Jump to content

Warrior IFV


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CV9040 was designed with protection against 12.7 mm AP ammo along the frontal arc only.

You do know how ridiculous that sounds right? :rolleyes: ....even the prototypes weren't that poorly armored.

 

I know the Swedes favored mobility and firepower over protection, and proofing against 12,7 ammo might very well have been the original design specification/threshold .....but the vehicle they actually got ..had better (frontal) armor than that

Edited by MikeKiloPapa
Link to post
Share on other sites

That statmenet from me is correct, you are just completely overstating the armour of a 23 metric ton vehicle :) This protection level is confirmed by BAE Systems (they send over a presentation to the Czech Republic about the development history of the CV90, it was leaked (they didn't add password protection to their filesharing server) - CV9040 was protected against 12,7 mm, later variants reach STANAG 4569 level 5 or exceed that). The Swiss Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030 Mk II) is protected against machine gun ammo and artillery/grenade splinters when not fitted with applique armour.

 

The CV90 prototype has 20 mm lower hull armour (at 30°, so effective thickness is 23 mm) and side hull armor ranging between 6 and 10 mm.... that certainly is not going to stop a 14.5 mm AP round. The glacis plate is well armoured (20 mm at 75°, so 77 mm at the line of sight), which is why it does not receive applique armour modules on the CV9030 Mk I and Mk II variants; the Mk III and Mk IV sometimes feature applique armour at the glacis - if they feature applique armour at all, the Dutch army didn't buy enough SidePro-KE armour kits from RUAG for the CV9035NL, just like the Swiss army didn't buy enough MEXAS kits for the Schützenpanzer 2000.

Edited by methos
Link to post
Share on other sites

That statmenet from me is correct, you are just completely overstating the armour of a 23 metric ton vehicle :)

No it isn't ......the BMP-1 is protected against 12,7mm from the front and only weighs 13 tonnes......the original CV90 is 10 tonnes heavier and only slightly larger, so i rather think it is you who are understating its armor (and overstating the penetration of 12,7/14,5mm ammo) .
This protection level is confirmed by BAE Systems

 

 

No, not really
they send over a presentation to the Czech Republic about the development history of the CV90

 

 

Yes i know , i have it....as a matter of fact i recognize it because it is a slightly updated version of the presentation they used when they were trying to sell the CV90 to us(DK):D ....i know because i worked at the Army Combat Center(HKS) at the time (2005) ....Its is meant as a brief presentation of the CV90 platform and is not meant for technical personel and contains no OPSEC material (so no it wasnt "leaked")...... It is not very accurate either, in fact containing several errors.......you dont think its a little strange that the CV90 mk0 at 24(wrong) tonnes is credited with only 12,7 protection but the mk 1s weighing in at only 2 tonnes more has Level 5+ ??;) ....the 12,7 mm is probably about right for all-round protection on the CV9040 mk0s though... As a side not , i have worked long enough with the Swedes and Swedish kit to know that they NEVER as in NEVER EVER publish the true figures when it comes to armor , penetration and general capabilities.

 

 

The CV90 prototype has 20 mm lower hull armour (at 30°, so effective thickness is 23 mm)

 

 

It looks more like ~30mm to me.....Built of HHS class steel that would be enough to stop the steel cored B32.
Continues...
Link to post
Share on other sites
and side hull armor ranging between 6 and 10 mm

 

 

Its actually 6+10mm + another layer that is not present on the pics.
20 mm at 75°, so 77 mm at the line of sight

 

 

Its clearly more than that.....the hood recess is about 40mm deep.
which is why it does not receive applique armour modules on the CV9030 Mk I and Mk II variants;

 

 

On the mkIII the hood extends beneath the recess and is therefore somewhat more than 40mm thick( not completely solid of course but made up of multiple layers of different materials. On the Mk 1&2 it looks to be about the same thickness but is of a different design/construction.
the Mk III and Mk IV sometimes feature applique armour at the glacis

 

 

Yes , all the Danish mkIIIs have applique armor on the glacis, but only in front of the driver. The Dutch CV9035 in full spec version features both applique and bomblet armor on the glacis.
There is no mkIV version of the CV90.....yet......though it is reportedly under development for the LAND400 phase 3 competition in Austria Kangarooland.

if they feature applique armour at all, the Dutch army didn't buy enough SidePro-KE armour kits from RUAG for the CV9035NL, just like the Swiss army didn't buy enough MEXAS kits for the Schützenpanzer 2000.

