BMP-1: Is this truly the best IFV?

[Waylander]

@Chrom
Oh common, I am used to more reasonable posts from you.

Why shouldn't the all around RPG protection be good (I made a mistake the rear is not that safe but the rest is)?
You claim that BTR-T have even improved MBT armor.
You also know that besides the fact that it weights 43 tons a Puma C has not the same frontal armor of a MBT. Were do you think all this weights went? Into a new shiny coffee maker?
Look at these pictures and take a good look at the add-on armor on the sides (You can see it good at the picture at the bottom).

http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html

BTW, the claimed protection against our own 30mm APFSDS frontal is just the minimum protection of the Puma. Remember that the Marder A3 is already armored against 30mm and was successfully tested against the 2A42 of the BMP-2 (Is it a big jump in capabilities from the 2A42 to the 2A72 in the BMP-3?) and the Puma is far ahead of this when it comes to protection.

As for how many IFVs we need.
The Bundeswehr is going to have ca. 220.000 soldiers and with 8 active MechInf Bns + some vehicles for our joint fire support teams (FAO and FAC in one team) 410 vehicles is enough. We will only have 350 active Leo IIs.
We only produced 2136 Marder. And those are numbers for cold war. Do you want us now to produce a minimum of 4100 Pumas? nfloorl:

 

[Chrom]

@Chrom
Oh common, I am used to more reasonable posts from you.

Why shouldn't the all around RPG protection be good (I made a mistake the rear is not that safe but the rest is)?

Becouse its advertised with 30mm AP all-around protection. As you can imagine, even very old RPG rounds have much better penetration than 30mm AP. Moreover, resonable new rounds (say, 80x vintage) will have twice the penenetration of older ones. Also, its just common sense. Even M1A2HEP cant claim all-around RPG protection - and that thing is MUCH better armored.

You claim that BTR-T have even improved MBT armor.

BTR-T is based on T-72 hull with addidional of heavy ERA. Its also obvious what should BTR-T be based on T-95 hull it would be even better protected.

You also know that besides the fact that it weights 43 tons a Puma C has not the same frontal armor of a MBT. Were do you think all this weights went? Into a new shiny coffee maker?
Look at these pictures and take a good look at the add-on armor on the sides (You can see it good at the picture at the bottom).

http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html

I dont know where all the weight gone. But given quite large size of Puma and its less than optimal layout (for protection purposes) i can see where some of this weight gone.

BTW, the claimed protection against our own 30mm APFSDS frontal is just the minimum protection of the Puma. Remember that the Marder A3 is already armored against 30mm and was successfully tested against the 2A42 of the BMP-2 (Is it a big jump in capabilities from the 2A42 to the 2A72 in the BMP-3?) and the Puma is far ahead of this when it comes to protection.

Doubt it. Upgraded Marder weight just as much as base Puma. No wonder they posses about same protection - Puma being newer but also slighly large. Producer claims what addidtional armor for Puma mainly goes to side protection making sides almost as good armored as frontal arc. Either way, do you really believe what 400+ mm heat equivalent could be achieved all-around even without ERA (if we want reliable protection against old RPG's)?
Also, keep in mind Puma is advertised with IMPROVED RPG protection. Noone said its actually can reliably withstand good RPG's hits.

As for how many IFVs we need.
The Bundeswehr is going to have ca. 220.000 soldiers and with 8 active MechInf Bns + some vehicles for our joint fire support teams (FAO and FAC in one team) 410 vehicles is enough. We will only have 350 active Leo IIs.
We only produced 2136 Marder. And those are numbers for cold war. Do you want us now to produce a minimum of 4100 Pumas? nfloorl:

Hmm, may be 4100 is indeed too much. But 410 Pumas will only take 4100 soldiers inside... I dont know, but that doesnt look much to me. I guess due to cost purposes many German soldiers will be forced to operate older Marders or even older and less capable vehicles.

