Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

I agree with Damian . And I already wrote in what formula of calculation of avtomat guns - other
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/38365-russia-france-jointly-build-armored-vehicle-2.html

You can read document about Western 40mm developement.

 

[Damian]

30mm kinetic rounds perforation is not sufficient, modern IFV as BMP-3, Puma have decent frontal protection. Also due small amount of explosive in that caliber, fragmentary power against infantry, etc is limited.

If You say that BMP-3 have a descent frontal protection, and You compares this vehicle with cardboard armor to SPz Puma, and to that says that 30mm is not efficent against BMP-3, then definetly something is wrong with Your mind... hell 25mm with descent ammunition can penetrate frontal armor of BMP-3.

Seems that Russians base their opinion after ballistic tests where they use their own 30mm munitions...2A42 is a good gun, but have so bad AP ammunition that it's performance against armor is just pitifull comppared to 25mm M242.

Now trend is to shift to telescopic munition:
Anglo-French munition for 40mm gun.

Trend only on exhibitions, only Sweden and South Korea are currently using 40mm automatic cannons, what's bring future is not certain.

 

[hest]

If You say that BMP-3 have a descent frontal protection, and You compares this vehicle with cardboard armor to SPz Puma, and to that says that 30mm is not efficent against BMP-3, then definetly something is wrong with Your mind... hell 25mm with descent ammunition can penetrate frontal armor of BMP-3.

Seems that Russians base their opinion after ballistic tests where they use their own 30mm munitions...2A42 is a good gun, but have so bad AP ammunition that it's performance against armor is just pitifull comppared to 25mm M242.

From another thread

During developement of 40mm, you see, 30mm is not effective against modern IFV.

Trend only on exhibitions, only Sweden and South Korea are currently using 40mm automatic cannons, what's bring future is not certain.

Russia with Kurganets and Bumerang, and West are actively working on increased caliber with telescopic munition.

 

[Damian]

Lidsky, if You want to say that "cardboard" armor on BMP-3 is capable to stop 30mm APFSDS... damn even 25mm APFSDS, than You are insane.

BMP-3 is one of the most idiotic designs, and should never be adopted by Soviet and later Russian army.

It's overcomplicated weapon system that takes too much space, idiotic design with engine at rear for infantry carrier, and thin armor to allow it to swim, does not make it comparable to not swimming heavier armored western IFV's like M2A3, FV510 Warrior, CV90 or SPz Puma.

Russia with Kurganets and Bumerang, and West are actively working on increased caliber with telescopic munition.

And what if Kurganets and Boomerang will be cancelled? Because politicians will not have money? Both programs are interesting, but before new vehicles will be inducted in to active service, this excitement is not good... same excitement was with Future Combat Systems program, and what? It got cancelled, and Russia have much smaller defense budget than USA.

And west might also resign from 40mm calliber, and stick with 30mm, because progress in metallurgy will allow use of far more efficent APFSDS ammunition in this calliber.

 

[methos]

From another thread

During developement of 40mm, you see, 30mm is not effective against modern IFV.

The image is from very early CTA development. At this time the armour of the BMP-3 was not really known, iirc. it is based on older CIA guesstimates made prior the BMP-3 entered service (CIA also thought that the BMP-3 would carry a 35 - 57 mm autocannon as main armament). If you search for similar slides from the Royal Netherlands Army decission to use the 35 mm Bushmaster III or the Canadian evaluation of different guns for the future LAV upgrade, you will see that more modern estimates from NATO believe that 25 mm APFSDS will penetrate the BMP-3 frontally.

 

[Damian]

BMP-3 frontal armor is approx ~30mm thick... hardly comparable to SPz Puma protection.

 

[Akim]

BMP-3 frontal armor is approx ~30mm thick... hardly comparable to SPz Puma protection.

Certainly BMP-3 not class of Puma. She was developed yet in soviet time. She has a very different tactics. Because Russia needs a new IFV.

 

[militarysta]

Against typical targets (BMP-2, BMP-3, BMP-1, BTR-80, BTR-80A, etc) bushmaster 30x173 APFSDS munition is enought.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a394901.pdf

 

[hest]

BMP-3 frontal armor is approx ~30mm thick... hardly comparable to SPz Puma protection.

Difference is that, as said, BMP-3 was developed for different requirements. Focus was on tactical mobility, ability to swim, and providing good firepower support. Therefore several restrictions were imposed on design, weight, and I agree that configuration is not right, it is not secret. For that there is new developement Kurganets, and new heavy IFV based on Armata (analogue to GCV), with 45mm armament.

Yes, Puma is better protected, but it is different, much heavier vehicle on which weight limitations were not imposed. But soviet BMP generally has advantage in mobility and in firepower, 30mm and 100mm module has no analogues.

Also 30mm of BMP-3 is not effective against Puma, same as Puma 30mm armament is not perspective given modern developements.

