Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

ISIS in Nigeria is planning to open their own museum of old tanks. For this purpose they captured additional Vickers MBT

eYZA5n2vygY.jpg

 

ISIS... museum... is this place rigged with IEDs so they can blow it up later? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/778594.html

   Iran started serial production of Toufan light MRAPs at Shahid Kolah Dooz Industrial Complex. Prototype of this vehicle was shown in 2016 (i posted pics in this thread), vehicle is using KamAZ chassis and KamAZ V8 360 hp engine for this vehicle, as trucks and their parts are not under sanctions. STANAG 4569 level 3 protection, can carry 10 soldiers + 2 crewmembers.

 

2184262_original.jpg

 

2183525_original.jpg

 

Spoiler

2180771_original.jpg

 

2180978_original.jpg

 

2181290_original.jpg

 

2181412_original.jpg

 

2181733_original.jpg

 

2183822_original.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 12:13 AM, LoooSeR said:

ISIS in Nigeria is planning to open their own museum of old tanks. For this purpose they captured additional Vickers MBT

Spoiler

eYZA5n2vygY.jpg

 

 

   They are working extra hours to get more vehicles in their exhibition:

B9CmZP_mM3I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Korea KAAV-II

oE4dubT.jpg

Three types of chassis are proposed.
Variant 1 has basic armor with turret at rear half, dimension is (LXWXH in meter) 9x3.6x3.1, turret dimension would be 2.2x1.6x0.6, Crew 3 and 20 infantrymen, engine will have 1500HP. It will bend bow flap and engine will be located on the forward and waterjet on the side of the vehicle.
Variant 2 and 3 are similar to each other but with minor difference. Variant 2 use composite armor and use Vshape bow flap while Variant 3 use basic armor bend shaped bow flap. Dimension for 2 and 3 is 9.4x3.5x3 and turret dimension is 1.8x1.7x0.6, with crew of 3 and 20 infantrymen and engine hp will be 2700. Turret will be located on front half and engine will be located in the rear and waterjet in the interior.

 

wxPWTQe.jpg

Proposed turret from left to right, K21, CTA manned turret, and CTA unmanned turret

O820U7T34PXSHE0EVM88.jpg

hell that's a lot of seats

also boasted MT-883 to 2700hp, yeesh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Akula_941 said:

South Korea KAAV-II

 

Three types of chassis are proposed.
Variant 1 has basic armor with turret at rear half, dimension is (LXWXH in meter) 9x3.6x3.1, turret dimension would be 2.2x1.6x0.6, Crew 3 and 20 infantrymen, engine will have 1500HP. It will bend bow flap and engine will be located on the forward and waterjet on the side of the vehicle.
Variant 2 and 3 are similar to each other but with minor difference. Variant 2 use composite armor and use Vshape bow flap while Variant 3 use basic armor bend shaped bow flap. Dimension for 2 and 3 is 9.4x3.5x3 and turret dimension is 1.8x1.7x0.6, with crew of 3 and 20 infantrymen and engine hp will be 2700. Turret will be located on front half and engine will be located in the rear and waterjet in the interior.

 

 

Proposed turret from left to right, K21, CTA manned turret, and CTA unmanned turret

 

hell that's a lot of seats

also boasted MT-883 to 2700hp, yeesh

 

 

The 2700hp MT-883 was the version developed for the EFV, this thing looks like the EFV but Korean. If they get it working, it'd be tempting to offer it to the USMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

 

I have a question for the armour experts of this forum

Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.

 

Thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rob89 said:

Hello everyone

 

I have a question for the armour experts of this forum

Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.

 

Thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

 

Welcome to SH

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rob89 said:

Hello everyone

 

I have a question for the armour experts of this forum

Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.

 

Thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

 

Yes, it is.

All the listed IFVs are made either by countries that are members of NATO, or companies whose home markets are NATO members. 

NATO has a protection standard called STANAG 4569 to which the IFVs listed must conform. 

This standard lists anything from protection against 5.56mm ball ammunition, to 30mm APFSDS. 

 

The list exists here in a neat fashion.

 

NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6).

The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown.

 

Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE.