P.S. Thats said, during usuall patrol duties in low-scale conflict i will take Puma before BMP-3 any day.
P.P.S. On the yet another thought - you cant really patrol with that thing. It will destroy all roads. Its like sending tanks to patrol streets - not gonna happen outside hot phase of any conflict.

 

[Waylander]

Becouse its advertised with 30mm AP all-around protection. As you can imagine, even very old RPG rounds have much better penetration than 30mm AP. Moreover, resonable new rounds (say, 80x vintage) will have twice the penenetration of older ones. Also, its just common sense. Even M1A2HEP cant claim all-around RPG protection - and that thing is MUCH better armored.

You also know that it is nearly normal to have a better protection against CE weapons than agains KE weapons.

And what makes you think that an M1A2SEP is much better armored all around? The Leo II is not better armored on the sides or rear than a Puma so why should a M1A2SEP be?

I dont know where all the weight gone. But given quite large size of Puma and its less than optimal layout (for protection purposes) i can see where some of this weight gone.

Is the small unmanned turret one example for a bad protection layout?

Hmm, may be 4100 is indeed too much. But 410 Pumas will only take 4100 soldiers inside... I dont know, but that doesnt look much to me. I guess due to cost purposes many German soldiers will be forced to operate older Marders or even older and less capable vehicles.

Do the math. 410 vehicles for 8 Bns, FACs/FAOs and the school. It's enough to give the Puma to all of our MechInf.

Doubt it. Upgraded Marder weight just as much as base Puma. No wonder they posses about same protection - Puma being newer but also slighly large. Producer claims what addidtional armor for Puma mainly goes to side protection making sides almost as good armored as frontal arc. Either way, do you really believe what 400+ mm heat equivalent could be achieved all-around even without ERA (if we want reliable protection against old RPG's)?
Also, keep in mind Puma is advertised with IMPROVED RPG protection. Noone said its actually can reliably withstand good RPG's hits.

Marder A3 is 10 tons lighter than the Puma C.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

@Sgt. Barnes
Who talked of WWIII?

Operations like Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom are enough full scale war for me.
Such an operation is enough dangerous for me to use a high protection level.
Ask some guys from the pentagon if these operations would could have been done with such a success while using light mech forces.

@Chrom
If you just have a small army and only 410 IFVs you need the best you can get. For sure you could get much more BMPs for this price but we just have 8 mech inf bns.

As for protection. The Puma has the best armor you can get into an IFV with 43 tons and I have no doubt that it is the best protected IFV out there not only for direct confrontations but also for Iraqi style missions due to its very good mine/IED and RPG protection.

I'm talking about a real full war not something as so simply as Gulf War 1. I'm talking about an actual formidable enemy, in which the future of the world itself is in the balance.

 

[Waylander]

But why are you concentrating on such a WWIII scenario?
Real war does not only happens during a new world war.

Those wars were wars were combined arms battles were fought and as I said before the commanders in the field were very happy about there heavy brigades and stated often enough that their victories wouldn't have been possible (Not in the way they ended) without them.
Those battles were big enough that they were happy about every inch of protection they had and about every real IFV and tank.

 

[jaffo4011]

what about the british warrior?..they are documented as taking out iraqi main battle tanks with their 30mm rarden cannon during gulf war 2 and are now commonly fitted with composite and reactive plating.they have excellent agility and i hevent heard a bad thing said about them by the british armed forces......

 

[extern]

I'm talking about a real full war not something as so simply as Gulf War 1. I'm talking about an actual formidable enemy, in which the future of the world itself is in the balance.

If so, you need quantity of light, relative cheap, versatile, high mobile, air-dropped and sailing vehicles. Any armor can stop the avalanche of 120/125mm from each side, no mention withstands your armor RPGs or not. Remember more armored but not numerous Tigers couldnt stop more light and agile T-34's and Shermans.