 

 

Which kind of makes sense.....these kits are expensive and not needed on normal training duty......it just puts unnecessary strain on the vehicles and increases wear and tear.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No it isn't ......the BMP-1 is protected against 12,7mm from the front and only weighs 13 tonnes......the original CV90 is 10 tonnes heavier and only slightly larger, so i rather think it is you who are understating its armor (and overstating the penetration of 12,7/14,5mm ammo) .

 

Bmp very small vehicle with very light main weapon , and use many aluminum parts, that's why it have more or less similar armor to marder (base vehicle) ifv.

cGcHmyDsCXE.jpg

 

CV90 have 40mm gun + spaced armor on hull sides and if glacis really have 20mm steel plate it must be very heavy

N_PIRSr3yJM.jpg

z-NsUlRS4uc.jpg

BrPM1MVELBM.jpg

 

That statmenet from me is correct, you are just completely overstating the armour of a 23 metric ton vehicle :) This protection level is confirmed by BAE Systems (they send over a presentation to the Czech Republic about the development history of the CV90, it was leaked (they didn't add password protection to their filesharing server) .

Which presentation is this? I remember some armor schemes for udes prototypes

Haven't the Swiss had evaluated the original FV510 Warrior and found it deficient in the level of armour protection (among other things)? Improved and uparmoured Warrior 2000 still lost to CV9030.

Btw, maybe national archives in Kew have something about mcv80 armor?

 

Cold War ifv more or less similar in base complectation protection from enemy hmg +- some old guns AP(like 20mm), later vehicles get protection from main guns of enemy ifv(or predictable level of penetration, US tested Bradley with 30x173 apds, Germany tested marder with 30x165 ap-t from 400 meters, USSR tested bmp3 with 30x165 ap-t from 300 meters and some 30mm apds(l14 analog) from 500 meters AFAIK)

 

Soviet ifv main idea - it must retain amphibious and airborne capabilities (BMP-3 was planned as a single machine for the ground forces and vdv, and can be dropped with parachute, later this feature was deleted ) it can be stupid and it is stupid in some cases , but... USSR for example when deliver bmp1 and 2 to our troops in Afghanistan uparmored it sides from hmg and belly from light mines, modern russian MOD considers that it is not necessary to change something in protection of bmp, even considering how many different protection options the developers offer for MOD

Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't ......the BMP-1 is protected against 12,7mm from the front and only weighs 13 tonnes......the original CV90 is 10 tonnes heavier and only slightly larger, so i rather think it is you who are understating its armor (and overstating the penetration of 12,7/14,5mm ammo) .

And? BMP-1 has thinner armour at other places (like for example 6 mm roof armor instead of 20 mm), is overall smaller, has a smaller and lighter engine, lighter tracks and mounts ligher/less internal components. The T-72 is also better protected than a AMX-40, despite both tanks featuring special armour and having similar weight.

 

 

No, not really

You mean aside of them literally writing: "12.7 protection"?

 

 

Yes i know , i have it....as a matter of fact i recognize it because it is a slightly updated version of the presentation they used when they were trying to sell the CV90 to us(DK) :D ....i know because i worked at the Army Combat Center(HKS) at the time (2005) ....Its is meant as a brief presentation of the CV90 platform and is not meant for technical personel and contains no OPSEC material (so no it wasnt "leaked")...... It is not very accurate either, in fact containing several errors.......you dont think its a little strange that the CV90 mk0 at 24(wrong) tonnes is credited with only 12,7 protection but the mk 1s weighing in at only 2 tonnes more has Level 5+ ?? ;) ....the 12,7 mm is probably about right for all-round protection on the CV9040 mk0s though... As a side not , i have worked long enough with the Swedes and Swedish kit to know that they NEVER as in NEVER EVER publish the true figures when it comes to armor , penetration and general capabilities.

No. This is a strawman attempt of arguing. "They never publish the real capabilties" could be used to discard every published value regarding every performance aspect of everything.

 

The Strf 9040A/B has a weight of 23.1 metric tons. The 24 metric tons figure can be explained by BAE Systems offering the CV90 only with the addition of a BMS, digital radios or other components not found on the Strf 9040A/B.