 

KF31 and KF41 have yet unknown levels of protection. However, due to their weight, especially with the KF41's weight being in the mid 40's and up to 50 tons, it is estimated to have ballistic protection somewhat above normal NATO levels.

 

Those that have additional ERA over the sides, may well have level 6 protection at the sides, as most ERA manufacturers claim level 6 protection for their armor blocks (when laid over some minimal base armor). This includes the Puma, as well as the ASCOD/Ajax and Bradley.

 

Heavy IFVs such as the Namer and T-15, are expected to have levels of protection closer to those of an MBT, with the Namer being said to be more protected than the Merkava it's based on, and no known claims of the T-15.

Share this post


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

NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6).

The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown.

 

Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE.

 

KF31 and KF41 have yet unknown levels of protection. However, due to their weight, especially with the KF41's weight being in the mid 40's and up to 50 tons, it is estimated to have ballistic protection somewhat above normal NATO levels.

 

Thank you all for welcome and for your answer

 

STANAG 6 is for 30mm AP(FS)DS @ 500m.

 

As far as I know, modern 30mm AP(FS)DS have a estimated penetration of 100-120mm RHA equivalent, LOS. 

Do it mean that the last generation IFVs (not considering HIFV like Namer and T-14) have "only" about 120mm equivalent (vs KE) on the frontal arc ? and so they could be easily penetrate by 35/40/57mm autocannon AP(FS)DS ?   

 

Thank you in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rob89 said:

 

Thank you all for welcome and for your answer

 

STANAG 6 is for 30mm AP(FS)DS @ 500m.

 

As far as I know, modern 30mm AP(FS)DS have a estimated penetration of 100-120mm RHA equivalent, LOS. 

Do it mean that the last generation IFVs (not considering HIFV like Namer and T-14) have "only" about 120mm equivalent (vs KE) on the frontal arc ? and so they could be easily penetrate by 35/40/57mm autocannon AP(FS)DS ?   

 

Thank you in advance

My 1cent thoughts about ifv/apc protection.

 

 Protection from the low calibre cannons can be easily achived from the  front.

 

Rough calculations.

Most western ifvs have hull with height of 1.5m and  2m wide

 

100mm steel plate 1.5 meters high and 2meters wide will weigh 2.5tons.

Take in mind that this 100mm plate will be at some angle and if it is made with more advanced materials then just steel, protection will be higher then 100mm rha.

 

 

Here is uk bmp64.

Size almost same as marder

Weight 35t (same as marder)

Armor 300 front, 80 sides

(Marder armor unknown?!) 

https://goo.gl/images/ihTrpx

 

 

Germans are lying about puma stanag protection i think, they should  exceed it

 

 

Those are my thoughts which depend on steel density (8t/m3).

Any bashing will be highly appreciated 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rob89 said:

Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.

 

The CV90 Mk. III reaches what BAE Systems describes as "level 5++" of STANAG 4569. This means its protection should be above STANAG level 5 (capable of stopping 25 mm AP(FS)DS ammunition at the frontal arc), but below STANAG 4569 level 6. That would place effective protection below ~120 mm steel equivalent protection, but above 60-70 mm.

The CV90 Mk. IIIb (Norwegian model) and CV90 Mk. IV are both offered with STANAG 4569 level 6 protection, so they should have at least ~120 mm RHAe along the frontal arc.

 

Only the Swedes with their Strf 90C (CV90 Mk. 0 with add-on armor) have adopted armor capable to stop the basic RPG-7 ammunition types with penetration of ~300 mm steel armor.

 

The ASCOD is also offered with numerous armor configurations. The Spanish Pizarro is fitted with ERA along the frontal arc, but no composite armor. So armor protection is just barely higher than the standard ASCOD hull (stopping 14.5 mm AP rounds along the frontal arc and 7.62 mm rounds elsewhere; even including the steel plates of the ERA, protection might be as low 50-60 mm steel armor equvialency vs KE). The SABBLIR ERA is claimed to provide protection against the RPG-7 with 300 mm penetration.