 

[Maskirovka]

Sweden bought 350 BMP 1´s and almost 900 MTLB´s in the mid/late -90´s to replace the trucks/BV-206 and bicycles in the infanterybrigades. Today (only 10 years later) they are all scrapped.
Sweden were not impressed by them (except the MTLB, it had great mobility)


Why does everyone mention the Bradley and the Warrior? The last decade almost every single IFV-purchase made by a western country has been the swedish CV-90. In the last 5 years it has been sold to Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Holland and Sweden. How many countries have the Bradleys or Warriors sold to during that time?
Don´t you think that count to something?
BTW: Here´s a snowtest during the norwegian trials of the new IFV. Warrior left the competition and only Bradley and CV90 remained, they are trying to get up a snowy hill....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0

(Offtopic, the Bradley had to be towed at the back of a trailer to even get to the test area while the CV90 drove there by itselves)


IMO the best IFV today is the CV90. No doubt, just look at the last years purchases and trials. The CV90 has been the winner at every one. And for the Puma... great IFV, just too little, to late.....

 

[Maskirovka]

Sweden bought 350 BMP 1´s and almost 900 MTLB´s in the mid/late -90´s to replace the trucks/BV-206 and bicycles in the infanterybrigades. Today (only 10 years later) they are all scrapped.
Sweden were not impressed by them (except the MTLB, it had great mobility)


Why does everyone mention the Bradley and the Warrior? The last decade almost every single IFV-purchase made by a western country has been the swedish CV-90. In the last 5 years it has been sold to Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Holland and Sweden. How many countries have the Bradleys or Warriors sold to during that time?
Don´t you think that count to something?
BTW: Here´s a snowtest during the norwegian trials of the new IFV. Warrior left the competition and only Bradley and CV90 remained, they are trying to get up a snowy hill....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0

(Offtopic, the Bradley had to be towed at the back of a trailer to even get to the test area while the CV90 drove there by itselves)


IMO the best IFV today is the CV90. No doubt, just look at the last years purchases and trials. The CV90 has been the winner at every one. And for the Puma... great IFV, just too little, to late.....

EDIT: Almost forgot, Denmark also bought it a couple of years ago..

 

[Waylander]

The CV90 is indeed a great IFV and I agree that the Puma comes too late for many major purchases in europe.
Another nice plus is that there are some nice variants like AA and command vehicles as well es other guns available to possible customers without any further development cost or time.

The only thing I don't understand why you state that the Puma is too little (Too late is defenitely true as I said)?

 

[Maskirovka]

The only thing I don't understand why you state that the Puma is too little (Too late is defenitely true as I said)?

Simple. The Puma is essentially the same IFV as the CV90, the same generation except it´s 15 years to late. It does not has those great innovations that are expected in an IFV anno 2007. Too little (new gadgets to be a success) to late... The CV90 is becoming an Euro-CV and the next generation SEP-vehicle is the prime contender to the brittish FRES-project, it shurely seems that the CV90 and SEP (wich is truely a next generation vehicle) will go hand in hand....

 

[Waylander]

Nearly the same?
How about the modular armor concept, overall better armored if needed, much better anti-mine/IED protection for the crew, better power/weight ratio, a nice little 76mm grenade launcher system controlled by the squad, an additional peri for the squad, main optic up to x16 (compared to x7 in CV90).

We can argue about the gun. For me the 30mm is not powerfull enough for possible future battles but is more versatile due to its ABM ammo. And the customer can choose the gun he wants (And every other CV90 user went for 30mm).

What innovations would you expect by a 2007 IFV?

 

[Grand Danois]

...(And every other CV90 user went for 30mm)...

The Danish Army went with the Bushmaster III 35 mm for their CV90.

 

[Waylander]

Arrrgh....

First Maskirovka and than me. Seems like everybody forgets Denmark today.

BTW, is there ABM ammo available for the 35mm?

 

[Grand Danois]

Arrrgh....

First Maskirovka and than me. Seems like everybody forgets Denmark today.

BTW, is there ABM ammo available for the 35mm?

Not AFAIK. But on the other hand it doesn't have the 30 mm "penetration issues" you worry about.

Btw, re the 73 mm gun on the BMP-1 in Swedish service. IIRC they removed the automation for safety reasons and manually loaded it.

 

[Maskirovka]

The Danish Army went with the Bushmaster III 35 mm for their CV90.

And so did the dutch...

""""""""""""""""""""
Nearly the same?
How about the modular armor concept, overall better armored if needed, much better anti-mine/IED protection for the crew, better power/weight ratio, a nice little 76mm grenade launcher system controlled by the squad, an additional peri for the squad, main optic up to x16 (compared to x7 in CV90).

We can argue about the gun. For me the 30mm is not powerfull enough for possible future battles but is more versatile due to its ABM ammo. And the customer can choose the gun he wants (And every other CV90 user went for 30mm).

What innovations would you expect by a 2007 IFV?

"""""""""""""""
What is so modular about Puma? Can you take one IFV and turn it into a hospital in less then one hour simply by exchanging the hull compartment?

Better anti-mine protection, crew-protection etc??? Every new vehicle offcourse provide better protection than the old one, stupid argument...

Grenade launcher...sigh...yep, the grenade launcher is the proof of the new IFV!


No, the next IFV and any armored or military vehicle driven in the future will be measured in the UK choise of FRES... These vehicles are truelly modular, it can be an IFV in one moment and an amulance 30 mins later, with unique electric transmission system it will represent the next generation vehicles.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/


http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/g...bae_publication/bae_pdf_landa_sepbrochure.pdf

 

[Chrom]

You also know that it is nearly normal to have a better protection against CE weapons than agains KE weapons.

We also know what there are no wonders and HEAT protection cant be 3x as high as KE protection. At least, not without ERA.

And what makes you think that an M1A2SEP is much better armored all around? The Leo II is not better armored on the sides or rear than a Puma so why should a M1A2SEP be?

I dont claim its better armored in every place. But its clear what being smaller and heaver M1A2 will have much better armor. Particulary TUSK upgrade is concerned about sides protection and its still not enouth against RPG.

Is the small unmanned turret one example for a bad protection layout?

Nope, but large hull is.

Do the math. 410 vehicles for 8 Bns, FACs/FAOs and the school. It's enough to give the Puma to all of our MechInf.

How many soldiers serve in 1 Bns? Moreover, you cant convince me what only like 1 out of 50 soldiers in german army are meant for frontline infatry service. This ratio is just wrong for any army.

Marder A3 is 10 tons lighter than the Puma C.

But have the same weight as Puma A. No wonder, as i said, they claim nearly same level of protection. Addidinal armor on Puma C goes to sides protection.
P.S. Puma C have very good base armor.With addidional of ERA it would be able to really withstand RPG hits.
P.P.S. M1A2 costs 5.5m $.

 

[eckherl]

Becouse its advertised with 30mm AP all-around protection. As you can imagine, even very old RPG rounds have much better penetration than 30mm AP. Moreover, resonable new rounds (say, 80x vintage) will have twice the penenetration of older ones. Also, its just common sense. Even M1A2HEP cant claim all-around RPG protection - and that thing is MUCH better armored.

BTR-T is based on T-72 hull with addidional of heavy ERA. Its also obvious what should BTR-T be based on T-95 hull it would be even better protected.
I dont know where all the weight gone. But given quite large size of Puma and its less than optimal layout (for protection purposes) i can see where some of this weight gone.
Doubt it. Upgraded Marder weight just as much as base Puma. No wonder they posses about same protection - Puma being newer but also slighly large. Producer claims what addidtional armor for Puma mainly goes to side protection making sides almost as good armored as frontal arc. Either way, do you really believe what 400+ mm heat equivalent could be achieved all-around even without ERA (if we want reliable protection against old RPG's)?
Also, keep in mind Puma is advertised with IMPROVED RPG protection. Noone said its actually can reliably withstand good RPG's hits.

Hmm, may be 4100 is indeed too much. But 410 Pumas will only take 4100 soldiers inside... I dont know, but that doesnt look much to me. I guess due to cost purposes many German soldiers will be forced to operate older Marders or even older and less capable vehicles.

