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

APC/IFV armor in details

Recommended Posts

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

















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




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


(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...

Share this post

Link to post
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.



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:



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

Share this post

Link to post
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 ;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few photos regarding the Boxer's armor:





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:





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..


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


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




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








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.



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.





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


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




Additional roof armor against artillery bomblets:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
    • 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?).
  • Create New...