Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

General AFV Thread

Recommended Posts

VT-4 and Oplot of Thailand army. Oplot at least have pretty serious ERA coverage of sides, VT-4 hull looks naked compared to Oplot-BM.

739078_original.jpg

Spoiler

739482_original.jpg

 

740015_original.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

In my opinion NORINCO should offer the VT-5's side armor package as upgrade option.

 

They do offer armor upgrades actually. (As well as some other newer options that didn't exist at the time the VT4 just came out.)

 

Edit: not sure if it's the exact package as used on the VT5, but extra passive and ERA for the sides and other areas is now offered for the VT4 design to clairify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM

For which kind of Weapon? 

And is that the Puma on the left board above the Stryker?

 

It seems it can Penetrate the Stryker and the Bradley from the Front so maybe some sort of ATGM? But then aiming for the upper plate of the Abrams?

If you shoot it from the front without elevation it wouldnt probably fuze, right?

 

And i think i can see a Marder behind the guy.

Share this post


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

@SH_MM

For which kind of Weapon? 

And is that the Puma on the left board above the Stryker?

 

It seems it can Penetrate the Stryker and the Bradley from the Front so maybe some sort of ATGM? But then aiming for the upper plate of the Abrams?

If you shoot it from the front without elevation it wouldnt probably fuze, right?

 

And i think i can see a Marder behind the guy.

 

 

If we put aside the strong propaganda vibe this site gives, the info is really pretty basic.

 

On the Abrams, it says to hit its sights and external gear with sniper rifles, its upper front plate with either RPGs or ATGMs(recommended from elevation) or APFSDS at any point between the turret bottom and UFP.

 

Hit with RPGs (even the simplest ones) the sides of the tank at the rear, or with 30mm autocannon munitions.

 

Doesnt specify as far as I can see, with what to shoot at the turret sides at the rear. Also doesnt specify on the Bradley and Stryker, though they could probably be disabled by RPGs practically everywhere, including basic PG-7 warheads. The BRAT and SRAT kits (ERA for Bradley and Stryker) could increase that threshold to tandem warheads e.g PG-7V.

 

The Stryker's wheels are vulnerable to small arms fire, and it is vulnerable to all sorts of autocannon fire.

 

Bradley may be protected against 30mm munitions at the front through passive armor, but I think it only relates to newer variants so I'm not sure.

 

 

And yes that is a Puma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.01.2018 at 2:16 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

If we put aside the strong propaganda vibe this site gives, the info is really pretty basic.

....

Andrey's blog you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Andrey's blog you mean? 

Yes. Starting any article with how country X's propaganda is this and that, is unprofessional and in itself sends a message that the author itself wants to insert his own agenda in a disturbing way.

 

Now, Andrey is a knowledgeable man. So perhaps a rewording is due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.01.2018 at 1:16 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 

If we put aside the strong propaganda vibe this site gives, the info is really pretty basic.

 

 

 

Your understanding of this is "pretty basic" as it was a parody to US and WW2 posters which someone take too seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure what to think about the Ajax platform. But I guess they now officially confirmed (for the second time), that the "side armor" modules are in fact storage boxes; otherwise there wouldn't be a need to adopt the net-based Tarian's RPG armour at the sides.

 

ajax-fig.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a bit of a stretch to claim an RPG net is official confirmation that the side boxes are all storage. They barely weigh anything, why not throw one on the sides.

Share this post


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

I'm still not sure what to think about the Ajax platform. But I guess they now officially confirmed (for the second time), that the "side armor" modules are in fact storage boxes; otherwise there wouldn't be a need to adopt the net-based Tarian's RPG armour at the sides.

 

ajax-fig.jpg

 

 

We could have misinterpreted previous infographics as stating these are storage boxes. They could be, but logically they wouldn't be nearly as big and extend all the way down, and all the way across the vehicle. It just makes no damn sense.

Still, regardless of what they are, net armor is not a confirmation of anything. It's just another layer of defense. Good for them.

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

×