P.S. Thats said, during usuall patrol duties in low-scale conflict i will take Puma before BMP-3 any day.
P.P.S. On the yet another thought - you cant really patrol with that thing. It will destroy all roads. Its like sending tanks to patrol streets - not gonna happen outside hot phase of any conflict.

The BTR-T is just not based on a T-72 hull, they are experimenting with older T-55/T-62 hulls as well. Why would you even compare this vehicle to a Puma, it they decide to produce it it will carry less infantry and where are they going to dismount from, over the top, that is real safe while under fire. The Puma does offer excellant RPG-7 protection over other IFV`s including the CV-90. I find it ironic that Russia would even consider such a vehicle when they have the capability to produce something better.

 

[Waylander]

And so did the dutch...

What is so modular about Puma? Can you take one IFV and turn it into a hospital in less then one hour simply by exchanging the hull compartment?

Better anti-mine protection, crew-protection etc??? Every new vehicle offcourse provide better protection than the old one, stupid argument...

Grenade launcher...sigh...yep, the grenade launcher is the proof of the new IFV!


No, the next IFV and any armored or military vehicle driven in the future will be measured in the UK choise of FRES... These vehicles are truelly modular, it can be an IFV in one moment and an amulance 30 mins later, with unique electric transmission system it will represent the next generation vehicles.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/


http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/g...bae_publication/bae_pdf_landa_sepbrochure.pdf

For everything modular were missions modules are needed we introduce the Boxer APC. Why should we use an IFV chassis for ambulance, EW, etc. mission modules?
The Puma is modular in the way that you can choose the armor package which you think fits best to the current mission. With a CV90 you are stuck to the version you have wether it is enough or not. The Puma on the other sides combines air deployability AND heavy protection.

And yes he has better anti-mine/protection. And that is a stupid argument? What is your way of arguing? Saying that something new is not better because it is normal that it is better? That's strange.

The 76mm grenade launcher is not what makes the Puma a good IFV but it is part of the whole picture. Or did I said something about it being the ueberblinkblink?

Ah, yes I forgot situational awareness. The additional camera systems for the squad are also an advantage.

The really good power/weight-ratio together with the new decoupled running gear also makes it very mobile.

And it has already provisions for hard and softkill systems.

@Chrom
There has to be a reason for the Puma not using ERA. It is not as we don't use ERA, we use it with the PzH2000. They might think it is enough.

As for combat troops in the Bundeswehr. You cannot just see the MechInf Bns as the only combat units. There are still our airborn, airmobile, light and mountain infantry Bns and the tank Bns. In the end this results in 24 combat Bns + special forces and the light infantry Bns of our air force and navy if I calculated right.
But you are right when stating that the Bundeswehr is tail heavy. This is also a result of the fast reduction of overall numbers. The units disappeared and the staffs remained.

@Grand Danois
Because of this I would like to see a 35mm gun on the Puma but with the ABM capability.

 

[Chrom]

The BTR-T is just not based on a T-72 hull, they are experimenting with older T-55/T-62 hulls as well.

Does it really matter?

Why would you even compare this vehicle to a Puma, it they decide to produce it it will carry less infantry and where are they going to dismount from, over the top, that is real safe while under fire.

Ya, but only becouse these are converted tanks. If build from scratch they could offer even better protection without all the top exit hassle. Its just example what protection could be achieved in same weight class

The Puma does offer excellant RPG-7 protection over other IFV`s including the CV-90. I find it ironic that Russia would even consider such a vehicle when they have the capability to produce something better.

OK, now give me manufacturer datas what HEAT equivalent have Puma armor. Just "improved RPG-7" protection wouldnt do it as could mean protection from HE RPG types, or what RPG grenade will not penetrate armor exploding inside - it will only pierce it with HEAT jet. Or instead of 3 dead after RPG penetration there will be now 2 dead soldiers on average.
At least for KE protection manufacturer express quite clearly - 30mm advanced AP rounds.

The information on the PZH 2000 ERA is very scarse. It could well be what Germany just dont have enouth experience with advanced ERA types and cant produce ERA with needed properties.