Jump to content

Best Infantry Vehicle


Recommended Posts

Marder has practically same base armor as BMP-1/2.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Soviet war plan wanted to reach the Atlantic in a few weeks, pushing from the inner German border into France. What do you have there?

The Elbe, the Werra, the Weser, the Ems, the Main, the Rhine, the Danube. They are all in the way, some of them two or three times even (Main, Danube), not counting the rivers in France between the Rhine and the Atlantic coast. That alone IMO explains neatly their focus on amphibious capabilities. Not that it did the PT-76 much good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marder has practically same base armor as BMP-1/2.

how is that possible given the much greater weight and the small size of the Marder?

 

Well, Marder had thicker armour, but it made no practical difference due to the fact that it didn't provide higher effective protection. It had a 11 mm thick glacis plate/engine cover (which due to the slope reaches an effective thickness of 53 mm) instead of the BMP-1's 7 mm glacis sloped at 8° from the horizontal plane (effective thickness 40 mm). The turret armor (35 vs 31 mm effective thickness) and lower hull front was only comparable.

 

Effective protection is comparable, because neither could be frontally penetrated by HMG fire and 20 mm APCR rounds, yet sides were vulnerable to 12.7/14.5 mm AP rounds at combat ranges.

 

The Marder is a quite a lot bigger than the BMP-1; its engine provides twice as much output and probably also weighs twice as much. It has a complicated exhaust system and carries nearly 50% more fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yugo M-80A also had comparable armor - 25mm @ 55deg lower plate, 14mm @ 70deg upper, 9mm @ 84deg over engine, 14mm sides and rear and 9mm top and bottom.

Base Bradley is pretty similar protection level, as is a "naked" Warrior and early naked CV90.

Generally everyone had same base protection requirement and vehicles reflected that.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tracked vehicles only offer a limited tactical advantage in cross country mobility, as the fuel and ammo they need will still be delivered by trucks and those are not better cross country than a wheeled APC.

 

Seriously?

Just because tactical combat greatly benefit from cross-country maneuver doesn't mean that all your combat supplies couldn't utilize the road network as much as possible. If in doubt, the troops will march cross country to the nearest access road for a refill, problem solved. You have to pull them out of the fight anyway.

 

Yes seriously, in fact it is one of the main lessons from the Eastern front. If your trucks get bogged down in the mud, your tanks become pillboxes. And that is imho the main lessen. Forces that are supposed to move with the MBTs must be as mobile as the MBTs, which means tracked. Everything else can be wheeled to a large extent.(special local conditions like countries with deep snow or large swamps excepted)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and ammo;

 

Marder: 170 AP + 330 HE ready, a further 200/550 stowed.

BMP-2: 160 AP + 340 HE ready, no additional ammo fits

 

For the dismounts, ergonomics are a massive difference too. The Marder, while not exactly spacious, still offers a lot more room than the BMP, which isn't just a matter of convenience. It's also a question about what kind of equipment can be brought along, and how much of it. Soviet design often looked good on paper but usually compromised heavily on (seemingly) soft factors.

 

That the Marder's thicker armor wouldn't make a difference is not a very convincing argument. In a duel situation the 30mm 3UBR6 APBC-T couldn't penetrate the Marder's glacis even at point blank range. The 30mm APDS round 3UBR8 BP might occasionally penetrate at ranges under 500m, but even at 45° angle that is far from certain. Of course at those short ranges you can start aiming for specific weak points, but at the same time shooting in combat in a duel situation is much different from shooting static targets on the firing range. If you wanted to be certain to take out a Marder at combat ranges you'd have to use the missile, and you don't carry that many.

 

On the other hand, with 30mm DM63 the BMP-2 turret is vulnerable out to about 1000m (though no longer so easy to hit), also the side hull even from moderate obliquity on. This gives the Marder an advantage at the main combat ranges where the seemingly puny 20mm autocannon offers a similar penetration limit, but the BMP-2 doesn't have a comparable armor protection - except for the hull, as long as it's frontal and the terrain doesn't change the glacis inclination much (which it does, all the time).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes seriously, in fact it is one of the main lessons from the Eastern front. If your trucks get bogged down in the mud, your tanks become pillboxes.

