BMP-1: Is this truly the best IFV?

[eckherl]

Does it really matter?
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

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.

The armor protection level on the Puma is classified, Waylander has already stated that there is a weak area on the vehicle, the rear end. From the 60 degree frontal or flanks, a RPG7 is not going to penetrate this vehicle. If Russia can state that they make armor that can withstand shape charge penetration why is it difficult in assuming that Western countries can do it to.

For as long as reactive armor has been around I do not think Germany would be behind the power curve inregards to technology, PZH 2000 ERA is not designed to take hits from shaped charges fired from mainguns but is designed for bomblets/area saturation sub munitions fired from artillery or from aircraft which NATO and Russia have large stocks of.

I am in agreement with the Russian modified tank hulls, I liked what they did in re-gards to the BMP-T and they should make more of them, but for a infantry hauler they are better off in just designing a new vehicle which they are capable of doing.

 

[Waylander]

The example with the PzH2000 was just meant to show that we have no special aversion against using ERA if needed.

 

[Chrom]

The armor protection level on the Puma is classified, Waylander has already stated that there is a weak area on the vehicle, the rear end. From the 60 degree frontal or flanks, a RPG7 is not going to penetrate this vehicle. If Russia can state that they make armor that can withstand shape charge penetration why is it difficult in assuming that Western countries can do it to.

Proof? Even manufacturer do not advertise Puma with "RPG will not penetrate". Besides, russians use ERA, and its widely known what ERA is 3-4 times more effective per-wieght basis as common composite armor.

For as long as reactive armor has been around I do not think Germany would be behind the power curve inregards to technology, PZH 2000 ERA is not designed to take hits from shaped charges fired from mainguns but is designed for bomblets/area saturation sub munitions fired from artillery or from aircraft which NATO and Russia have large stocks of.

I am in agreement with the Russian modified tank hulls, I liked what they did in re-gards to the BMP-T and they should make more of them, but for a infantry hauler they are better off in just designing a new vehicle which they are capable of doing.

While i agree with you what new vehicle would be much better (and, BTW, seems RuA thinks same too), converted BTR-T have one very big advantage - price.
As for german ERA...
Only known example is PZH 2000 where this ERA (seriosly) dont play any important role at all. I mean, there could be just wood bricks and it wouldnt affect PZH protection that much. I see this just as experimenal example in real service meant to gather experience for future ERA development. Russia fielded 3rd generation ERA and already prepared 4rd generation which is believed to be at least twice as effective. Guess what effectivity have german ERA, when they develop it without prior long-time experience? Again, if you believe what any composite armor can be even half as effective as ERA - then i dont know what information you have about ERA.

 

[eckherl]

Proof? Even manufacturer do not advertise Puma with "RPG will not penetrate". Besides, russians use ERA, and its widely known what ERA is 3-4 times more effective per-wieght basis as common composite armor.


While i agree with you what new vehicle would be much better (and, BTW, seems RuA thinks same too), converted BTR-T have one very big advantage - price.
As for german ERA...
Only known example is PZH 2000 where this ERA (seriosly) dont play any important role at all. I mean, there could be just wood bricks and it wouldnt affect PZH protection that much. I see this just as experimenal example in real service meant to gather experience for future ERA development. Russia fielded 3rd generation ERA and already prepared 4rd generation which is believed to be at least twice as effective. Guess what effectivity have german ERA, when they develop it without prior long-time experience? Again, if you believe what any composite armor can be even half as effective as ERA - then i dont know what information you have about ERA.

Israel has been making reactive armor for a very long time now also, you do not think that they have shared their advancements into it, what about Ukraine, they are just as capable as Russia, you do not think that they haven`t contributed knowledge also.

If composite armor protection is so bad then why is everyone still designing armor with it, as for reactive armor, the Russians had no choice but to go with it do to the size of their vehicles, it is a cheap way to protect your armor.

 

[Maskirovka]

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.

I really don´t know how modular the Puma is, can you exchange the hull compartment in one hour and turn the vehicle from an IFV to an ambulance? Your just talking about armour package. If not, it´s IMO simply not a new generation vehicle that is expected today.
Better mine-protection etc... offcourse, its a new vehicle! Every new vehicle has to have better protection than its predecessor but that does not make it unique and a new generation.
Thats why I said "too little, too late", the "little" part meaning it does not incoorporate those special new details that would make it a überträger over the CV90 (or other IFVs in the same category). Don´t get me wrong. The Puma is certainly a great IFV, it´s just a little "too little, to late" to be a success IMO...

 

[Waylander]

@Maskirovka
As I said before we have the Boxer APC which is beginning introduction now, which is going to fill the role of a modular APC you are talking about.

