not uparmoured Rosomak) after RPG hit in hull side:

XD5Cb77.png

No KIA, suprise but no WIA too...

 

And serial APC Rosomak side hull armour:

 

OyzgmCO.png

 

slopped at 9@

Armour compositon from external side: 10mm Armox 500T plate+ air gap 75mm + 10mm Armox 500T plate + 8mm Armox 500T plate

 

Later in Afganistan almoust all Rosomak was uparmoured whit Mikanit armour for front hull and turret sides and whit RPG-net for hull sides. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Composition:

2 mm HHS + air + 6,7 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap + 3,5 mm HHS + 5 mm composite + 5 mm composite + 3,5 mm HHS + 35 mm air gap  + 20 mm aluminium + 5 mm aluminium.

There is possibility that layout could be 4+3 (composite) and single composite layer can have up to 6mm thick and single HHS layer can have  4mm thickness. Layers can be separate up to 45mm.

 

Accoding to manufacurer this armour can protect against ATGM and RPG's up to 500mm RHA penetration.

 

Whole armour is combat proven in Afganistan - there are known some "Rosomak" whit 3x RPG's hits diretly in to this armour - no penetration at all, no engine damage. 

 

 

What is the theory of how this armor is supposed to protect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

What is the theory of how this armor is supposed to protect?

 

It's probably simply NERA/NxRA. The composite might be something like Dyneema or another elastic liner material, which offfers better performance than rubber in one or the other way (lower density, higher bulging, doesn't get hard and losses its elasticity over the years). At the first moment 15 mm interlayer might look thick, but Dr. Manfred Held tested 20 mm thick Dyneema panels sandwiched between two 5 mm steel plates.

 

The high protection level is achieved by the slope. I don't know what this impact angle exactly is, but the frontal slope of the Patria AMV's upper front plate is less than 20° from the horizontal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UP

Yep, propably You have right.

 

Old Cenrex page:

http://cenrex.home.pl/polska/index.php/oslony-balistyczne/52-dopancerzenie

 

Give us a little details:

 

HhyGGQY.png

 

 

 

 

Osłona przedziału kierowcy (Aditiona Driver comparment armor)

  • 130 mm grubości (thickens)
  • 1.3 m² (area)
  • śr. waga 340 kg (1,3m²) (weight)
  • osłona: protection
    • level IV STANAG
    • RPG (głowica PG-7V)
  • odpowiednik 330mm RHA (only for armour module not hull included)
  • brak penetracji kadłuba właściwego (no penetration main armour)
  • pozwala zrezygnować z osłony siatkowej (could be RPGnet  withdrawn)
  • nie przesłania widoku kierowcy (good driver field of view)
  • odporna na zniszczenia
  • łatwa wymiana w warunkach polowych
  • kompozytowa – nie ceramiczna composite - NOT ceramics
  • odporna na  wiele trafień (multihit capabilities)

 

1evHYdI.png

 

 

RbU2kx4.png

 

PvGhtD9.png

 

 

 

Turret armour/ hull sides armour:

  • 40mm grubości (thickness)
  • 82 kg/m²
  • osłona: Level IV STANAG (14,5mm API)      
  • dodatkowa osłona montowana na pancerzu wieżyczki LEVEL II
  • przeciwdziała zniszczeniu wieżyczki
  • odporna na zniszczenia
  • łatwa wymiana w warunkach polowych
  • kompozytowa – ceramika, szkło, aluminium, aramid composite - cermics, glass, aluminium, aramid
  • odporna na  wiele trafień (multihit capabilities)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

It's probably simply NERA/NxRA. The composite might be something like Dyneema or another elastic liner material, which offfers better performance than rubber in one or the other way (lower density, higher bulging, doesn't get hard and losses its elasticity over the years). At the first moment 15 mm interlayer might look thick, but Dr. Manfred Held tested 20 mm thick Dyneema panels sandwiched between two 5 mm steel plates.