 

And where, aside from Russia and the mud season, are these specific conditions to be expected?

If you have to resort to pathological examples for support, the argument probably isn't very strong. So, yes, I grant you that: Armored and mechanized forces that have to operate during Rasputitsa need tracked supply vehicles in order to remain operationally mobile. I'll call you when I start my plannings for a land war in Northern Asia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and ammo;

 

Marder: 170 AP + 330 HE ready, a further 200/550 stowed.

BMP-2: 160 AP + 340 HE ready, no additional ammo fits

 

For the dismounts, ergonomics are a massive difference too. The Marder, while not exactly spacious, still offers a lot more room than the BMP, which isn't just a matter of convenience. It's also a question about what kind of equipment can be brought along, and how much of it. Soviet design often looked good on paper but usually compromised heavily on (seemingly) soft factors.

 

That the Marder's thicker armor wouldn't make a difference is not a very convincing argument. In a duel situation the 30mm 3UBR6 APBC-T couldn't penetrate the Marder's glacis even at point blank range. The 30mm APDS round 3UBR8 BP might occasionally penetrate at ranges under 500m, but even at 45° angle that is far from certain. Of course at those short ranges you can start aiming for specific weak points, but at the same time shooting in combat in a duel situation is much different from shooting static targets on the firing range. If you wanted to be certain to take out a Marder at combat ranges you'd have to use the missile, and you don't carry that many.

 

On the other hand, with 30mm DM63 the BMP-2 turret is vulnerable out to about 1000m (though no longer so easy to hit), also the side hull even from moderate obliquity on. This gives the Marder an advantage at the main combat ranges where the seemingly puny 20mm autocannon offers a similar penetration limit, but the BMP-2 doesn't have a comparable armor protection - except for the hull, as long as it's frontal and the terrain doesn't change the glacis inclination much (which it does, all the time).

 

The ability to depress the gun on the Marder could make a huge differense. Then we had BMP-1 (Pbv 501) in Sweden,

the BMP-1's often had to expose the entire vehicle in the firing position,

to be able to reach their field of fire, while a vehicle with -10 to +XX degrees of elevation, could fire from hull down.

 

Furthermore, the placement of the commander behind the driver and at the same level,

meant that the commander could only do his job with his hatch open,

while the gun could only move with the commanders hatch closed, making the turret a waste of space, volume and manpower.

The troop compartment was furthermore not enough for 8 soldiers, put rather cramped and akward for no more than six small soldiers.

 

So in essence the BMP-1 was completely useless as a ICV and it was a poor APC.

The CV90 (Strf9040) was wastly superior as a ICV and better as a APC,

the Pbv 302 was better as a ICV and superior as a APC, while the MT-LB was wastly superior as a APC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That the Marder's thicker armor wouldn't make a difference is not a very convincing argument. In a duel situation the 30mm 3UBR6 APBC-T couldn't penetrate the Marder's glacis even at point blank range. The 30mm APDS round 3UBR8 BP might occasionally penetrate at ranges under 500m, but even at 45° angle that is far from certain. Of course at those short ranges you can start aiming for specific weak points, but at the same time shooting in combat in a duel situation is much different from shooting static targets on the firing range. If you wanted to be certain to take out a Marder at combat ranges you'd have to use the missile, and you don't carry that many.

 

On the other hand, with 30mm DM63 the BMP-2 turret is vulnerable out to about 1000m (though no longer so easy to hit), also the side hull even from moderate obliquity on. This gives the Marder an advantage at the main combat ranges where the seemingly puny 20mm autocannon offers a similar penetration limit, but the BMP-2 doesn't have a comparable armor protection - except for the hull, as long as it's frontal and the terrain doesn't change the glacis inclination much (which it does, all the time).