 

[hest]

Model presentation of BMP (IFV) based on Bumerang (wheeled) Kurganets:

Interesting feature, is that it's unmanned combat module (turret) unlike current solutions as in German Puma, etc, it has a requirement to have ability to be also operated manually as back up in case of need.

 

[Akim]

Against typical targets (BMP-2, BMP-3, BMP-1, BTR-80, BTR-80A, etc) bushmaster 30x173 APFSDS munition is enought.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a394901.pdf

Once again you are considering direct confrontation of IFV as tanks. Immediately evident that not military people. Soviet BMP-1, 2.3 is that they shott 20-mm Oerlikon that 25 mm Bushmaster, that 30-mm Mauser. All these guns will transform them into a sieve. At the same time. (Kurganets and no, there is a BMPT-64 BMPV-64-55), anyway, what kind of gun it shoots 30 mm Bushmaster or 40-mm Oerlikon – it hit its frontal projection peneracnoin 90-mm APFSDS. Now on tactics. In the offenses on heavy infantry fighting vehiclesin one order with tanks and their task of fighting with the infantry. Here she grabs and 2A42 and AGS-17. In the defense against tanks and helicopters have a Barer. In urban combat elevation angle 30-mm cannon and 23 mm Spark allow shot on the top floor, where there is usually disposes grenade throwers
As you can see, there is no need to Kurganets 45-57 mm gun.

 

[hest]

Double post

 

[hest]

30mm caliber does not allow effective fight against infantry and another targets, with it's limited amount of explosive in such caliber and fragmentary effect.
For that reason they developed Russian combat module for BMP with 100mm gun in addition with 30mm, with effective use of high fragmentary power of those rounds. ÊÁÏ, Áîåâîé ìîäóëü «ÁÀÕ×À»

That was also reason for developement of telescopic 40mm and 45mm rounds which have significantly greater fragmentary and air-burst effects.

Another problem is that it is more expensive to fit electronics and achieve programmable point/time detonation of small 30mm round (limited dimensions), it is much more effective to do it on bigger caliber as done in 40/45mm which also gives higher performance.

And 30mm AP rounds lost relevance and are no longer effective against modern armour of IFV as Puma, howewer it is not possible to provide protection against 45mm.

So it is logical that 40/45mm is considered as more perspective and will be adopted in new vehicles, Russian Kurganets...

 

[hest]

Once again you are considering direct confrontation of IFV as tanks. Immediately evident that not military people. Soviet BMP-1, 2.3 is that they shott 20-mm Oerlikon that 25 mm Bushmaster, that 30-mm Mauser. All these guns will transform them into a sieve. At the same time. (Kurganets and no, there is a BMPT-64 BMPV-64-55), anyway, what kind of gun it shoots 30 mm Bushmaster or 40-mm Oerlikon – it hit its frontal projection peneracnoin 90-mm APFSDS. Now on tactics. In the offenses on heavy infantry fighting vehiclesin one order with tanks and their task of fighting with the infantry. Here she grabs and 2A42 and AGS-17. In the defense against tanks and helicopters have a Barer. In urban combat elevation angle 30-mm cannon and 23 mm Spark allow shot on the top floor, where there is usually disposes grenade throwers
As you can see, there is no need to Kurganets 45-57 mm gun.

But you are comparing several different things.

Kurganets is light weight (max 25 tons) with ability to swim. In such IFV (also Puma in basic configuration) protection level can withstand 30mm AP maximum, no more due to limitations.

Against such targets 30mm AP is no longer effective... but 45mm.

BMPT/BMPV-64 is heavier vehicle with better protection, in Russia there is also developed such heavy IFV based on Armata. Overall it is different concept and has different use.

Second, current Wester 40mm is not popular and not much better than 30mm because of bigger dimensions allowing less rounds. Completely different situation with 40 mm (and 45mm) telescopic munition which is more compact than conventional and is better in all parameters.

 

[militarysta]

using 30-50mm vs better then standard protected IFV (SPz Puma, Namer, BMPT-64) is pointless -all of them have protection better (for +/-30.) then penetration values - even for telescopic munition. So there is no nececcery to use bigger then 40mm gun.
And programated air-burst effects (like in SPz Puma) is better idea then using low-pressure 100mm gun, and have no space for infanty inside. In fact modern heavy INF will be able to destroy for +/-30. only by ATGMs.
Thats the reson why on Puma is "only" 30mm + 2x Spike ATGM's - but germans tested double caliber 30/50mm canon for never-exist Marder-2. For the other hand - IFV ussaly in NATO doctrine cooperate whit MBT's.

for refresh:
Protection was mentioned in two articles in Polish mlitary special press:

1) Thomas Meauter, Puma - niemiecka platwiorma bojowa przyszłości, RAPORT-wto 04/2004, s.46-48
[Thomas Meauter, Puma - germans future combat platform, RAPORT-wto 04/2004, s.46-48 ]

