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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

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)

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.

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.

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" 

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.

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

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • 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?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...