 

That is a rather skewed comparison though. The 20 mm DM63 APDS round entered service around 1988/1989, so it is hardly relevant when comparing the Marder to contemporary BMPs. At this time the BMP-3 with its much improved ABT-102 alloy armour and spaced turret armour (and on the German side the Marder 1A3 with spaced armour) were entering service.

 

Until the introduction of the DM63 APDS, the Marder had to rely on the DM43 APCR round, which dated back to the 1960s and had also been issued to the HS.30 and the prototypes of MBT 70 and Leopard 2 (in case of the turret T11). This round could not penetrate the glacis of the BMP at any range and was also not suitable to defeat the side armour when hitting it at shallow angles. The Marder had to either hit the lower hull front (at short ranges), the turret or the sides of a BMP-1/BMP-2 to defeat its armour using the DM43 APCR round; coincidentally the same spots on the Marder (before the 1A3 upgrade) were vulnerable to the 30 mm 3UBR6 round of the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

 

According to an older prospect from Rosoboronexport, the 3UBR6 round penetrates 20 mm steel armour sloped at 60° at a range of 700 meters - thus it is likely sufficient to defeat turret armour and lower hull front of the baseline Marder IFV at ranges of up to 1,000 meters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This round could not penetrate the glacis of the BMP at any range

it will penetrate from 100 meters, for greater distances i don't have any reports.

 

6.7mm Oberes Bugblech

Si-Mn-Vergutungsstahl

Elektrostahl

495 HB 30

7.62x51 30m

G3 FS , 7.62x51 SS(SS70 ? or what type of bullet?) Drall 200mm

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 90

V(m/sek) 803.1-814.1

Schuss-Nr 1-10 - BoR Sicher bei 90.0 Grad

7.62x51 30m

G3 FS , 7.62x51 SmK Drall 200mm

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 60,56,58

V(m/sek) 804.9-817.1

Schuss-Nr 11-25

11-12 - 60 grad - gl D

13-15 - 56 grad - BoR

16-25- 58 grad - BoR(19 - BmRoL) Sicher bei 58.0 Grad

18.8 mm Unteres Bugblech

Si-Mn-Vergutungsstahl

Elektrostahl

488 HB 30

20mmx139 100m

HS 820 , DM-13

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 90, 36,32,30,28,26

V(m/sek) 991.1-1000.8

Schuss-Nr 1-9

1- 90 grad - gl D

2- 36 grad - gl D

3 - 32 grard - gl D

4 - 30 grard - gr.Stzpfr.360 grad

5 - 28 grad - gl D

6-9 - 26 grad - l BoR ( 8 - o.W Doppeltreffer mit Nr 6) Sicher bei 26.0 Grad, Sprungsicher

HS 820 , DM-43

Neigungswinkel(Grad) - 18,20,22,24,26

V(m/sek) 1099.2.1-1106.2

Schuss-Nr 10-17

10- 18 grad - o.M

11- 20 grad - o.M

12 - 22 grad - l BoR

13 - 24 grad - kl.Stzpfr.120 grad

14 - 26 grad - o.W Randtreffer

15 - 26 grad -- gl D

16 - 24 grad - kl.Stzpfr.120 grad

17 - 24 grad - gr.Stzpfr.360 grad Sicher bei 22.0 Grad, Sprungsicher

 

 

 

about "30mm AP-T can't penetrate 11mm/78 deg of marder even point blank " is also very doubtful

 

up-armored Marder is resistant to 30mm from 400 meters.

Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the actual purpose of the IFV is to support the infantry vs other infantry, not defeat other IFV's. Just use an ATGM, it's much less fucking about. Or if you have a substantial HE thrower, as you should, hit it with that at close range where an ATGM is unwieldy.

