General AFV Thread

[heretic88]

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.

[skylancer-3441]

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)

[heretic88]

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.

[Pascal]

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.

[skylancer-3441]

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" 

[Pascal]

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.

[LoooSeR]

   Futher debates about BMP armor and protection level would be better to happen in appropriate thread:

 

[Ramlaen]

Bulgarian BMP-23

[Rico]

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.

[LoooSeR]

   Mogadishu, 1993. IDK what is happening here.

 

Spoiler

 

[LoooSeR]

 

[Krieger22]

 

[LoooSeR]

[Bronezhilet]

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.

[Rico]

[LoooSeR]

   Peru, AMX-13 with Kornet-E ATGMs

[skylancer-3441]

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

 

(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)

Spoiler

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

   From same event in Singapore, Leo2SG

 

Spoiler

 

 

   Imagine Chieftain here with his "oh my god, the tank is on fire!"

[Beer]

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

[Rico]

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

[SH_MM]

12 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

which shows its engine hatch as they opens it (starting around 00:25-00:26)

 

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?

[Serge]

Is-it supposed to float ?

[Gun Ready]

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.

[LoooSeR]

   New Iranian Raad MRAP (6x6 chassis) and army utility vehicle/4x4 Aras 2

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

   Taken from Yuri Lyamin's LJ

[LoooSeR]

Quote

Three main Pakistani tanks. T-80UD, Al-Khalid, and Al-Zarrar.