General AFV Thread

[LoooSeR]

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

[Lord_James]

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

 

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

[LoooSeR]

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.

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

Boxers for Lithuania

[LoooSeR]

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

 

 

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

[Akula_941]

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

 

[Molota_477]

40 minutes ago, Akula_941 said:

 

https://m.blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221397823921

 

Original blog.

[VPZ]

On 11/24/2018 at 12:25 PM, LoooSeR said:

Boxers for Lithuania

 

 

[TokyoMorose]

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.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Somewhat surprisingly, I think this is one of the best of the Tank Museum Top five videos and one of the best videos that Richard "The Challenger" Cutland has done.   Probably because he is speaking about his personal experiences with these vehicles in the video.

 

 

[rob89]

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

 

 

[Karamazov]

@rob89 welcome 

[Belesarius]

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

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

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.

[rob89]

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

[Eliz]

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 

 

[SH_MM]

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.

 

 

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...

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[rob89]

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

[skylancer-3441]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

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

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:

(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.

[Eliz]

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...

 

 

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? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

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

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?

[skylancer-3441]

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):

 (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)

[Walter_Sobchak]

Something for @Toxn

 

 

[Toxn]

8 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Something for @Toxn

 

 

Thanks!

 

I was actually at AAD this year - I just never got around to posting photos.

[2805662]

4 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Thanks!

 

I was actually at AAD this year - I just never got around to posting photos.

@Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?