And I still ask you what would be the items you would expect of a 2007 IFV?

@Chrom
The Israelis are a good example. They field ERA for a long time and still haven't implemented it into the Merkava Mk IV or their new APC.
Makes you think about why...

 

[Chrom]

Israel has been making reactive armor for a very long time now also, you do not think that they have shared their advancements into it, what about Ukraine, they are just as capable as Russia, you do not think that they haven`t contributed knowledge also.

If composite armor protection is so bad then why is everyone still designing armor with it, as for reactive armor, the Russians had no choice but to go with it do to the size of their vehicles, it is a cheap way to protect your armor.

Wrong, Israel stopped developing it after initial try in later 70x. Remember, first generation ERA (and Israel ones was even worse than first) had many defeciences - for one it was dungerous for own infantry, its wasnt THAT much effective also. But since then things changed. Even 2nd generation ERA was much, much better. Israel only recently restarted ERA development.
As for why using composite armor... well, composite armor is integral part of tank defence. ERA alone is not enouth - just as steel or ceramic alone is not enouth. Why West was later to use it... (btw, notice - most future western projects are planned with ERA despite good progress in composite armor) - i can only guess. Conservatism, low funds, not realising its full potencial... just the same history as with HMS, off-boresight missiles, gun-launched ATGM's, aircraft datalinks, active IFV protection, etc - all these are examples where USSR developers was ahead by decades. One cant have it all, there will be always areas where your developers are behind someone.

P.S. About size of russian vehicles. T-80B/U armor even without ERA is at least as good as counterporary M1A1. T-90 armor, even without ERA, was at least as good as M1A2. Well, T-90A armor estimates is _slightly_ worse than M1A2HEP - but T-90A posses integral ERA which is much more effective and reliable when previous generations. So, it is common mistake to think what composite armor on russian tanks is weaker, so they was forced to use ERA.
If anything, the size of russian vehicles plays FAVORABLE role in they protection. I mean, its much easer to protect smaller vehicle than large.

 

[Waylander]

M1A2HEP? First I thought this was a mistake but now I have read it more than once by you. What is a M1A2HEP? The newest version is the M1A2SEP which has the same armor as the M1A1HA.

And when I remember how overrated the armor of for example the T-72M1 was I am secptical about the current claims about T-80s and T-90s armor.

 

[Chrom]

M1A2HEP? First I thought this was a mistake but now I have read it more than once by you. What is a M1A2HEP? The newest version is the M1A2SEP which has the same armor as the M1A1HA.

It IS my mystake For same unknown reason i always write M1A2HEP when i mean M1A2SEP

And when I remember how overrated the armor of for example the T-72M1 was I am secptical about the current claims about T-80s and T-90s armor.

Hmm, how overrated? Lets compare 25-years old estimates with what we currently know. Surprisingly, they do not differ much. You judge T72M1 armor from current POV, where modern APFSDS can penetrate 2 T-72M1 at once - but that wasnt the case 30 years ago.
The T-64B, T-72B and T-80B armor is known good enouth for all intents and purposes - lets compare they armor vs conterporary western guns and APFSDS. You'll see why western tankers wasnt very happy about meeting them.

 

[Waylander]

I agree that M60s, Leopard 1, etc. would have had a hard time against T-72s and I am the last to not agree to this.

But when I look at for example 120mm BM-33 entering the turret of T-72M1s at 2km and leaving it at the back (With enough penetration power left) than I have to say that there are two possible solutions. The armor of the T-72M1s was overrated or the western APFSDS were underrated.
And it is not as if our 105mm was not able to penetrate the T-72M1s. We tested it and they did it.

 

[eckherl]

Wrong, Israel stopped developing it after initial try in later 70x. Remember, first generation ERA (and Israel ones was even worse than first) had many defeciences - for one it was dungerous for own infantry, its wasnt THAT much effective also. But since then things changed. Even 2nd generation ERA was much, much better. Israel only recently restarted ERA development.
As for why using composite armor... well, composite armor is integral part of tank defence. ERA alone is not enouth - just as steel or ceramic alone is not enouth. Why West was later to use it... (btw, notice - most future western projects are planned with ERA despite good progress in composite armor) - i can only guess. Conservatism, low funds, not realising its full potencial... just the same history as with HMS, off-boresight missiles, gun-launched ATGM's, aircraft datalinks, active IFV protection, etc - all these are examples where USSR developers was ahead by decades. One cant have it all, there will be always areas where your developers are behind someone.