2) Wojciech Łuczak, Puma się ujawnia, RAORT-wto, 1/2006, s.44-47
[Wojciech Łuczak, Puma's appear, RAORT-wto, 1/2006, s.44-47]

Abstract:
In level (A) - 31,45t:
- whole IFV protected against 14,5mm ("anti armour" round - like 14,5mm BS)
- front (in +/-30.) SPz Puma protected against at least newest 30mm APFSDS, and HEAT warhead like in "RPG-7/18, SPG-9", glastic plate (upper and lower front hull have bigger protection - the same like in level "C")
- bottom hull protected against at leat 10kg exsplosive under

In level(C) - 40,7t. (with crew, ammo, etc -43,5t)
- front IFV (+/-30.) protected against APFSDS "middle caliber" (~40-60mm APFSDS) and the latest RPG warhead
- side hull protection against RPG warhead (HEAT) (for +/-30.?) and EFP and 30mm APFSDS.
- roof protected against bomblets, cluster munitions, etc.

It's look that SPz Puma have in fornt (in A and C level) protection like ~220mm RHA against APFSDS and ~600mm vs HEAT.

 

[militarysta]

But soviet BMP generally has advantage in mobility and in firepower, 30mm and 100mm module has no analogues..

ROTFL
Whould You be so kind and explaint what it that???

 

[Damian]

Interesting feature, is that it's unmanned combat module (turret) unlike current solutions as in German Puma, etc, it has a requirement to have ability to be also operated manually as back up in case of need.

This is a direct copy of solution from BAe GCV proposal, also with unmanned turret with ability to be directly operated by gunner taking place inside.

In fact such turret should be called hybrid turret.

Is this interesting solution? Yes, is this a good solution? IMHO no, because it will take some space inside vehicle.

As for programmable ammunition, both Germans and Americans were able to design 30mm programmable ammunition.

As for 30mm against infantry, in Iraq even good old 25mm was effective against infantry in buildings, and if building had to thick walls... well then crew used BGM-71 TOW-2, there are currently so called bunker buster version of this ATGM, designed to destroy fortifications etc.

So there is plenty of options. And like Militarysta said, future heavy IFV's will be too well armored for automatic cannons at their frontal arc.

So there is a question, it is worth to use bigger calliber that will limit quantity of ammunition stored for this weapon inside a vehicle.

 

[methos]

30 mm APFSDS is enough for dealing with the majority of modern IFVs (more or less all currently used IFVs except some rare uparmoured versions for assymetrical warfare). Even though the 40 mm CTA round is not longer, it has a 50% larger diameter, meaning that you can carry less ammunition even though the shape was optimized. If the 45 mm CTA has an even larger diameter, then it will also be impossible to carry huge amounts of ammunition. Curiosly the Franco-British joint venture initially chose a 45 mm round aswell, but during development a 40 mm version was favoured.

For fighting heavier targets than a IFV, HE or KETF ammuniton can be used to blind an enemy. Two AHEAD shots were enough to destroy all sights and the LRF of a Swiss prototype tank.

If Kurganets has a weight of only 25 tonnes, then it is probably not protected against 30 mm APFSDS. The K21 is weighing 25 tonnes and is only protected against 30 mm APDS ammunition, the basic Marder weighs more than 28 tonnes and is only protected against 25 mm APDS (30 mm ammunition from longer ranges) and similar things can be said about ASCOD, Warrior, CV90, etc. 25 tonnes is too less for protection against 30 mm APFSDS.

 

[Damian]

AFAIK only the MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) combat platform with weight of 20-29 metric tons, had frontal protection optimized against 45mm automatic cannons fire... but this was a part of a larger program that have a goal to achieve major breakthroughs in technology, pile of money spent on this program was probably enough to fund several other R&D programs focused on developing less ambitious and simpler vehicles.

 

[militarysta]

About new tank engines in germany:

In late 1980. in Germany where two way developing proces. The aim was to obtain two motors for future NGP and for deep Leopard-2 modernisation. In result two kind of simmilar engines was developed:

1) Improved version of legendary MB873 Ka-501 but whit common rail whit continuous power 1500kW(2038HP) and with fuel compsumtion 10% less then older MB873. The size is exatly the same, but new RENK transmission was needed due to bigger HP value. Nobody bought a this engine because two reson:
a) new transmission is necessary so during modernisation whole new PP is needed (and it's expensive)
b) even when Leopard-2 weight gain from 55 to 62-65tonnes the mobility is not reduced drastically -it's still better then in most tanks. So new PP is not needed.

2) Second engine is MB833 Mobility whit continuous power 1100kW(1500HP) but it is shorter than one meter - so it can be used in a more "compact" MBT's, or when it's replaced MB873 it can save up extra space.


compare sizes MB873 and MB833: