Jump to content

M2 Bradley Modernization.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

These "rebuilds" are amazing in what they do. AH-1Z is another great example. Is it really just a way of getting around all the bureaucracy and bullshit that would come with a completely new vehicle?

 

Yeah, for example M109A7 is completely new vehicle that have nothing in common with M109's of the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Armor thickness visible. Base CV-90 is not that impressive either, front turret is 35mm.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I meassured addon HHS plates on M2A3, they are around 30mm thick + the base armor.

However with improved suspension and powerpack, Next generation Bradley, might be able to use another additional passive armor kit + ERA. In general there is still growth potential in Bradley after such upgrades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meassured addon HHS plates on M2A3, they are around 30mm thick + the base armor.

 

They are not solid however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the steel plates installed on the side armour not supposed to be 1.25 or 1.5 inches?

1.5" thick array, made of two .25" HHS steel plates spaced @ 1" apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still layered, only inner void is different - I don't know exact composition but it supposedly has another HHS plate and two .layers of polymer.

 

Edit, my mistake, 1.25", so probably 3 x .25" HHS plates and two .25 layers of polymer.

That is on the sides. Lower sides protecting suspension are still two .25" spaced plates .

t is possible that the front is single HHS plate, after all layered would work better vs smaller cal projectiles while single block is better vs larger.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 40 tons. How much better protection does that give than the CV90 which weighs in at under 30 ton from what I can read?

 

/R

The latest versions of CV90 all weigh more than 30 tonnes.....from 32-35 depending on which model. The coming CV90 Mk IV in development now will probably reach a gross vehicle weight of 38-40 tonnes.

In terms of relative protection levels, the CV90 always had better base armor than the aluminum M2/M3 , thanks to its spaced steel armor. However the latter has since received much more extensive add on armor and ERA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Base CV-90 is not that impressive either, front turret is 35mm.

 

Are you speaking of the original CV90 Mk1s ?.....because the later versions all have significantly more than that....Mk IIIs a LOT more in fact !

 

As to the impressiveness of the CVs armor , i guess thats' a matter of opinion and perspective. When it was developed it had better base armor than just about any other contemporary IFVs in its class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you speaking of the original CV90 Mk1s ?...

 

Base armor only, w/o any add-ons. It is also sloped so LoS is higher. Pic from a Russian forum:

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you speaking of the original CV90 Mk1s ?...

 

Base armor only, w/o any add-ons. It is also sloped so LoS is higher. Pic from a Russian forum:

 

Yes...i know the picture ....it shows the turret of a CV9035NL being built at a facility in the Netherlands......but this picture doesn't actually show the base armor of the CV, only a part of it. The finished turret looks a lot different and its not made from just a single layer of homogeneous steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even on first produced CV90s?

At 22t I am not expecting wonders from armor, and 35mm highly sloped front turret would be more than base Marder (25mm), BMP-1/2 (23mm) or Bradley (1.5" Al + add on) and BMP-3 (50mm Al + 16mm HHS).

 

Or was a structure also spaced on 1st ones but layers combined to 35mm?

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even on first produced CV90s?

At 22t I am not expecting wonders from armor, and 35mm highly sloped front turret would be more than base Marder (25mm), BMP-1/2 (23mm) or Bradley (1.5" Al + add on) and BMP-3 (50mm Al + 16mm HHS).

 

Or was a structure also spaced on 1st ones but layers combined to 35mm?

That i dont know......the Swedish Mk 1's have a completely different turret so anything is possible, but i would be very surprised if they didn't use a form of multi-layer armor as well,...the hull certainly does. But with the low weight in mind its probably not very thick .....though even the early CVs is said to protect against 30 mm AP from the front ....likely meaning the 3UBR6 round. But its all guesswork on my part.

 

The Norwegian CV9030 mk1 use a similar armor layout to the later Mk II and III , albeit in a thinner and less sophisticated version i believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That i dont know......the Swedish Mk 1's have a completely different turret so anything is possible, but i would be very surprised if they didn't use a form of multi-layer armor as well,...the hull certainly does. But with the low weight in mind its probably not very thick .....though even the early CVs is said to protect against 30 mm AP from the front ....likely meaning the 3UBR6 round. But its all guesswork on my part.

 

The original Strf 9040/CV9040 was designed with protection against 14.5 mm AP and 23 mm API ammunition along the frontal arc, the sides were resistant to 7.62 mm ammunition only. This is essentially the same protection level as the Austro-Spanish ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle from the same era. I have never read anything about the original Strf 9040 being protected against 30 mm AP rounds... specifically at such a low weight.

 

The later versions (including the export models) are fitted with additional composite armour (AFAIK from different suppliers, depending on user). The Swedish and Norwegian CV90s were fitted with German MEXAS armour. On the CV9035NL the applique armour is about 60 mm thick at the front and sides (excluding slope and RUAG's Roof-PRO armour).

 

gphbItf.jpg3yyDFsu.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have data of total thickness of base CV-90 front hull armor is ~45mm all combined, but no idea if it includes slope or what is a combo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That i dont know......the Swedish Mk 1's have a completely different turret so anything is possible, but i would be very surprised if they didn't use a form of multi-layer armor as well,...the hull certainly does. But with the low weight in mind its probably not very thick .....though even the early CVs is said to protect against 30 mm AP from the front ....likely meaning the 3UBR6 round. But its all guesswork on my part.

The original Strf 9040/CV9040 was designed with protection against 14.5 mm AP and 23 mm API ammunition along the frontal arc, the sides were resistant to 7.62 mm ammunition only. This is essentially the same protection level as the Austro-Spanish ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle from the same era.

I'm afraid you are falling victim to a deliberate Swedish attempt at obfuscation and misinformation regarding armor. I know for a fact that when we trialed the CV9040 B back in 2004 (which led to us buying the CV90 mk III )

the "spec sheets" i saw(i worked at the Army Combat School/ test center at the time) listed protection against older Russian 30 mm ammunition from the front. Which is not as outrageous as it sounds, after all the 3UBR6 AP-T round "only" penetrates 40-45 mm of RHA. Using high hardness steels and decent sloping , even 35-40 mm of armor would be enough to defeat that round in most cases.

 

And if you think about the time frame when the CV was developed, it would make no sense to armor it against a 23mm weapon that it would be very unlikely to face.....contrary to the omnipresent 30mm 2A42 of the BMP/BMDs .

 

7,62 mm ammunition penetrates about 10 mm of RHA (270-320BHN) and even a casual inspection of CV90 and ASCODS basic side plating reveals armor well in excess of that ....and that,s not even counting the internal layers of spaced armor behind. In short the claim is ridiculous.

 

Hell even the M113 at half the weight is protected against 7,62 .....This <13 tonnes slightly uparmored version is proof against 12,7mm and even resistant to 14,5mm from the side :

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/M113%20G3%20DK_12%20%20%20.jpg

 

The later versions (including the export models) are fitted with additional composite armour (AFAIK from different suppliers, depending on user). The Swedish and Norwegian CV90s were fitted with German MEXAS armour. On the CV9035NL the applique armour is about 60 mm thick at the front and sides (excluding slope and RUAG's Roof-PRO armour).

 

 

Yes but all later marks of CV90 has completely different and improved base armor , so not really sure exactly what your point is here ? Nor what the pictures are supposed to illustrate ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have data of total thickness of base CV-90 front hull armor is ~45mm all combined, but no idea if it includes slope or what is a combo.

45mm sounds about right for the front armor plate thickness,......which at 30-40 degrees would give 52-60 mm LOS. The Glacis plate/ engine cover is at least 40 mm thick and sloped at ~75 degrees so provides more than adequate protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid you are falling victim to a deliberate Swedish attempt at obfuscation and misinformation regarding armor. I know for a fact that when we trialed the CV9040 B back in 2004 (which led to us buying the CV90 mk III )the "spec sheets" i saw(i worked at the Army Combat School/ test center at the time) listed protection against older Russian 30 mm ammunition from the front. Which is not as outrageous as it sounds, after all the 3UBR6 AP-T round "only" penetrates 40-45 mm of RHA. Using high hardness steels and decent sloping , even 35-40 mm of armor would be enough to defeat that round in most cases.
It seems that you are ignoring the factor range. 14.5 mm AP can penetrate about 38 mm RHA at 100 metres. This is the same value that is quoted for the 30 mm 3UBR6 AP ammuition (with steel core) at 1,500 m. At closer ranges however the 30 mm AP round will penetrate a lot more armor. In other words the CV90 might not have any more frontal armour than required for protection against 14.5 mm AP ammo and the rest is just marketing talk. Saying a vehicle is protected against 23 mm API works the same way; the average 23 mm API does not penetrate more than a 14.5 mm AP round, still some companies list 23 mm API as reference for protection. A 30 × 165 mm AP round with tungsten core (such as the AP STING round manufactured by Arcus Co.) meanwhile penetrates 60 mm RHA at 500 m and 50 mm RHA at 1,500 m.The German Marder was upgraded to Marder 1A3 in order to resist 30 mm AP ammunition (unknown type, might be a German projectile representing what was expected to be used by the Soviet Union) at only 400 metres distance. There is some 70 to 80 mm thick steel armour spaced in two layers at the glacis, while turret and lower front hull seem to be ~60 to 70 mm steel in two layers.

 

7,62 mm ammunition penetrates about 10 mm of RHA (270-320BHN) and even a casual inspection of CV90 and ASCODS basic side plating reveals armor well in excess of that ....and that,s not even counting the internal layers of spaced armor behind. In short the claim is ridiculous.
Nammo's 7.62 mm AP ammunition penetrates 18 mm RHA at 80 m. You know that the side armour is described as protected against 7.62 mm AP ammunition, because it does not protect against larger threats? The next threat is 12.7 mm AP, which penetrates 22 mm (321-375 HB) at 100 m (Nammo 12.7 mm × 99 API) or even 22 mm RHA at 900 metres (Nammo 12.7 × 99 AP with tungsten core). 12.7 mm SLAP penetrates more than 30 mm RHA. Does the CV90 have 25-35 mm side armour? From what I have seen, it doesn't.

 

Hell even the M113 at half the weight is protected against 7,62 .....This <13 tonnes slightly uparmored version is proof against 12,7mm and even resistant to 14,5mm from the side :
Yes, when being fitted with spaced perforated armour that is more than 200 mm thick (including air-gap) at some places. How thick is the CV90 armour?Graphic from a presentation by Rickard O. Lindström on the Strf 9040. Two spaced layers of 5-7 mm thickness? Certainly not enough to protect against 14.5 mm AP or 12.7 mm (SL)AP.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid you are falling victim to a deliberate Swedish attempt at obfuscation and misinformation regarding armor. I know for a fact that when we trialed the CV9040 B back in 2004 (which led to us buying the CV90 mk III )

 

the "spec sheets" i saw(i worked at the Army Combat School/ test center at the time) listed protection against older Russian 30 mm ammunition from the front. Which is not as outrageous as it sounds, after all the 3UBR6 AP-T round "only" penetrates 40-45 mm of RHA. Using high hardness steels and decent sloping , even 35-40 mm of armor would be enough to defeat that round in most cases.

It seems that you are ignoring the factor range.

No not really.

 

14.5 mm AP can penetrate about 38 mm RHA at 100 metres

 

 

yeah...ish....but is drops off pretty fast with range, dropping to ~30 @500m ....But its irrelevant, even at point blank it cant punch through the >50mm (LOS)front armor......which isn't made from standard ~300BHN RHA by the way.

 

At closer ranges however the 30 mm AP round will penetrate a lot more armor

 

ca 50 mm at point blank range.....not exactly a "lot" more.

 

In other words the CV90 might not have any more frontal armour than required for protection against 14.5 mm AP ammo and the rest is just marketing talk.

 

In other words you might not know what you talk about......why would they create a "Combat Vehicle" only marginally better armored than a M113 (or PBV 302 ) ? It would be completely inadequate against the most likely enemy/ threat vehicles of the period. Knowing the Armor of the later CV90 Mks and the information i have gotten from "non open source" channels , i see no reason to doubt the 30 mm AP protection claimed for CV9040A/B.

 

A 30 × 165 mm AP round with tungsten core (such as the AP STING round manufactured by Arcus Co.) meanwhile penetrates 60 mm RHA at 500 m and 50 mm RHA at 1,500 m.

Nammo's 7.62 mm AP ammunition penetrates 18 mm RHA at 80 m.

12.7 mm AP, which penetrates 22 mm (321-375 HB) at 100 m (Nammo 12.7 mm × 99 API) or even 22 mm RHA at 900 metres (Nammo 12.7 × 99 AP with tungsten core

 

And these high performance modern ammunition types are all irrelevant to the discussion,....they were not contemporary with the original CV90 nor standard issue anywhere and thus not representative of the likely relevant threats at the time.

 

The German Marder was upgraded to Marder 1A3 in order to resist 30 mm AP ammunition (unknown type, might be a German projectile representing what was expected to be used by the Soviet Union) at only 400 metres distance. There is some 70 to 80 mm thick steel armour spaced in two layers at the glacis, while turret and lower front hull seem to be ~60 to 70 mm steel in two layers.

 

Probably to give som degree of protection against the 3UBR8 APDS-T round......just like later version of the CV90 received better armor. Being a newer design and roughly contemporary with the Marder 1A3 i dont understand why you think it is so outlandish that it provides similar protection.

 

Does the CV90 have 25-35 mm side armour? From what I have seen, it doesn't.

 

Then you haven't seen it.

 

Yes, when being fitted with spaced perforated armour that is more than 200 mm thick (including air-gap) at some places. How thick is the CV90 armour?

 

How do you know that the CV doesn't use perforated armor ? ;-)......FYI the Israeli URDAN armor fitted to the M113 is more air than armor....its only ~12-14mm thick....what makes it effective is the holes and the corrugated shape.

The side "sponson" armor of the CV is more than 600mm ....most of that is air, fuel and other stuff .

 

Graphic from a presentation by Rickard O. Lindström on the Strf 9040. Two spaced layers of 5-7 mm thickness? Certainly not enough to protect against 14.5 mm AP or 12.7 mm (SL)AP.

 

Really?....you are using a rough graphical representation used to show the general layout of the CV90 , as a proof that it has thin side armor ?

In fact you cant tell anything from that picture .....but yes some of its spaced plates are actually only 5-7mm thick...though it has a lot more than two layers, some much thicker. Protection against standard 12,7 ammo isn't to far fetched actually.

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...