 

The CV9030 Mk I is only 2 metric tons heavier, but it happens to have a lighter gun and turret, while also using composite armour. The MEXAS armour from IBD Deisenroth used on the CV9030 Mk I and included in the protection level figures by BAE Systems, provides between 3 and 4 times as much protection per weight as steel armour. Therefore you are looking at a weight difference of 3-4 metric tons, which can be equivalent to 9-16 metric tons of steel armor. The MEXAS ceramic armour panels added to the Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030CH, CV9030 Mk II) have a maximum thickness of 70 mm.

 

It looks more like ~30mm to me.....Built of HHS class steel that would be enough to stop the steel cored B32.

It is 20 mm according to the scheme and perfectly matches the images posted by Wiedzmin.

 

 

Its actually 6+10mm + another layer that is not present on the pics.

Maybe in case of the Danish CV9035 Mk III, but not on the older Marks. The lower hull is a single plate, upper hull are two plates (+ MEXAS on vehicles fitted with it).

 

 

The data comes from the prototype, it doesn't list two armour plates for the same section.

 

 

Its clearly more than that.....the hood recess is about 40mm deep.

The hood is fitted with a thermal insulation.

 

Yes , all the Danish mkIIIs have applique armor on the glacis, but only in front of the driver. The Dutch CV9035 in full spec version features both applique and bomblet armor on the glacis.

The Royal Netherlands Army opted to purchase armour from a different supplier (the German company GEKE Schutztechnik, which later formed a joint-venture with the Swiss company RUAG). The glacis plate is only covered by RoofPRO armour (anti-bomblet), not by the SidePRO-KE armour (ceramic armour panels similar to MEXAS).

 

There is no mkIV version of the CV90.....yet......though it is reportedly under development for the LAND400 phase 3 competition in Austria Kangarooland.

Yes, you are correct. My apologies. I was refering to the "fifth generation" CV90, which is how BAE Systems officially described the upgraded Norwegian CV90 and the CV90 models offered to the Czech Republic. These are however also called CV9030 Mk III.

 

NncGSg6.png

 

Here is a photo from a reveal event for the upgraded Norwegian CV90. Notice the layer of spaced armour ontop of the engine cover/glacis plate.

 

 

Yes , all the Danish mkIIIs have applique armor on the glacis, but only in front of the driver. The Dutch CV9035 in full spec version features both applique and bomblet armor on the glacis.

Which kind of makes sense.....these kits are expensive and not needed on normal training duty......it just puts unnecessary strain on the vehicles and increases wear and tear.

I would rather have enough in a case of war (specificially if they are made in another country), but not mount them during training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many quote tags and spam protection delays my posts...

 

Haven't the Swiss had evaluated the original FV510 Warrior and found it deficient in the level of armour protection (among other things)? Improved and uparmoured Warrior 2000 still lost to CV9030.

I don't think the Swiss tested the original Warrior variant. The Swiss IFV program was delayed due to funding troubles (otherwise they probably would have bought the Trojan IFV made by MOWAG). When the IFV project was restarted (as Schützenpanzer 2000/Char de grenadier 2000, meaning infantry fightting vehicle 2000), a total of eight candidates were considered. The three most promising (Marder M12 offered by Kuka, CV90 offered by Hägglunds and Warrior 2000 offered by GKN plc) were invited to Switzerland for tests.

According to the official Swiss government report on these tests, the Warrior 2000 was the best infantry fighting vehicle.

 

The troop trials lasted a total of six weeks. The Kuka's offer was the cheapest, being based on Marder 1A3 hulls from the German army, which were only refurbished, no other modification aside of replacing the old turret with the new E4 turret. This turret had the 30 mm Mauser Mk 30 gun (also used on the ASCOD Pizarro and Ulan, aswell in an upgraded version on the Puma IFV) and a new fire control system including a separate optic for the commander. The downside of this was the increased weight of 34.4 metric tons, which lead to the worst mobility. The Swiss disliked the fact that this offer was based on second-hand vehicles (i.e. they thought the conception of the Marder was outdated) and the spaced armour, which was fixed to the vehicle.

