Armour Classification

[heavyaslead]

What are the main criteria for evaluating modern AFV as heavy, meduim or light?

Is it armor protection, weight, fire power, tactical ability or some combination?

I would be interested to note how each country weights the evaluation process.

Cheers
Eric Scott

 

[marcvs75]

Our government just had an evaluation process for a new IFV. Luckely they chose the CV9035 for the mechanised infantry battalions. So armour and firepower where considered most important. Our country also have lightweight wheeled APC's for peacekeeping duties (PATRIA).

Germany chose the Puma IVF, while France will receive the wheeled VBCI IVF

 

[Aussie Digger]

Our government just had an evaluation process for a new IFV. Luckely they chose the CV9035 for the mechanised infantry battalions. So armour and firepower where considered most important. Our country also have lightweight wheeled APC's for peacekeeping duties (PATRIA).

Germany chose the Puma IVF, while France will receive the wheeled VBCI IVF

Lucky you. We are stuck with a POS upgraded M113. We could do with a nice shiny fleet of CV9035...

 

[Wooki]

What are the main criteria for evaluating modern AFV as heavy, meduim or light?

Is it armor protection, weight, fire power, tactical ability or some combination?

I would be interested to note how each country weights the evaluation process.

Cheers
Eric Scott

Depends what the context is.

If you are talking defensive value than the delimeter between light and medium is being able to stop a 0.50 caliber round as the 50 cal is considered (in some circles) to be artillery.

medium to heavy is a bit vague, but its basically being able to stop something in the range of 75mm to 100mm where people start talking about medium armor becoming heavy armor.

If you are talking weight class, then that is often defined by vendors who then educate army

A classic is the new Puma IFV. Any other time a 50 ton IFV would have been called a heavy, but today its "medium".

Its all relative as you will be able to air transport a Puma on the A400, so the weight definition changes with logistic capability, I guess.

Cheers

W

 

[marcvs75]

A few days ago, the Dutch Defense force bought 25 bushmasters for their mission in Afghanistan. There was an imediate need for these light vehicles. End of the mounth they will be shipped to Afghanistan !!
12 of the Bushmasters will had a gun which can be operated below armour.
These Bushmasters will be used by the units of Air Assault, alongside the Patria's and YPR-765 (IFV with 25 mm gun) of mechanised infantry units

 

[heavyaslead]

Wooki

I suppose that is the sort of comment I was thinking of. Basically, since WWII there has been more emphasis on surviveability rather than a set classification of heavy, medium or light as ordinance.

It is clear that a trend to lighter weight vehicles and increased speed and ease of deployment logistics have become prime, so relative classifications of effectiveness may not be very meaningful.

I just do not hear of stories how say a T-72 or M1A1 resisted multiple bombardments of artillery or AT fire and survived. Seems the capability of projectiles with its many specialty types has far outweighed the protection characteristics of AFV's.

This may partly explain why lighter more versitle vehicles are used and more 'in-and-out' techniques.

 

[Wooki]

Wooki

I suppose that is the sort of comment I was thinking of. Basically, since WWII there has been more emphasis on surviveability rather than a set classification of heavy, medium or light as ordinance.

It is clear that a trend to lighter weight vehicles and increased speed and ease of deployment logistics have become prime, so relative classifications of effectiveness may not be very meaningful.

I just do not hear of stories how say a T-72 or M1A1 resisted multiple bombardments of artillery or AT fire and survived. Seems the capability of projectiles with its many specialty types has far outweighed the protection characteristics of AFV's.

This may partly explain why lighter more versitle vehicles are used and more 'in-and-out' techniques.

The T-72 has suffered a bad rap because the Russians export a crappy export version. The M1A1 has survived multiple RPG hits and survived, just as the Merkava 3 and 4, Chally2 have done as well.

I think one telling factor in favor of the M1 is a couple of recent photos of 2(?) AGM65 Maverick strikes against a vehicle that the Army were trying to destroy (someone here can help me with that as I have forgotten where the photos are). Namely the holes were tiny and the tank was still there.

Anyway, regarding armor classifications, I think velocity of the projectile is a good yard stick to gauge against. <1000m/sec, ,3000m/sec, etc...

Got to go

Cheers

W

 

[Grand Danois]

I think one telling factor in favor of the M1 is a couple of recent photos of 2(?) AGM65 Maverick strikes against a vehicle that the Army were trying to destroy (someone here can help me with that as I have forgotten where the photos are). Namely the holes were tiny and the tank was still there.

This is the one you're thinking of. Originally posted by extern at the "who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?" thread. See attachment.


And more in this .pdf page 10, posted by Bfn42.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

 

[Wooki]

This is the one you're thinking of. Originally posted by extern at the "who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?" thread. See attachment.


And more in this .pdf page 10, posted by Bfn42.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

Thanks GD

 

[Waylander]

Hollow charges are always small if it goes against heavy armor.
We just don't know what happened after the first Maverick hit.
Maybe the crew would have been killed or some vital electronics were destroyed by this first hit.
The target was not to kill the tank like in a normal engagement but to make nearly everything of it useless for the enemy.