Calibre of the IFV gun

[Chrom]

BMP-3 protected against 30mm frontally?
This is the first time I hear about this.
And I really doubt it.

This vehicle weights 18,7 tons.

The add-on armor for the C configuration (The only config which is protected against 30mm AP) of the Puma alone weights 13 tons.

The armor figure of BMP-3 is quite rare to come by, its not listed in most sources. However, there are plenty sources there it IS listed. An example:
http://www.rbs.ru/exhibition/uralexpoarms/2000/bmp-3.htm. In all these sources is claimed the frontal protection against 30mm AP . Of course, we can debate what very new (and rare/expencive) 30mm AP ammunition MIGHT penetrate it - but then again, BMP-3 development is also not froze.

 

[B.Smitty]

The armor figure of BMP-3 is quite rare to come by, its not listed in most sources. However, there are plenty sources there it IS listed. An example:
http://www.rbs.ru/exhibition/uralexpoarms/2000/bmp-3.htm. In all these sources is claimed the frontal protection against 30mm AP . Of course, we can debate what very new (and rare/expencive) 30mm AP ammunition MIGHT penetrate it - but then again, BMP-3 development is also not froze.

what the heck does it mean to have "frontal protection against 30mm AP"? What type of 30mm? What type of round?

Is it the AP-I round from the 2A42? This only penetrates 44mms of RHAe @ 1km.*

The APDS round that penetrates 62mm @ 1km?*

The APFSDS round that penetrates 79mm @ 1km?*

Or the western Oerlikon 30 x 173mm APFSDS round that penetrates 97mm @ 1km?*

* Source - http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

That's a wide range of penetration values.

 

[eckherl]

what the heck does it mean to have "frontal protection against 30mm AP"? What type of 30mm? What type of round?

Is it the AP-I round from the 2A42? This only penetrates 44mms of RHAe @ 1km.*

The APDS round that penetrates 62mm @ 1km?*

The APFSDS round that penetrates 79mm @ 1km?*

Or the western Oerlikon 30 x 173mm APFSDS round that penetrates 97mm @ 1km?*

* Source - http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

That's a wide range of penetration values.

Oh no - not that web page again, do you think that it is accurate.

 

[eckherl]

The armor figure of BMP-3 is quite rare to come by, its not listed in most sources. However, there are plenty sources there it IS listed. An example:
http://www.rbs.ru/exhibition/uralexpoarms/2000/bmp-3.htm. In all these sources is claimed the frontal protection against 30mm AP . Of course, we can debate what very new (and rare/expencive) 30mm AP ammunition MIGHT penetrate it - but then again, BMP-3 development is also not froze.

Will it with stand a burst of 25 mm DU ammunition, the reactive armor package that Russia may use is the one UAE decided to go with from Russia because of their concern of the different modern armor piercing rounds that are availible for different chain guns, also they were concerned about shaped charged warheads found on hand held anti tank rockets.

 

[B.Smitty]

Oh no - not that web page again, do you think that it is accurate.

If you have have better, unclass information, I'm all ears.

The point of it was to show that saying "protected vs 30mm" is meaningless. There is a huge variety of 30mm weapons and munitions, with widely varying penetration levels.

If you assume that website is at least in the ballpark, then "protected vs 30mm" could mean only >44mm of RHAe. But that also could mean vulnerability to 25mm APFSDS.

 

[Chrom]

Will it with stand a burst of 25 mm DU ammunition,

Your guess is as good as my. We dont even know for sure armor protection of 30-years old T-72 against various APFSDS and HEAT rounds... and you wants accurate penetration figures for every ammo-armor combination relating newer products?

P.S. An example: newer HEAT warheads claims only slighter higher RHA penetration then 25-years old HEAT warheads. Yet there are reports what they penetration figures against composite armor is MUCH better. This in turn leads to misleading judgement in armor protection against HEAT warheads. For example newer versions of M1A2 claims up to 1500mm HEAT-RHA equivalent protection and up to 900mm APFSDS-RHA protection. But we dont know how good modern HEAT and APFSDS rounds penetrate that composite armor versus pure RHA equivalent. It may well be what modern HEAT round with 900mm listed RHA penetration figure will also make a hole in composite armor with 1500mm "common" HEAT protection. The very same goes for APFSDS rounds. Thats why its extremely hard (or, better to say, impossible) to judge if said round will penetrate said composite armor based on RHA figures.

 

[Waylander]

At least Rheinmetall claims that the Puma is protected against their own 30mm x 173 APFSDS-T / PMC 287 fired with the MK 30-2/ABM.

And nobody can tell me that a BMP-3 reaches the same protection with its 18,7 tons like a PUMA C with its 43 tons of which a nice amount is pure add-on armor on top of the basic armor.
No way.

 

[eckherl]

At least Rheinmetall claims that the Puma is protected against their own 30mm x 173 APFSDS-T / PMC 287 fired with the MK 30-2/ABM.

And nobody can tell me that a BMP-3 reaches the same protection with its 18,7 tons like a PUMA C with its 43 tons of which a nice amount is pure add-on armor on top of the basic armor.
No way.

That weight class is for a plain jane BMP 3, with the reactive armor package weight should increase, but not near the PUMA C standards, this weight class for PUMA C is with the heaviest armor package correct, what is the weight without it.

 

[eckherl]

If you have have better, unclass information, I'm all ears.

The point of it was to show that saying "protected vs 30mm" is meaningless. There is a huge variety of 30mm weapons and munitions, with widely varying penetration levels.

If you assume that website is at least in the ballpark, then "protected vs 30mm" could mean only >44mm of RHAe. But that also could mean vulnerability to 25mm APFSDS.

Agreed - with everything that is out there the point can be meaningless, there are some folks that were stunned to find out that Bradleys were punching out T-72s on the flanks and rear ends, some of those same folks thought that the 25mm wasn`t large enough. There is alot of mean nasty projectiles for these weapons platforms.

 

[swerve]

At least Rheinmetall claims that the Puma is protected against their own 30mm x 173 APFSDS-T / PMC 287 fired with the MK 30-2/ABM.

And nobody can tell me that a BMP-3 reaches the same protection with its 18,7 tons like a PUMA C with its 43 tons of which a nice amount is pure add-on armor on top of the basic armor.
No way.

Which is probably one of the best penetrating 30mm rounds, & will punch holes in a basic 30.5 ton (metric, of course) Puma.

 

[Chrom]

Still, either way you look, 30mm canon is a border zone where penetration cant be insured in all angles and distances. Whats why i wouldnt rely on it for anti-IFV tasks.

 

[Chrom]

At least Rheinmetall claims that the Puma is protected against their own 30mm x 173 APFSDS-T / PMC 287 fired with the MK 30-2/ABM.

And nobody can tell me that a BMP-3 reaches the same protection with its 18,7 tons like a PUMA C with its 43 tons of which a nice amount is pure add-on armor on top of the basic armor.
No way.

Who knows where all this addiditional armor goes. We already have an example of soviet tanks being much lighter than western tanks still having superior armor protection. I wouldnt bet what frontal armor protection on BMP-3 is as good as on Puma, but i wouldnt exclude that possibility either.

 

[B.Smitty]

Still, either way you look, 30mm canon is a border zone where penetration cant be insured in all angles and distances. Whats why i wouldnt rely on it for anti-IFV tasks.

What country are you planning on fighting? Germany? The U.S.?

How many likely enemy countries have IFVs that can stop a modern 25mm APFSDS round, let alone a 30mm one?

 

[Chrom]

What country are you planning on fighting? Germany? The U.S.?

How many likely enemy countries have IFVs that can stop a modern 25mm APFSDS round, let alone a 30mm one?

Huh, what country YOU are planning to fight? Are you sure what said country wouldnt aquire modern IFV? After all, russians would be quite happy to sell BMP-3 to USA adversaries, USA selling to Russia & Europe opponents, and Europe selling to opponents of both. Moreover, the question is not strictly about YOU, but also about others armed forces - what THEY should aquire? Which cannon?

 

[swerve]

Who knows where all this addiditional armor goes. We already have an example of soviet tanks being much lighter than western tanks still having superior armor protection. I wouldnt bet what frontal armor protection on BMP-3 is as good as on Puma, but i wouldnt exclude that possibility either.

Where the additional armour goes is easily checked. The manufacturers have kindly provided diagrams showing the additional armour modules, & where they fit. I don't have the link to hand, but two minutes with Google & you should find them.