The Warrior 2000 was the most advanced vehicle, primarily due to the turret made by the American company Delco. It had better optics and electronics than both other contenders, including a software functionality that would allow automated tracking of targets. The Warrior 2000 also had a modular armour system (afaik the aluminium hull and the turret could be fitted with high-hardness steel plates via bolts), providing protection against 30 mm APDS ammo. The weight of the Warrior 2000 in the Swiss configuration (there also was a variant with the E4 turret offered to other countries) was 31 metric tons. A problem of the Warrior 2000 was that it had teething problems (lower reliability than the other two) due to being a more radical redesign of the Warrior. When the British company Alvis plc bought GKN, the Warrior 2000 essentially was eliminated - Alvis also owned Hägglunds and the Swiss government didn't believe, that they would commit to offer two competing products (two IFVs) for the same market segment (i.e. they feared that the teething issues would never be fixed).

The CV90 was tested in the same version chosen by Finland. While not having specifically better armour than the others, it was considered better protected due to the smaller physicial size, the low time required for adding the MEXAS armour modules and the separation of the fuel tanks from the crew compartment (not the case with the other two IFVs). Its low weight and ground pressure, aswell as having seven pairs of roadwheels rather than only six, provided decent mobility. It was the best when driving through snow. The optics and ergonomics of the CV9030 were the worst of all contenders.

 

All three vehicles met the protection requirements (protection against small arms fire and splinters in a basic version, protection against HMG rounds and medium calibre ammo at the frontal arc when fitted with applique armour). The Warrior 2000 offered the best ergonomics, the CV90 had the worst. Likewise the FCS of the Warrior 2000 was the best, the Marder M12 came second and the CV9030 offered the lowest firepower, in particular due to the low quality of the thermal imagers (first gen) and the lack of a panoramic sight for the commander (no true hunter-killer operations). The CV90 offered the largest growth potential in terms of difference between current configuration and maximum gross vehicle mass.

 

In the end the CV9030 was chosen due to it offering the best price-to-performance ratio. If the Marder M12 was offered with a different type of armour (more weight efficient ceramic armour instead of the spaced steel solution) or GKN wasn't bought by Alvis, then the CV9030 might have not been favoured. The Swiss government requested the following changes to the CV9030 design:

  • more powerful engine meeting the Euro II regulation for exhaust gases
  • second generation thermal imager
  • fitting the same radio units, machine guns and smoke grenade discharges as used within the Swiss army
  • an error diagnosis system was fitted to the vehicle
  • replacing the rear doors with a ramp
  • modernized FCS computer
  • improved ergonomics (200 mm longer hull, 100 mm greater height at the rear compartment)
There also were plans to add a separate sight for the commander, but this was too expensive.

 

Which presentation is this? I remember some armor schemes for udes prototypes

The presentation send to the Czech Republic includes no armour schemes, just protection levels of different CV 90 Marks:

  • CV9040 Mark 0 (Strf 9040) is listed as "12.7 protection"
  • CV9030 Mark I (first variant with MEXAS) is listed as STANAG 4569 level 5+. Same as CV9030 Mark II.
  • CV9035 Mark III is listed as STANAG 4569 level 5++ ballistic protection and level 3a/3b mine protection (8 kg TNT).
  • Fifth-generation CV90 (i.e. variant offered to Czech Republic, also upgraded Norwegian variant) is claimed to have STANAG 4569 level 6 ballistic and level 4a/4b mine protection (10 kg TNT). It is also offered with optional CE protection (i.e. the same AMAP kit as used on the Strf 9040C). This variant also is marketed with hardkill and softkill APS types and can resist IEDs based on 155 mm HE rounds.

Cold War ifv more or less similar in base complectation protection from enemy hmg +- some old guns AP(like 20mm), later vehicles get protection from main guns of enemy ifv(or predictable level of penetration, US tested Bradley with 30x173 apds, Germany tested marder with 30x165 ap-t from 400 meters, USSR tested bmp3 with 30x165 ap-t from 300 meters and some 30mm apds(l14 analog) from 500 meters AFAIK)

What was the range at which the Bradley was tested and what type of ammo was used?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the range at which the Bradley was tested and what type of ammo was used?

I don't know, but if you uparmor your ifv with 30-38mm steel plates, making it weight close to medium tanks,I think it somewhere near PB

 

The presentation send to the Czech Republic

Is it available(if it leaked to internet)? Because I never heard about such presentation, and all I heard about "basic" CV90 - protection from 14,5 Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to post
Share on other sites

UXAtb2XP5Mu3mtABdD22-Z7iqss82Iz09Kwco7hv



Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). His valour is worthy of the highest recognition. In the early hours of May 1 2004 Beharry's company was ordered to replenish an isolated coalition forces outpost located in the centre of the troubled city of Al Amarah. He was the driver of a platoon commander's warrior armoured fighting vehicle. His platoon was the company's reserve force and was placed on immediate notice to move.
As the main elements of his company were moving into the city to carry out the replenishment, they were re-tasked to fight through a series of enemy ambushes in order to extract a foot patrol that had become pinned down under sustained small arms and heavy machine gun fire and improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenade attack. Beharry's platoon was tasked over the radio to come to the assistance of the remainder of the company, who were attempting to extract the isolated foot patrol. As his platoon passed a roundabout, en route to the pinned-down patrol, they became aware that the road to the front was empty of all civilians and traffic - an indicator of a potential ambush ahead. The platoon commander ordered the vehicle to halt, so that he could assess the situation. The vehicle was then immediately hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades.
Eyewitnesses report that the vehicle was engulfed in a number of violent explosions, which physically rocked the 30-tonne warrior. As a result of this ferocious initial volley of fire, both the platoon commander and the vehicle's gunner were incapacitated by concussion and other wounds, and a number of the soldiers in the rear of the vehicle were also wounded. Due to damage sustained in the blast to the vehicle's radio systems, Beharry had no means of communication with either his turret crew or any of the other warrior vehicles deployed around him. He did not know if his commander or crewmen were still alive, or how serious their injuries may be.
In this confusing and dangerous situation, on his own initiative, he closed his driver's hatch and moved forward through the ambush position to try to establish some form of communications, halting just short of a barricade placed across the road. The vehicle was hit again by sustained rocket-propelled grenade attack from insurgent fighters in the alleyways and on rooftops around his vehicle. Further damage to the warrior from these explosions caused it to catch fire and fill rapidly with thick, noxious smoke. Beharry opened up his armoured hatch cover to clear his view and orientate himself to the situation. He still had no radio communications and was now acting on his own initiative, as the lead vehicle of a six warrior convoy in an enemy-controlled area of the city at night.
He assessed that his best course of action to save the lives of his crew was to push through, out of the ambush. He drove his warrior directly through the barricade, not knowing if there were mines or improvised explosive devices placed there to destroy his vehicle. By doing this he was able to lead the remaining five warriors behind him towards safety. As the smoke in his driver's tunnel cleared, he was just able to make out the shape of another rocket-propelled grenade in flight heading directly towards him. He pulled the heavy armoured hatch down with one hand, whilst still controlling his vehicle with the other. However, the overpressure from the explosion of the rocket wrenched the hatch out of his grip, and the flames and force of the blast passed directly over him, down the driver's tunnel, further wounding the semi-conscious gunner in the turret.
The impact of this rocket destroyed Beharry's armoured periscope, so he was forced to drive the vehicle through the remainder of the ambushed route, some 1500m long, with his hatch opened up and his head exposed to enemy fire, all the time with no communications with any other vehicle. During this long surge through the ambushes the vehicle was again struck by rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. While his head remained out of the hatch, to enable him to see the route ahead, he was directly exposed to much of this fire, and was himself hit by a 7.62mm bullet, which penetrated his helmet and remained lodged on its inner surface. Despite this harrowing weight of incoming fire Beharry continued to push through the extended ambush, still leading his platoon until he broke clean.
He then visually identified another warrior from his company and followed it through the streets of Al Amarah to the outside of the Cimic House outpost, which was receiving small arms fire from the surrounding area. Once he had brought his vehicle to a halt outside, without thought for his own personal safety, he climbed onto the turret of the still-burning vehicle and, seemingly oblivious to the incoming enemy small arms fire, manhandled his wounded platoon commander out of the turret, off the vehicle and to the safety of a nearby warrior. He then returned once again to his vehicle and again mounted the exposed turret to lift out the vehicle's gunner and move him to a position of safety. Exposing himself yet again to enemy fire he returned to the rear of the burning vehicle to lead the disorientated and shocked dismounts and casualties to safety.
Remounting his burning vehicle for the third time, he drove it through a complex chicane and into the security of the defended perimeter of the outpost, thus denying it to the enemy. Only at this stage did Beharry pull the fire extinguisher handles, immobilising the engine of the vehicle, dismounted and then moved himself into the relative safety of the back of another warrior. Once inside Beharry collapsed from the sheer physical and mental exhaustion of his efforts and was subsequently himself evacuated.
The second incident, in which he was critically wounded:
Having returned to duty following medical treatment, on June 11 2004 Beharry's warrior was part of a quick reaction force tasked to attempt to cut off a mortar team that had attacked a coalition force base in Al Amarah. As the lead vehicle of the platoon he was moving rapidly through the dark city streets towards the suspected firing point, when his vehicle was ambushed by the enemy from a series of rooftop positions. During this initial heavy weight of enemy fire, a rocket-propelled grenade detonated on the vehicle's frontal armour, just six inches [15cm] from Beharry's head, resulting in a serious head injury. Other rockets struck the turret and sides of the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.
With the blood from his head injury obscuring his vision, Beharry managed to continue to control his vehicle, and forcefully reversed the warrior out of the ambush area. The vehicle continued to move until it struck the wall of a nearby building and came to rest. Beharry then lost consciousness as a result of his wounds. By moving the vehicle out of the enemy's chosen killing area he enabled other warrior crews to be able to extract his crew from his vehicle, with a greatly reduced risk from incoming fire.
Despite receiving a serious head injury, which later saw him being listed as very seriously injured and in a coma for some time, his level-headed actions in the face of heavy and accurate enemy fire at short range again almost certainly saved the lives of his crew and provided the conditions for their safe evacuation to medical treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrior side armor is thin steel box with plates of various material set at about 45deg inside. IIRC those include polymer, steel and aluminium. It really looks like Iraqi T-55 uparmor inside I was told.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

UXAtb2XP5Mu3mtABdD22-Z7iqss82Iz09Kwco7hv

 

Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). His valour is worthy of the highest recognition. In the early hours of May 1 2004 Beharry's company was ordered to replenish an isolated coalition forces outpost located in the centre of the troubled city of Al Amarah. He was the driver of a platoon commander's warrior armoured fighting vehicle. His platoon was the company's reserve force and was placed on immediate notice to move.

As the main elements of his company were moving into the city to carry out the replenishment, they were re-tasked to fight through a series of enemy ambushes in order to extract a foot patrol that had become pinned down under sustained small arms and heavy machine gun fire and improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenade attack. Beharry's platoon was tasked over the radio to come to the assistance of the remainder of the company, who were attempting to extract the isolated foot patrol. As his platoon passed a roundabout, en route to the pinned-down patrol, they became aware that the road to the front was empty of all civilians and traffic - an indicator of a potential ambush ahead. The platoon commander ordered the vehicle to halt, so that he could assess the situation. The vehicle was then immediately hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades.

Eyewitnesses report that the vehicle was engulfed in a number of violent explosions, which physically rocked the 30-tonne warrior. As a result of this ferocious initial volley of fire, both the platoon commander and the vehicle's gunner were incapacitated by concussion and other wounds, and a number of the soldiers in the rear of the vehicle were also wounded. Due to damage sustained in the blast to the vehicle's radio systems, Beharry had no means of communication with either his turret crew or any of the other warrior vehicles deployed around him. He did not know if his commander or crewmen were still alive, or how serious their injuries may be.

In this confusing and dangerous situation, on his own initiative, he closed his driver's hatch and moved forward through the ambush position to try to establish some form of communications, halting just short of a barricade placed across the road. The vehicle was hit again by sustained rocket-propelled grenade attack from insurgent fighters in the alleyways and on rooftops around his vehicle. Further damage to the warrior from these explosions caused it to catch fire and fill rapidly with thick, noxious smoke. Beharry opened up his armoured hatch cover to clear his view and orientate himself to the situation. He still had no radio communications and was now acting on his own initiative, as the lead vehicle of a six warrior convoy in an enemy-controlled area of the city at night.

He assessed that his best course of action to save the lives of his crew was to push through, out of the ambush. He drove his warrior directly through the barricade, not knowing if there were mines or improvised explosive devices placed there to destroy his vehicle. By doing this he was able to lead the remaining five warriors behind him towards safety. As the smoke in his driver's tunnel cleared, he was just able to make out the shape of another rocket-propelled grenade in flight heading directly towards him. He pulled the heavy armoured hatch down with one hand, whilst still controlling his vehicle with the other. However, the overpressure from the explosion of the rocket wrenched the hatch out of his grip, and the flames and force of the blast passed directly over him, down the driver's tunnel, further wounding the semi-conscious gunner in the turret.

The impact of this rocket destroyed Beharry's armoured periscope, so he was forced to drive the vehicle through the remainder of the ambushed route, some 1500m long, with his hatch opened up and his head exposed to enemy fire, all the time with no communications with any other vehicle. During this long surge through the ambushes the vehicle was again struck by rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. While his head remained out of the hatch, to enable him to see the route ahead, he was directly exposed to much of this fire, and was himself hit by a 7.62mm bullet, which penetrated his helmet and remained lodged on its inner surface. Despite this harrowing weight of incoming fire Beharry continued to push through the extended ambush, still leading his platoon until he broke clean.

He then visually identified another warrior from his company and followed it through the streets of Al Amarah to the outside of the Cimic House outpost, which was receiving small arms fire from the surrounding area. Once he had brought his vehicle to a halt outside, without thought for his own personal safety, he climbed onto the turret of the still-burning vehicle and, seemingly oblivious to the incoming enemy small arms fire, manhandled his wounded platoon commander out of the turret, off the vehicle and to the safety of a nearby warrior. He then returned once again to his vehicle and again mounted the exposed turret to lift out the vehicle's gunner and move him to a position of safety. Exposing himself yet again to enemy fire he returned to the rear of the burning vehicle to lead the disorientated and shocked dismounts and casualties to safety.

Remounting his burning vehicle for the third time, he drove it through a complex chicane and into the security of the defended perimeter of the outpost, thus denying it to the enemy. Only at this stage did Beharry pull the fire extinguisher handles, immobilising the engine of the vehicle, dismounted and then moved himself into the relative safety of the back of another warrior. Once inside Beharry collapsed from the sheer physical and mental exhaustion of his efforts and was subsequently himself evacuated.

The second incident, in which he was critically wounded:

Having returned to duty following medical treatment, on June 11 2004 Beharry's warrior was part of a quick reaction force tasked to attempt to cut off a mortar team that had attacked a coalition force base in Al Amarah. As the lead vehicle of the platoon he was moving rapidly through the dark city streets towards the suspected firing point, when his vehicle was ambushed by the enemy from a series of rooftop positions. During this initial heavy weight of enemy fire, a rocket-propelled grenade detonated on the vehicle's frontal armour, just six inches [15cm] from Beharry's head, resulting in a serious head injury. Other rockets struck the turret and sides of the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.

With the blood from his head injury obscuring his vision, Beharry managed to continue to control his vehicle, and forcefully reversed the warrior out of the ambush area. The vehicle continued to move until it struck the wall of a nearby building and came to rest. Beharry then lost consciousness as a result of his wounds. By moving the vehicle out of the enemy's chosen killing area he enabled other warrior crews to be able to extract his crew from his vehicle, with a greatly reduced risk from incoming fire.

Despite receiving a serious head injury, which later saw him being listed as very seriously injured and in a coma for some time, his level-headed actions in the face of heavy and accurate enemy fire at short range again almost certainly saved the lives of his crew and provided the conditions for their safe evacuation to medical treatment.

 

 

His biography is a pretty good read. He talked of when he received the wound from the RPG. After it hit, his commander told him to back up. 'Ok Boss!' he supposedly said back. The only thing was, he had the remnants of an RPG in his head at the time and was bleeding profusely, so not surprisingly he has absolutely no mention of it. As it turned out, he continued to back up till he was thoughtfully stopped by someones house.

 

'Dusty Warriors' by Richard Holmes is also a damn good read. It describes the deployment of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment as they deployed in Iraq in stabilization operations in 2004. It highlights the pluses and minuses of the vehicle, the lack of a true fire on the move capability (The gloriously conceived 118 118 manoeuvre came unstuck when they figured out it would only work on salisbury plain, where its relatively stable ground) and the remarkable ability of the vehicle to take punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites


CV9030, Warrior 2000, Marder M12 in Switzerland


5838926982_a1a6f61851_b.jpg
5838375413_10c84057e1_b.jpg
Warrior 2000

Technical data:
- length 6,968 mm
- width: 3,375 mm
. height: 2,952 mm (to the top of the optics?)
- crew: 3 + 7 dismounts
- weight 30,400 kg
- engine: 650 hp
- armament 30 mm Bushmaster II, MG-51 (7.5 mm)
- ground clearance: 490 mm
- maximum speed: 75 km/h
- trench crossing: 2.5 metres
- range: 600 km
- obstacle climbing: 0,8 metres




I don't know, but if you uparmor your ifv with 30-38mm steel plates, making it weight close to medium tanks,I think it somewhere near PB


The M2 Bradley before armour upgrade had a combat weight of 50,259 lbs (22.78 metric tons). After the adoption of the steel plates, the weight was raised to 59,882 lbs (27.16 metric tons). Therefore the weight increase was just 4.36 metric tons. Most of the weight increase comes from later upgrades (bigger engine, ERA, mine-protection kit), raising combat weight to 75,419 lbs (34.20 metric tons).

I don't think that warrants higher protection level than the Marder 1A3. The Marder 1A3's spaced armour added a total of 5.5 metric tons of weight. The mine protectiton plate of the Marder 1A5 added a further 4 metric tons (37.5 metric ttons combat weight).

The maximum thickness of the steeel plates seems to be 38 mm, but this thickness is only used on the (frontal?) side skirt modules, where the previous skirt armour was replaced (two spaced plates of 6.25 mm thickness each). The steel plates added to the hull seem to be 20-25 mm thick only (see here for example). The lower hull section is only protected by thin spaced armour. Turret armour might be 30-38 mm thick at the front, but side plates seem to be 10-20 mm at most (see here and here for example). The plates added to the sloped section of the hull sides seem to be 5-10 mm thick (see here).

The Marder is physically smaller than the Bradley and has a low-profile turret. So logically it should have a higher protection level. However it has thinner side armour (but better frontal armour) and the armour upgrade also includes storage boxes (which double-act as additional side armour).

Is it available(if it leaked to internet)? Because I never heard about such presentation, and all I heard about "basic" CV90 - protection from 14,5


Not anymore, after first screenshots/photos were posted, BAE Systems added a password to the filesharing server. There were multiple presentations, I have only seen parts of three. Here is the overview on protection:
CV90.png

Warrior side armor is thin steel box with plates of various material set at about 45deg inside. IIRC those include polymer, steel and aluminium. It really looks like Iraqi T-55 uparmor inside I was told.


Like this armour proposed for the Chieftain "Chobham upgrade"?


 

Edited by methos
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Khafji" T-55 had aluminium and steel plates separated by a rubber-like layer. It's not obvious, even from the photos I took of it at Bovington, but it appeared that the steel plates were welded to the box rather than riveted as per your picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Warrior side armor is thin steel box with plates of various material set at about 45deg inside. IIRC those include polymer, steel and aluminium. It really looks like Iraqi T-55 uparmor inside I was told.

Like this armour proposed for the Chieftain "Chobham upgrade"?

 

 

 

Yeah, that is how it was described to me by people who had a peek inside*. Which is probably no surprise...

*From the few boxes that got lost in Bosnia.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Khafji" T-55 had aluminium and steel plates separated by a rubber-like layer. It's not obvious, even from the photos I took of it at Bovington, but it appeared that the steel plates were welded to the box rather than riveted as per your picture.

Still idea is similar.

It is quite possible Iraqis were actually inspired by the British work (which they possibly somehow got info?), as their add-on has more in common with it than with Soviet BDD.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "Khafji" T-55 had aluminium and steel plates separated by a rubber-like layer. It's not obvious, even from the photos I took of it at Bovington, but it appeared that the steel plates were welded to the box rather than riveted as per your picture.

Still idea is similar.

It is quite possible Iraqis were actually inspired by the British work (which they possibly somehow got info?), as their add-on has more in common with it than with Soviet BDD.

 

 

 

Saddam hired lots of foreign engineers for projects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The story I hear, the workshops they had in West Germany were off limits to German nationals, and many Army personnel, because of the presence of Stillbrew and Chobham. So for it to be true, they would have had to have got it direct from the manufacturers. Which I think would probably have come to light by now. Matrix Churchill and the supergun affair did.

 

Maybe the Iraqi's were far more inventive then we give them due credit for.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

During OIF, there was a small number of T-72M1M (Obj. 172M-1-E7) tanks in Iraq. These tanks featured the same type of NERA array as used on the T-72B (Obj. 184) and T-72S Shilden (Obj. 172M-1-E8). Maybe the T-72M1M tanks were already delivered to Iraq prior ODS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...