P.S. About size of russian vehicles. T-80B/U armor even without ERA is at least as good as counterporary M1A1. T-90 armor, even without ERA, was at least as good as M1A2. Well, T-90A armor estimates is _slightly_ worse than M1A2HEP - but T-90A posses integral ERA which is much more effective and reliable when previous generations. So, it is common mistake to think what composite armor on russian tanks is weaker, so they was forced to use ERA.
If anything, the size of russian vehicles plays FAVORABLE role in they protection. I mean, its much easer to protect smaller vehicle than large.

No - the Israelis stopped producing it because composite armor is the way to go and how do you know that armor protection levels are on par with western modern designed tanks, because Russia has stated this.
If Russia had bigger designed tanks they would also place additional composite armor protection on their vehicles.
Ask yourself this question - if the armor protection levels on Russian designed tanks are so spectaculer why isn`t the U.S or anybody else going to it, we have the technology and know how to produce it also.
The Puma is one of the best protected IFV`s in the world and to get to that level the Germans paid the price in weight. I find it interesting on the new armor package they are placing on the BMP3, it is quite thick, is it possibly a older ERA arrangement due to the design of the vehicle, would it be a issue of placing it on the BMP1 or 2 series.
Let`s steer the topic back to the BMP and we can take the composite versus ERA protection levels back to one of the Russian and western tank topics.

 

[eckherl]

I agree that M60s, Leopard 1, etc. would have had a hard time against T-72s and I am the last to not agree to this.

But when I look at for example 120mm BM-33 entering the turret of T-72M1s at 2km and leaving it at the back (With enough penetration power left) than I have to say that there are two possible solutions. The armor of the T-72M1s was overrated or the western APFSDS were underrated.
And it is not as if our 105mm was not able to penetrate the T-72M1s. We tested it and they did it.

The answer is yes to both questions. Did you mean DM-33.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, a tipo.

 

[Chrom]

No - the Israelis stopped producing it because composite armor is the way to go and how do you know that armor protection levels are on par with western modern designed tanks, because Russia has stated this.

Hmm, wonder why just every western manufacturer rush to install ERA and active protection on future tanks and IFV's?

If Russia had bigger designed tanks they would also place additional composite armor protection on their vehicles.

Wrong, very wrong. Smaller vehicle need much less armor to achieve same protection. Comparing weight/protected space of T-series with M1-series we will see what T-xx tanks have better weight/space relation - and as such better protected given equal armor quality (which at least should be the case seeing as Russians pioneered composite armor)

Ask yourself this question - if the armor protection levels on Russian designed tanks are so spectaculer why isn`t the U.S or anybody else going to it, we have the technology and know how to produce it also.

Ask yourself, if HMS and offboresight missiles are so spectacular, why USA and other countries did not used it? If active IFV protection is so spectacular, why USA or Israel dont use it? If datalink on each frontline fighter is so spectacular, why USA dont use it? May be you see the pattern here? Its not as easy as its sounds. There is good phrase - even 9 womens cant born a children in 1 month. Even 100 billions $$ wil not buy you technology what is developing 30 years in 2 years.

The Puma is one of the best protected IFV`s in the world and to get to that level the Germans paid the price in weight.

No questions about it. I just feel what with that weight and price much more could be achieved with only very marginal sacrifice in troop comfort and using ERA.
Example http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3888/t64tbtr7ha.jpg
Said to be IFV based on converted T-64. Weights 33 tons, take 10 troops + 2 crew. Just an example. Now tell me what Puma-A is better protected than T-64B. And that, i stess its, just CONVERSION of old tank. New vehicle of same weight would be much better.

I find it interesting on the new armor package they are placing on the BMP3, it is quite thick, is it possibly a older ERA arrangement due to the design of the vehicle, would it be a issue of placing it on the BMP1 or 2 series.
Let`s steer the topic back to the BMP and we can take the composite versus ERA protection levels back to one of the Russian and western tank topics.

But ERA is integral part of upgraded BMP-3 and can be installed on BMP-1 if needed. If we stop diskuss about ERA then we should also stop diskuss about Puma or any other IFV designed in the last 15 years.

 

[Waylander]

Who is rushing for ERA? The US have it in their TUSK upgrade. Who else?
I know of no ERA upgrades for the Leclerc, Merkava or Leopard II.

But it is right that some active and passive defense systems are in the pipe or nealry completed like the Israeli Trophy, German system by Diehl or the US projects.
As I stated before this is much more an option and is going to be implemented in the Puma. The Puma is wired for such a system and the space for such a system has already been reserved.

And the troops comfort is at its limit in the Puma. Just look at some of the interior pictures you can see in the link I posted here some posts before and then look at a picture of a german infantryman with its full IdZ gear and weapon.

 

[Chrom]

Who is rushing for ERA? The US have it in their TUSK upgrade. Who else?
I know of no ERA upgrades for the Leclerc, Merkava or Leopard II.

All of these have ERA upgrades planned. For example French ERA for Leclerc is believed to be on the level of 4C20 elements - i.e. later 80x USSR ERA. Besides, as if TUSK already not enouth to show the importance of ERA...

But it is right that some active and passive defense systems are in the pipe or nealry completed like the Israeli Trophy, German system by Diehl or the US projects.
As I stated before this is much more an option and is going to be implemented in the Puma. The Puma is wired for such a system and the space for such a system has already been reserved.

And the troops comfort is at its limit in the Puma. Just look at some of the interior pictures you can see in the link I posted here some posts before and then look at a picture of a german infantryman with its full IdZ gear and weapon.

You know, given Puma dimensions i just dont believe it. Seems "comfort" means different things for different shools.

 

[Waylander]

Show me the ERA upgrades.

And have you looked at the pictures of the Pumas interior?

 

[eckherl]

All of these have ERA upgrades planned. For example French ERA for Leclerc is believed to be on the level of 4C20 elements - i.e. later 80x USSR ERA. Besides, as if TUSK already not enouth to show the importance of ERA...

You know, given Puma dimensions i just dont believe it. Seems "comfort" means different things for different shools.

Tusk was accelerated for the field in Iraq do to vehicle losses, if and when we come out with a new design it will most likely take the shape of modular composite armor, where on the Leclerc will they place their ERA, where on vehicles is the armor protection at it`s minimal.

 

[eckherl]

Hmm, wonder why just every western manufacturer rush to install ERA and active protection on future tanks and IFV's?
Wrong, very wrong. Smaller vehicle need much less armor to achieve same protection. Comparing weight/protected space of T-series with M1-series we will see what T-xx tanks have better weight/space relation - and as such better protected given equal armor quality (which at least should be the case seeing as Russians pioneered composite armor)
Ask yourself, if HMS and offboresight missiles are so spectacular, why USA and other countries did not used it? If active IFV protection is so spectacular, why USA or Israel dont use it? If datalink on each frontline fighter is so spectacular, why USA dont use it? May be you see the pattern here? Its not as easy as its sounds. There is good phrase - even 9 womens cant born a children in 1 month. Even 100 billions $$ wil not buy you technology what is developing 30 years in 2 years.
No questions about it. I just feel what with that weight and price much more could be achieved with only very marginal sacrifice in troop comfort and using ERA.
Example http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3888/t64tbtr7ha.jpg
Said to be IFV based on converted T-64. Weights 33 tons, take 10 troops + 2 crew. Just an example. Now tell me what Puma-A is better protected than T-64B. And that, i stess its, just CONVERSION of old tank. New vehicle of same weight would be much better.
But ERA is integral part of upgraded BMP-3 and can be installed on BMP-1 if needed. If we stop diskuss about ERA then we should also stop diskuss about Puma or any other IFV designed in the last 15 years.

There is only one country that will be able to do a feasible job in converting tank hulls into infantry haulers, and that will be Isreal, for proper dismount going over the top is not the tactical answer.
I do not buy into the discussions that ERA armor is better than composites, if it were the case western countries would be placing it on their vehicles and why not, it is cheaper and lighter right?
The U.S has T-84`s that we purchased from Ukraine with some of the latest technology available from Russia, we were not impressed, South Korea has a batch of T-80U`s from Russia, name some of that technology that was placed in the K-2.
The only reason why the BMP3 went with this current ERA package is because the UAE was shopping around for it for their vehicles, I don`t believe that Russia would be satisfied with this current set up, maybe they should look at a modular design for it if the structure welds will hold up which may be a issue also.
Can you tell me the size of this prototype vehicle that Russia was working with and if it is a scrapped project.

Chrom - please do not take me wrong in regards to Russian armor, they have their philosophy and we have ours, I would not ever under estimate a Russian T-80/T-90 series tank in battle, they do have advancements that they have engineered especially their Guided missles that we seemed to be playing catch up on. I am really interested in a vehicle called 9P157-2 Krizantemma tank destroyer, this is based off of a BMP3 hull and the anti tank missile is reported to be able to knock out older versions of M1 and Leopards series tanks.

 

[Chrom]

Tusk was accelerated for the field in Iraq do to vehicle losses, if and when we come out with a new design it will most likely take the shape of modular composite armor, where on the Leclerc will they place their ERA, where on vehicles is the armor protection at it`s minimal.

Hmm, lets see it - without a threat USA didnt bother to actually improve the armor. However, once american soldeirs starts to die they quickly come with something actually usefull - ERA. Of course, without Iraq US could get away with any armor - after all, if noone shot them any armor will do just fine.