As for the tanks, that's not comparable. You're talking about tanks being better protected than tanks with a greater weight, but proportionately even greater volume - and weight to protected volume ratio is what matters, not overall weight. In this case, the weight ratio is over 2:1, & the ratio of weight to volume favours the Puma over the BMP-3

 

[Chrom]

Where the additional armour goes is easily checked.
The manufacturers have kindly provided diagrams showing the additional armour modules, & where they fit. I don't have the link to hand, but two minutes with Google & you should find them.

As for the tanks, that's not comparable. You're talking about tanks being better protected than tanks with a greater weight, but proportionately even greater volume - and weight to protected volume ratio is what matters, not overall weight. In this case, the weight ratio is over 2:1, & the ratio of weight to volume favours the Puma over the BMP-3

On the second thought, Puma have the weight of BTR-T / Achzarit... and these are protected much better than from just 30mm whatever fancy ammo it could be. Is Puma protected all-around against 30mm? Else i cant see where all its weight goes...

 

[swerve]

On the second thought, Puma have the weight of BTR-T / Achzarit... and these are protected much better than from just 30mm whatever fancy ammo it could be. Is Puma protected all-around against 30mm? Else i cant see where all its weight goes...

Look at the size! The Puma has at least 50% more volume than a BTR-T. As I've already said, it takes more armour to protect a bigger volume. It also has an engine that's twice as powerful, the running gear, suspension, etc is built to allow even more weight, & it carries a lot more fuel.

 

[B.Smitty]

Huh, what country YOU are planning to fight? Are you sure what said country wouldnt aquire modern IFV? After all, russians would be quite happy to sell BMP-3 to USA adversaries, USA selling to Russia & Europe opponents, and Europe selling to opponents of both. Moreover, the question is not strictly about YOU, but also about others armed forces - what THEY should aquire? Which cannon?

According to this,

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-3.htm

The turret front armor of a BMP-3 is 30-35mm of RHAe. So it's questionable if it can even stop old Russian 30mm rounds. So if BMP-3s are all we're worried about, then the US (and other nations) can stick with 25mm/30mm.

OTOH, other countries who are planning on fighting a modern western military might want to consider improvements here. But, IMHO, they should focus far more on other areas like air defenses, modern C4ISR and asymmetric responses than the caliber of their IFV's autocannons. If they already have BMP-2s, then upgrade their sights, FCS, and armor and buy modern 30mm APFSDS rounds and ATGMs for them.

Here's a sample BMP-2 upgrade program,

http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp2u/

 

[eckherl]

Still, either way you look, 30mm canon is a border zone where penetration cant be insured in all angles and distances. Whats why i wouldnt rely on it for anti-IFV tasks.

I have been on a ROK BMP3, yes it does have major improvements in armor protection levels over BMP2, but not to a level that it can with stand a 25mm DU burst at certain ranges. With new armor packages that are coming out on IFVs the U.S is looking at upgrading to the 30mm Bushmaster 2 as a possible replacement so that we can get back out at a comfortable battlesight engagement range. The 30mm on the BMP2 is a very effective cannon and will penetrate modern western IFVs at certain ranges with proper ammunition. IFVs are not designed totally to fight like tanks, their primary purpose is infantry haulers, recon, fire support for infantry and to keep those pesky attack helicopters away. In a nut shell - all modern IFVs still have the capacity to kill each other or take out a occasional roaming tank that is getting to close for comfort. The PUMA is the best IFV that is out there for crew protection, armor protection, firepower and mobility, but to get to that level look at the weight that has been added, Russian cannons can still kill it at certain ranges.

 

[eckherl]

According to this,

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-3.htm

The turret front armor of a BMP-3 is 30-35mm of RHAe. So it's questionable if it can even stop old Russian 30mm rounds. So if BMP-3s are all we're worried about, then the US (and other nations) can stick with 25mm/30mm.

OTOH, other countries who are planning on fighting a modern western military might want to consider improvements here. But, IMHO, they should focus far more on other areas like air defenses, modern C4ISR and asymmetric responses than the caliber of their IFV's autocannons. If they already have BMP-2s, then upgrade their sights, FCS, and armor and buy modern 30mm APFSDS rounds and ATGMs for them.

Here's a sample BMP-2 upgrade program,

http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp2u/

This is what Russia is doing with even their older BMP1`s. They have a new turret arrangement called the Kliver which is armed with a 2A72 30 mm cannon and either two or four Kornet missle launchers for either anti tank or the thermobaric warhead. (fuel-air explosive) After the Chechnya conflicts Russia is even placing AG-17 grenade launchers on alot of their designs including BMP`2.