The Ulan is fitted with MEXAS designed to resist 30 mm APFSDS at 1,000 m range along a 30° arc (±15°), so it should have at least  ~110 mm RHAe at the frontal section. Curiously the latest versions of the ASCOD 35 have been showcased with only STANAG 4569 level 5 armor (so at least ~60-70 mm RHAe), which also appears to be thinner than the Ulan's MEXAS. As for the Ajax, the UK has not revealed any protection levels, but it is understood (based on the weight), that it should be able to at least reach STANAG 4569 level 6.

 

Likewise Germany has not revealed the protection level of the Puma IFV, aside of stating that it is protected against "medium caliber ammunition (such as 30 mm APFSDS)" and RPGs at the front of the hull without add-on armor, when fitted with add-on armor (which currently is always fitted), the sides of the hull and the turret reach the same protection against KE (and the hull is also capable of resisting RPGs). It is rumored, but uncofirmed, that the armor can protect more than just 30 mm APFSDS ammo. The frontal hull armor makes use of AMAP-SC NERA, which in other applications (like the side skirts of the Leopard 2 Evolution) can stop the PG-7VLT munition of the RPG-7, which features a tandem warhead with 550-600 mm penetration into steel armor.

 

The armor of the KF41 Lynx remains largely a secret, but the manufacturer also provides armor for the ASCOD Ulan, the Puma, Strf 90C and CV90 Mk. IIIB, so it is expected to reach a very high level of protection given its weight. It doesn't seem to be NERA, so it likely won't be enough to stop an RPG.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

NATO members do not necessarily have to comply exactly with these standards, and can have protection levels that are in between those levels, or even above the current maximum level (6). 

The CV90 and ASCOD are advertised as compliant with STANAG 4569 level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Some variants have been fitted with additional reactive or semi-reactive armor to provide protection against CE. The additional CE protection is unknown. 

  

Puma conforms with level 6 over the frontal arc and level 4 over the sides. Additional ERA has been added to the sides for unknown protection against CE. 

 

The ASCOD has yet to be advertised with STANAG 4569 level 6, the ASCOD 35 presented at Eurosatroy had only STANAG 4569 level 5 ballistic and level 3 mine protection.

 

ascod_eurosatory_00008.jpg

 

Ajax's protection level also remains a mystery.

 

It is not stated wether the Puma conforms with any STANAG standards in terms of protection, the level 6 was added to the standadrd 4569 long time after the Puma was designed. The additional side protection also contains an armor plate, overall it is claimed to provide similar protection to the front armor (that is confirmed to at least protect against unknown 30 mm APFSDS rounds from unknown distance).

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

Do it mean that the last generation IFVs (not considering HIFV like Namer and T-14) have "only" about 120mm equivalent (vs KE) on the frontal arc ? and so they could be easily penetrate by 35/40/57mm autocannon AP(FS)DS ?    

 

Yes, that is the main reason why 35/40/57 mm autocannons have been made. But IFVs are always on the light side of protection, the Warrior and M2 Bradley were initially designed to stop 14.5 mm AP rounds at the front only.

 

1 hour ago, Eliz said:

Rough calculations.

Most western ifvs have hull with height of 1.5m and  2m wide 

 

100mm steel plate 1.5 meters high and 2meters wide will weigh 2.5tons. 

Take in mind that this 100mm plate will be at some angle and if it is made with more advanced materials then just steel, protection will be higher then 100mm rha. 

 

You are simplifying too much, both in terms of size and weight available for armor.

 

1 hour ago, Eliz said:

Size almost same as marder 

Weight 35t (same as marder) 

Armor 300 front, 80 sides 

 

It is much smaller than a Marder in terms of usable volume and the claimed protection levels are very suspicious. Parts of the UFP are directly taken from the T-64 hull on which it is based. But it won't matter, it is rusting away...

%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%92-1.png?resize=10

 

1 hour ago, Eliz said:

(Marder armor unknown?!)  

 

Marder 1 has 11-15 mm steel at the upper hull, 32 mm steel at the lower hull and 25 mm steel at the turret. Including slope you are looking at 32-72 mm steel armor. The Marder 1A3 added spaced armor to protect against 30 mm AP rounds from 200 m distance (on the upper hull, the spaced armor seems to be between 5 and 10 mm thick, so steel thickness along the line-of-sight would be about ~75-100 mm with slightly higher equivalent protection.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes, that is the main reason why 35/40/57 mm autocannons have been made. But IFVs are always on the light side of protection, the Warrior and M2 Bradley were initially designed to stop 14.5 mm AP rounds at the front only.