 

I'd like to see 120mm mortar, or perhaps the low pressure 90mm as baseline IFV weapon for a modern Western mil. Our critical shortcoming is PEOPLE, so use firepower instead. The infantry are there to spot targets and oppress, err "police" the wogs. And there's no need for sixty bajillion rounds onboard, the stowed kills metric is just an acknowledgement and tacit acceptance of the pathetic failure of our logistics and supply system to resupply(and equip) the actual fighting units, as opposed to delivering steaks and ice-cream to the REMF's. The carrying of lots of pathetic little bullets IOT support lots of comfort fire instead of decisively killing the enemy is symptomatic. We're just like the 3rd world shitholes where the perfumed princes is feted to the detriment of the men, we mock them to distract from the reality of our own situation. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the actual purpose of the IFV is to support the infantry vs other infantry, not defeat other IFV's. Just use an ATGM, it's much less fucking about. Or if you have a substantial HE thrower, as you should, hit it with that at close range where an ATGM is unwieldy.

 

I'd like to see 120mm mortar, or perhaps the low pressure 90mm as baseline IFV weapon for a modern Western mil. Our critical shortcoming is PEOPLE, so use firepower instead. The infantry are there to spot targets and oppress, err "police" the wogs. And there's no need for sixty bajillion rounds onboard, the stowed kills metric is just an acknowledgement and tacit acceptance of the pathetic failure of our logistics and supply system to resupply(and equip) the actual fighting units, as opposed to delivering steaks and ice-cream to the REMF's. The carrying of lots of pathetic little bullets IOT support lots of comfort fire instead of decisively killing the enemy is symptomatic. We're just like the 3rd world shitholes where the perfumed princes is feted to the detriment of the men, we mock them to distract from the reality of our own situation. S/F....Ken M

 

And indeed you can see both Russia and the US going for a higher caliber weapon (57mm and 50mm respectively) but with a relatively low pressure. They're doing it to maximize effect versus soft targets and bunkers, not IFVs.

But current trends in both development and acquisition are showing that light to medium ground vehicles will become a lot more common on the battlefield, with actual infantry becoming slightly less common. That is because of the addition of UGVs to the mix, and their enhanced capabilities. They used to be light mules for infantry, but have since evolved to heavy weapon carriers, heavy payload carriers, and even reconnaissance vehicles.

Many obsolete APCs will be repurposed, like the M113, FV432, Wiesel, MT-LB, etc, to become these enhanced UGVs. Some countries are leading efforts to make tiered UGVs, with lower tiers being very lightly armored, and higher tiers quite heavily armored.

So I expect that by the mid 2030's to early 2040's, high pressure medium caliber weapons north of 50mm, will become the mainstay of most armed forces. And if a typical AFV lives between 35 to 50 years, that means we need to start preparing the technologies now, to be ready when it's relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tracked vehicles only offer a limited tactical advantage in cross country mobility, as the fuel and ammo they need will still be delivered by trucks and those are not better cross country than a wheeled APC.

 

Seriously?

Just because tactical combat greatly benefit from cross-country maneuver doesn't mean that all your combat supplies couldn't utilize the road network as much as possible. If in doubt, the troops will march cross country to the nearest access road for a refill, problem solved. You have to pull them out of the fight anyway.

 

Yes seriously, in fact it is one of the main lessons from the Eastern front. If your trucks get bogged down in the mud, your tanks become pillboxes. And that is imho the main lessen. Forces that are supposed to move with the MBTs must be as mobile as the MBTs, which means tracked. Everything else can be wheeled to a large extent.(special local conditions like countries with deep snow or large swamps excepted)

 

Logistically the West had the M548 to support tanks and SPG, the M548's would be resupplied by tactical trucks 2-5 ton, who would be supplied by 10 ton trucks, who would be supplied by civilian pattern trucks or railways. that how we did tactical resupply in Germany in the 80's when I was attached to 1 Service Battalion for a Reforger exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This round could not penetrate the glacis of the BMP at any range

it will penetrate from 100 meters, for greater distances i don't have any reports.

