Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Serge said:

And BMP are armorless IFV.

Quite funny, but the Bradley was almost just as "armorless" as the BMP-1/2 until the A2 variant. It was only superior on the sides, and only compared to base BMP-1/2. "Afghan" D variants were equal. 

The german Marder was greatly superior frontally to both the BMP and the Bradley, but its sides were just as thin as the BMP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any information on distance at which Afghan variant's side armour would stop 14.5? At least B-32, for a start

 

...

lower frontal plate and whole rear end of BMP were vulnerable from the beginning, and it has not changed with Afghan variant, first one would stop 23mm only from 2200 meters, second one would stop 14.5 from 1600 metres - compared to Bradley's protection of both against 14.5 from 200 and 250m respectively

(all numbers from SAIFV report

aka Infantry Fighting Vehicle Task Force Study results, 1978-04, chapter IV, page 16)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

Any information on distance at which Afghan variant's side armour would stop 14.5? At least B-32, for a start

Well, they are equal in a sense that both vehicles are protected against the opposing side's heavy machine guns. NATO didnt have anything like 14.5, their most powerful HMG was the .50, against which the BMP-1/2D was protected, except the rear doors (unless they are filled with sand, which sometimes happened).

2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

lower frontal plate and whole rear end of BMP were vulnerable from the beginning, and it has not changed with Afghan variant, first one would stop 23mm only from 2200 meters, second one would stop 14.5 from 1600 metres

That I find hard to believe. Lower frontal plate is 15mm @ 56 degrees, which is 25.5mm LOS on BMP-2, and 19mm @ 56 degrees, which is 34.8mm LOS on BMP-1. 

23mm BZT penetrates 25mm armor at 500m only. At 2000m, it cant even pierce a 15mm vertical plate.

Rear armor, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

their most powerful HMG was the .50, against which the BMP-1/2D was protected, except the rear doors

 

The lower side armor was vulnerable, the additional armor didn't go down to that point and that's like under 10 mm.

 

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

It was only superior on the sides, and only compared to base BMP-1/2. "Afghan" D variants were equal.

 

The BMP-1/2 still remained as a basic, "Afghan" D isn't something which comes by default to BMP, compared to the added armor on the Bradley.

 

And then stuff like SLAP appeared for the M2, which also adds some other problems as the M2 starts penetrating as a 14,5.

Share this post


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

The BMP-1/2 still remained as a basic, "Afghan" D isn't something which comes by default to BMP, compared to the added armor on the Bradley.

More than that, even basic next-generation BMP, BMP-3, got no add-on armor on the sides of the hull, only 43mm of aluminum alloy ABT102 - which is enough only against 7.62 B32 (Voprosy Oboronnoy Tekhniki /Issues of Defence Equipment/, series XX, iss. 86 (1979), p.20)

 

Still, among several articles on BMP-3 printed in Vestnik Bronetankovoy Techniki /Armored Vehicles Herald/ 1991-05, in one titled "BMP-3 - infantry fighting vehicle of next generation", authors claimed that

Quote

имея меньшую массу брони, БМП-3 практически находится на одном уровне с американскими БМП по защищённости

eng:

Quote

having a lower mass of armor, the BMP-3 is virtually at the same level in terms of protection as the american IFVs

...I wish they were virtually paid or virtually employed with the same degree of fulfilment as their own "virtually" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

Still, among several articles on BMP-3 printed in Vestnik Bronetankovoy Techniki (Armored Vehicles Herald) 1991-05, in one titled "BMP-3 - infantry fighting vehicle of next generation", authors claimed that

having a lower mass of armor, the BMP-3 is virtually at the same level in terms of protection as the american IFVs

 

Those authors were people from different kind of institution regarding research and development in regards to armored vehicles, so they are right in the case regarding the armor. 

 

I have seen other people saying, that's bollocks regarding to armor.

Interesting thing is that no one is wrong actually, it's a simple big misunderstanding which i don't know were it came from, maybe translation problems who knows.

 

1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

authors claimed that having a lower mass of armor, the BMP-3 is virtually at the same level in terms of protection as the american IFVs

 

It goes more like this: BMP-3 armor is close to that of (as a bit worse, but close to the better) M2A1 ifv at a lower weight.

 

A pretty big generalization in most description around the web, were just two words make a difference, close and M2A1.

 

1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

only 43mm of aluminum alloy ABT102 - which is enough only against 7.62 B32 (Voprosy Oboronnoy Tekhniki /Issues of Defence Equipment/, series XX, iss. 86 (1979), p.20)

 

The armor on the М-113А1 APC, aluminum alloy mark 5083 of 43 mm can be damaged by 7.62 B32 at distances under 100m.

When armor is tested against weapons with a high rate of fire, the ДПКП is used, meaning damage which can occur on the armored plate be it cracks,penetrations,spall, etc at the distances shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks quite like a flag of Russia on it... (exchange green by blue).

 

Great military tactics. Hiding under the cloak of the enemy so this is how the EU tries to improve its defence skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 10:12 AM, Rico said:

Looks quite like a flag of Russia on it... (exchange green by blue).

 

Great military tactics. Hiding under the cloak of the enemy so this is how the EU tries to improve its defence skills.

It's almost like they put a Bulgarian flag on a Bulgarian vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunter AFV was demonstrated again - at Singapore's National Day Parade
wMhgAJH.jpg

 

TZDW2u7.jpg
(from this video https://youtu.be/19SXqeRPB9Q?t=41 starting at 00:41)

and also there was another video, with 360 deg coverage,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzhwLH5TsEI&feature=youtu.be&t=26
which shows its engine hatch as they opens it (starting around 00:25-00:26)
EBoaRDnXoAESuwz?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

EBoaRDnXoAApIyk?format=jpg&name=medium

 

EBoaRD9XkAIkj66?format=jpg&name=medium

 

EBoaREgWsAI4EUm?format=jpg&name=large

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance but how the driver enters and exits the vehicle? Through the turret (aside of the escape hatch in the floor)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the turret can be turned 180° around to get out. In addition through the floor (if they don't have mine protection).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

which shows its engine hatch as they opens it (starting around 00:25-00:26)
EBoaRDnXoAESuwz?format=jpg&name=large

 

Curios design, which doesn't seem to make much sense. Based on the thickness, it is unreasonable to assume that this is any sort of homogenous armor, simply given the weight and lack of efficiency. If this was pure steel/aluminium or ceramics with that thickness, it would be too much against current medium caliber rounds, but not enough to stop the next greater threat class (100-105 mm APFSDS). The weight allocation for the frontal armor also would be incredible given the limited combat weight of the Hunter AFV (reported combat weight of just 29.5 tonnes).

 

Thus it seems that this is some sort of spaced armor, potentially spaced NERA plates. But why cover the gap then? That's not the case with the Puma's NERA and the Marder's spaced armor (and numerous wheeled AFVs incl. Patria AMV, Boxer, etc.). So did they just add a cover to hide the actual amror thickness, or do they mount some sort of components inside the engine cover... something like fuel tanks or electronic systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Beer said:

Pardon my ignorance but how the driver enters and exits the vehicle? Through the turret (aside of the escape hatch in the floor)? 

He can only climb in and out if the turret is in 11:30 position! That is also the position to drive with open hatch on road.

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...