  

The high protection level is achieved by the slope. I don't know what this impact angle exactly is, but the frontal slope of the Patria AMV's upper front plate is less than 20° from the horizontal.

 

 

I could understand the concept behind the outer two layers.  Ricochet angle is partially a function of armor hardness, so having 2mm of HHS, an air gap and then another 7mm of HHS is probably an extremely effective configuration against HMG fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of completeness, here are some details about the CV90's armor:

 

Basic steel structure, armor of UDES 09 and Strf 90 armor:

 

 

 


BL7jFBA.jpgNyvUQM3.jpg

fyEi0wF.jpg
 

 

 

xalTTaZ.jpg

 

 

 


vT7kh14.jpgBewygal.png

txnSnr2.jpg

kT5PgPe.jpg

Df8a2hO.jpg

That's a Mk III hull IIRC
 

 

Never purchased MEXAS kit for the Strf 90 (a similiar kit was bought by Finland, Norway and Switzerland):

QLgk0Ln.jpg

 

On the Swiss Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030 Mk II), the MEXAS armor panels have a maximum thickness of 70 mm.

 

Armor measurements on the CV9035NL without add-on armor done by @Bronezhilet

 

 


abnQDIZ.jpggphbItf.jpg2NkMFtg.jpg3yyDFsu.jpgyJYBFIZ.jpg
 

 

 

CV9035 turret during production:

fv57MRj.jpg

(this seems to be just 20-30 mm thick steel, but it is often fitted with composite armor on top of that)

 

CV9035NL engine bay:

N5dhTot.jpg

 

CV9035NL add-on armor (SidePRO, RoofPRO and MinePRO from RUAG):

 

 


c5bAXd3.jpg

0rSTTxE.jpg

5pWqq58.jpg

qNmF82Q.jpg

 

BGtwAJM.jpg7VHPVMq.jpg

6p2w5SC.jpg
 

 

 

RoofPRO composition (thickness might be different depending on application):

ZJ1SMQf.jpg

 

Might post something regarding ASCOD, Boxer, Puma, BMP, etc. over the next days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it was the NL model. Sorry for that, I somehow brainfarted. I don't think they are identical, AFAIK they use armor from different suppliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

And some pictures of CV9030FIN side-skirt: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU

 

By the way, given the armor of modern IFV´s are guns like 35mm oerlikon capable of engaging them from the front or are they limited to side engagements? Same for engaging tanks, are Autocannons usefull for  engaging tanks from the side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

And some pictures of CV9030FIN side-skirt: https://imgur.com/a/O5dvZhU

 

By the way, given the armor of modern IFV´s are guns like 35mm oerlikon capable of engaging them from the front or are they limited to side engagements? Same for engaging tanks, are Autocannons usefull for  engaging tanks from the side?

 

Most NATO-member-made AFVs, especially for marketing, are made to meet a certain protection level described in STANAG 4569. It basically saves the vehicle manufacturers some of the time and money it takes to determine how much protection is required and where. 

So you will usually see designs that are made strictly to meet certain levels. The norm is level 6 on the front and level 4 on sides, plus level 4a/b vs mines as armor technology allows more weight savings. 

But some vehicles do deviate from these standards if the manufacturers are tasked with a requirement above NATO's. The Puma is one example of a vehicle that, as I understand, is marketed with a level 6 protection but can actually go somewhat higher, perhaps even 35mm at short range. Lynx KF41 almost definitely surpasses the STANAG 4569 levels in some areas, in its 50+ ton version.

 

Many MBTs are capable of shrugging off 35mm shells. I believe all can do so on the turret, while on the hull it would take for most tanks an applique if the tank isn't angled.

Leclercs and Leopards were built and sold with passive or the so-called semi-reactive armor that can both take such hits and survive consecutive strikes. Merkava tanks are built since early versions with high protection to the sides, and Abrams tanks pack multi-layered ERA on the sides that is capable of defeating such shells, at the cost of survivability of the armor.