 

Thank you very much for your very detailed and informed answer.

 

Don't you think that such levels of protections are too low, considering a possible contemporary simmetric battlefield, the "cost" of personnel and vehicles and the low numbers of present armies ?

 

Why no IFV (apart from the 2 cited HIFV) has the protection at least against 35/40 autocannons APFSDS, unlike the MBT, whose front armour is generally designed to stop the main guns (120/125mm) KE rounds and the ATGMs ? Is it a wise choice ?

 

thank you

Share this post


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

But it won't matter, it is rusting away...

%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%92-1.png?resize=10

It's not BMP-64, it's T-80-based vehicle usually mentioned as BMP-80 - and unlike BMP-64, they never finished a mockup of this thing. 
Although they made some drawings, for example:
4Jm9lgO.jpg
(original photo was posted there http://s540.photobucket.com/user/tigersblog_photo/media/btt21.jpg.html)
and with those steel plates 50-100mm thick and 7 roadwheels - it seems to me that they were aiming at 50-60 metric ton class.
That blue box alone (with what seems to be 100mm thick roof, 100mm right and left sides, and 60mm everything else) weights about 17 metric tons. (well... If my plugin for Sketchup was working correctly while calculating volume of it's parts)

 

...
It seems to me that Bradley in it's basic form was more protected than Marder 1 in his basic form - Bradley had all-around protection agains 14.5 (from 250 meters) even though it was about 7 metric tons lighter than Marder.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

You are simplifying too much, both in terms of size and weight available for armor.

 

 

It is much smaller than a Marder in terms of usable volume and the claimed protection levels are very suspicious. Parts of the UFP are directly taken from the T-64 hull on which it is based. But it won't matter, it is rusting away...

%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%92-1.png?resize=10

 

 

Marder 1 has 11-15 mm steel at the upper hull, 32 mm steel at the lower hull and 25 mm steel at the turret. Including slope you are looking at 32-72 mm steel armor. The Marder 1A3 added spaced armor to protect against 30 mm AP rounds from 200 m distance (on the upper hull, the spaced armor seems to be between 5 and 10 mm thick, so steel thickness along the line-of-sight would be about ~75-100 mm with slightly higher equivalent protection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is not that apc based on t80ud?! 

I got somewhere its drawings, hope i will find it.

 

Bmp64 has internal volume of about 10m3. Marder should have the same no? 

Bradley got 10m3 too.

Still dont understand, is that ukrainians or germans and  americans who are lieing?! Or maybe t64 drivetrain is too light which allows them to increase percentage of total weight used on armor.  

 

 

Do you know, Is not steel rha density 8t/m3? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

It's not BMP-64, it's T-80-based vehicle usually mentioned as BMP-80 - and unlike BMP-64, they never finished a mockup of this thing. 
Although they made some drawings, for example:

Spoiler

yisjDfR.jpg


and with those steel plates 50-100mm thick and 7 roadwheels - it seems to me that they were aiming at 50-60 metric ton class.

   Wasn't this APC/IFV supposed to have up to like 1300+ mm of steel armor equivalent vs kinetics?

Share this post


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

   Wasn't this APC/IFV supposed to have up to like 1300+ mm of steel armor equivalent vs kinetics?

well, some news sites like this one for example http://www.ukraineindustrial.info/c37-machinery/176/ actually claimed that its UFP has 1200-1900mm, - without mentioning against what kind of threat -
and it seems to me that they simply misunderstood that table chart in the middle of that photo of BMP-80's drawings (in my previous post):

StUYbnO.jpg (btw I'm not quite sure about 600 - it might as well be a 300 - or smth else)

Judging by drawing above that table chart - one with red missile and yellow armor - "H" values represents distance measured from the ground. And "S" probably represents LOS thickness at that height (and this is why I'm not sure about 600). 


Alternatively one could've made some generous assumptions using those LOS thickness values, and aso considering that it has engine at the front, and also that blue box has vertical frontal plate which is apparently 60mm thick (even though it has large rectangular hole in it for a driver)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×
×
  • Create New...