Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

APC/IFV armor in details


Recommended Posts

Some pics of the Marder 1A3's spaced armor:

 

H9nOCy9.jpg

APvWvpU.jpg

 



CxOX6UY.jpg

aDachAD.jpg

mt6bU2Y.jpg

g2W48Sr.jpg

 

ITWGQt9.jpg



vaWICbf.jpg

lSfTTm6.jpgmrh4I9L.jpg

uYnAmh1.jpgC0RlZJO.jpg

cS5pM9L.jpg7MgRBaK.jpg

FXx6Zn7.jpg

8H4rShj.jpg

Tested against 30 mm AP from 400 m distance; no penetration

 

 

0p9VSK6.jpg

UFP after shot by 35 mm PELE (at least that was claimed on a German forum once); no penetration of the base armor

1451251337-marder-bmp-2-armor.jpg

(lower vehicle is BMP)

 

 

On 7/15/2018 at 2:49 PM, Toimisto said:

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?

 

It depends on the ammunition and range, but in general yes. Even an old 35 mm APFSDS round from the late 1980s/early 1990s can penetrate 100 mm steel armor at 2,000 m distance. A more modern design with longer penetrator should be able to deal with quite a bit more armor.

 

Modern IFVs are often designed with very limited amounts of additional protection over the demanded/desired protection level due to the large physical size and the relatively low weight spend on armor. The CV90 Mk II and CV90 Mk III for example are both designed to resist 30 mm APFSDS ammo (from 1,000 m distance), but they are not meeting the NATO STANAG 4569 level 6 standard (protection against modern 30 mm AP, APDS and APFSDS ammunition from 500 m distance along the frontal arc). The difference in armor penetration of a 30 mm APFSDS between 500 m and 1,000 m is probably just about 5-10 mm steel.

 

So a 35 mm gun, a 40 mm or a 57 mm gun would probably cause quite a lot of trouble for some of the lighter IFV types that are designed to just reach protection against 25 mm/30 mm rounds.

 

On 7/15/2018 at 9:26 PM, Militarysta said:

Sorry but polish manufacurer this armour is fucken angry about those photo in net.

 

Sounds like a good reason to post the photos again :anticipation:. Doesn't bother to paint the armor on the inside, but then gets angry when someone takes a photo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

How does the visual impression of the 1A3's frontplate correlate to the 11mm given in the diagram? The outer plate alone looks like ~1cm :blink:

 

Sorry, I forgot to explain that correctly: the diagram shows the armor of the Marder before the 1A3 upgrade. Source for the values is the book "Schützenpanzer Marder: Die technische Dokumentation des Waffensystems" by Lohmann and Hilmes.

2129_900.jpg

 

The listed thickness of the front plate is the engine cover thickness. The engine cover has a lid around the edges, that make it look a bit thicker when seen from the side:

 

marder_1_a3_17_of_57.jpg#

The actual steel plate is less than half as thick as it seems from the side, due to the lid around the edges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Sorry, I forgot to explain that correctly: the diagram shows the armor of the Marder before the 1A3 upgrade. Source for the values is the book "Schützenpanzer Marder: Die technische Dokumentation des Waffensystems" by Lohmann and Hilmes.

Ah, that makes sense! Sadly a Tankograd issue is the only thing I've here about it and it lacks info in this area. 
The lid was expected because a ~30mm baseplate would be a bit heavy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A few photos regarding the Boxer's armor:

 

General:

jNzE6rv.pngiEyMsdK.png

YHnuURZ.jpg

Note that the Boxer is - like the AMV - not protected against RPGs in its basic configuration. Additional armor packs or active protection systems have to be installed.

 

Frontal hull armor:



walk-around-detailbilder-gtk-boxer-sanit

042g.jpg

walk-around-detailbilder-gtk-boxer-sanit

walk-around-detailbilder-gtk-boxer-sanit

Note that there is a change in thickness of the spaced armor (see left corner). The upper portion's outer armor layer is about twice as thick..

Wdy77bP.jpg

The outer layer of the spaced armor seems to be maybe 5 mm thick at the lower (thinner) portion and ~10 mm

hCfOUPY.jpg

The thickness of the armor at the center seems to be thicker by a considerable amount. 

XHXakpP.jpg

ERn7nQe.jpg

 

Upper section of the frontal hull / driver's hatch:



 

 

boxer_75_of_96.jpg

detailbilder-gtk-boxer-lance-walkaround-

detailbilder-gtk-boxer-lance-walkaround-

detailbilder-gtk-boxer-lance-walkaround-

 

The driver's hatch seems to feature a lot thicker add-on armor modules, probably because there is no spaced armor. Unlike the spaced armor, this might be ceramci composite armor.

detailbilder-gtk-boxer-lance-walkaround-

boxer_83_of_96.jpg

The cover for the engine's radiator. Also note that there is an additional layer of side armor at the driver's hatch.

 

Side armor:



 

The side armor consists of AMAP-B ceramic armor modules bolted to steel plates, whcih are bolted to the structure of the vehicle.

MSF3Ol0.jpg

bHEENBo.jpgbVFnWuX.jpg

n5Byfo0.jpg

 

Also note that the Boxer A1 has additional aside armor at the drive module to better deal with EFPs:

Boxer_A1.jpg

Note the additional layer of armor arround the traffic indicators. It is not part of the Boxer A0 configuration:

 

GTK_Boxer_side.jpg

 

Additional roof armor against artillery bomblets:

9OtPvJ1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Did the side aplique armor just burn? It looks like mats from glassfibre or something similar are the only thing left of the sandwich. In the first picture there are white small titles between textile layers visible on an opened unburnt plate. I guess it's some ceramic titles but how come they burned? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photos show two damaged Piranhas - one hit by an IED and one that apparently burnt (after hit by an IED or something else...).

 

The armor is made by TenCate and follows the standard layout for lightweight bolt-on ceramic armor: ballistic cover, ceramic tiles, backing made of kevlar or other polyaramides. The small tiles are also visible on the second vehicle, but only at a few places next to the bolts. The armor panels/ceramic tiles were most likely removed after damage, .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
5 hours ago, sksslrkalqek said:

Korean

K-21 IFV protection data

 

Eg4ANKKVoAAZW-n?format=jpg&name=small

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

front : 30mm APDS (BMP-3)

side : 14.5mm API

 

Daewoo's K21 is 25 tonne class vehicle with Al, fibreglass and Alumina.

 

AS21 is 42 tonne class vehicle with steel,  although Hanwha is major plastics petrochem company and used to make lots of silicon including some silicon carbide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:


Yes, no protection against 30 mm APFSDS. AEP-55 Volume 1 (1st edition) also specifies no 25 mm APFSDS threat.

So something equivalent to 3UBR8?

Was there ever a stanag 4569 that had a level 6 but not explicitly APFSDS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...