Ariete is an odd one. On one hand, I remember reading it uses large chunks of RAFAEL's ERA, but I don't know how much of the applique is ERA, or whether I read it wrong and it's passive/semi-reactive armor and not ERA. Either way, count it in as a tank that can at least take a couple shots of 35mm.

T-14 seems to be packing a lot of passive and ERA on the sides, so the chances may not be all too great even after you pass the ERA, as the side skirts may have some passive armor behind the ERA plates.

 

So overall, you wouldn't gain much from shooting volleys of 35mm at the sides of modern MBTs.

But what is 99% sure is that no IFV will ever engage an MBT with such a cannon unless it was caught off guard and managed to spot the MBT first but knowing it cannot retreat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some pictures of BMP-2FIN hull add-on armor: https://imgur.com/a/28O2hBE

 

Sorry but polish manufacurer this armour is fucken angry about those photo in net. Can You erase it before polish Lubawa SA will contackt your local gestapo? :)

Regards,

J.

 

ps. anyway the problem is about your MoD not polish manufacurer, but still - this photos made some peoples mad

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks stange. if aramid/fiberglass for upper engine deck - heat(IR signature) and antispall protection it's ok, but lower hull front is it same plate or steel ? and if so why hull side(lower part) doesn't get any addon armour ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toimisto said:

Well, as they are on imgur i cannot remove them, the offended party should contact imgur staff to remove the image gallery.

Ok, it's not my problem to be honest.  As  I know finish MoD want's to not public armor photos before whole delivery will be ended but somebody on finish exibition day just make photos ant put it in to net. And now is hot phone between factory and MoD who put this in public. Even funny, but for example in Poland posting this photos can be very problemfull, despite fact that they are "somwehere" on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

looks stange. if aramid/fiberglass for upper engine deck - heat(IR signature) and antispall protection it's ok, but lower hull front is it same plate or steel ? and if so why hull side(lower part) doesn't get any addon armour ?

 

No idea, on polish side (factory) it's totall ban for photos and talks about this armour. What is again nonsense couse there are open public reserchees papers whit simmilar solutions for light APC But OK, no talk at all :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously doubt that such solutions have any "secret" for any country that can produce APC,IFV and armour for it :)

 

+ if army make public display of vehicle = nothing secret(or it's army problems, like kids in T-14 etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By eggs benedict
      hello everyone!
      so i read that the T-90 shares the T-72B turret , thus BDD armor , however this documentary (?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKGv5JQBTI8 says "aluminums and plastics".
      is this any legit? did they like , keep the t72b cavity design and change the fill?
       
      also , did the combination on new welded towers change?
    • By Collimatrix
      Most historical arms and armor were made of metal, leather and stone.  This is the thread for historical weapons and armor made of weird shit.
       

       
      This is an example of armor made from the Gilbert islands made of thick, woven coconut fiber.  The helmet is made from a pufferfish.
       
      I've seen a set similar to this in another museum.  The woven fiber body armor looked like it would be reasonably effective.  Coconut husk is pretty tough and the vest was very thick.  I wasn't so sure about the helmet.
       
      The Gilbertese were also the foremost users of shark's tooth weapons, although other Polynesians used them as well:
       

       
      Several historical examples I've seen are these strange, branching designs:
       

       

       
       
      Polynesians were not the only ones to use teeth in their arms.  The Mycenian Greeks made helmets out of boars teeth.  One such helmet is described in the Iliad, and there are a few archeological discoveries of such:
       

       

       
      And finally, a club used by Inuits made from the penis-bone of a walrus:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      This is wonderful.
       
      I learned:
       
      1)  The leo 1 had poor hull armor, but excellent turret armor!
       
      2)  Chieftain's armor was 16 inches thick!
       
      4)  The T-64 was the Soviet's own version of the leopard(?!)
       
       
      Actually, the materials science stuff seems solid, and jives with what I've heard before (but how much of that is people repeating this article?).
    • By Collimatrix
      "Special armor?"

      It's all fucking NERA.
       
      Some models of T-72 had it.
       
      Merk IV's have it.
       
      Abramses have it.
       
       
×