 

 

The section with the DM43 tests is listed against the lower hull front (18.8 mm steel) though - unless I am misunderstanding the formatting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As tanks are not replaced the role of the ICV has to expand. I remember a 1979 article prototype of a MARDER 1 with 57mm auto cannon mounted , as a fire support AFV.

 

Its taken this long to make such dreams reality?

 

I just figured they were reviving the old SPW-251/9 concepts of 75L24 /SPW organic fire power?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice conversation here. I just want to add that the effective thickness of the BMP-1's armour is actually much closer to the Marder 1 than the figures from methos impljes. methos just provided the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness, which is not directly equivalent to effective thickness. Thicker plates sloped at a lower obliquity as on the Marder 1 may reach a slightly higher LOS thickness compared to the BMP-1, but the performance of AP and APCR is also better at smaller angles of impact. When this is taken into account, the small difference in theoretical protection level completely vanishes.

 

Also, the BMP-1 hull and turret is built from high hardness steel. Is the Marder 1 built from RHA or a similar grade of HHS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice conversation here. I just want to add that the effective thickness of the BMP-1's armour is actually much closer to the Marder 1 than the figures from methos impljes. methos just provided the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness, which is not directly equivalent to effective thickness. Thicker plates sloped at a lower obliquity as on the Marder 1 may reach a slightly higher LOS thickness compared to the BMP-1, but the performance of AP and APCR is also better at smaller angles of impact. When this is taken into account, the small difference in theoretical protection level completely vanishes.

 

Also, the BMP-1 hull and turret is built from high hardness steel. Is the Marder 1 built from RHA or a similar grade of HHS?

Doesn't matter which one has a slightly better angled or slightly thicker armor. Most of the time, they'll be taking fire from non-zero angles, significantly reducing the effective armor. Crash up-armoring programs were also easy because these vehicles are small, light, nimble, and don't take much to double their armor, so it's again pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not keen on the gun/mortars firing the same ammunition as conventional tube mortars. You are much better served with a rifled tube AND a straight walled projectile in terms of stowage and handling. Optimally, I would have my mortar/guns with a 2 track section at company level. They would be a fully automated remote turret and would fit into my FSV turret rings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the actual purpose of the IFV is to support the infantry vs other infantry, not defeat other IFV's. Just use an ATGM, it's much less fucking about. Or if you have a substantial HE thrower, as you should, hit it with that at close range where an ATGM is unwieldy.

 

I'd like to see 120mm mortar, or perhaps the low pressure 90mm as baseline IFV weapon for a modern Western mil. Our critical shortcoming is PEOPLE, so use firepower instead. The infantry are there to spot targets and oppress, err "police" the wogs. And there's no need for sixty bajillion rounds onboard, the stowed kills metric is just an acknowledgement and tacit acceptance of the pathetic failure of our logistics and supply system to resupply(and equip) the actual fighting units, as opposed to delivering steaks and ice-cream to the REMF's. The carrying of lots of pathetic little bullets IOT support lots of comfort fire instead of decisively killing the enemy is symptomatic. We're just like the 3rd world shitholes where the perfumed princes is feted to the detriment of the men, we mock them to distract from the reality of our own situation. S/F....Ken M

The depends on the tactis, the Panzergreandiers, see the IFVs as a base of fire allowing them to move against the enemy, so they value suppressive fire a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice conversation here. I just want to add that the effective thickness of the BMP-1's armour is actually much closer to the Marder 1 than the figures from methos impljes. methos just provided the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness, which is not directly equivalent to effective thickness. Thicker plates sloped at a lower obliquity as on the Marder 1 may reach a slightly higher LOS thickness compared to the BMP-1, but the performance of AP and APCR is also better at smaller angles of impact. When this is taken into account, the small difference in theoretical protection level completely vanishes.

 

Also, the BMP-1 hull and turret is built from high hardness steel. Is the Marder 1 built from RHA or a similar grade of HHS?

I am not sure if the BMP-1's hull and turret are actually made out of what qualifies of HHS, but rather are made of RHA aswell. As plate thickness is reduced, all military specifications I have seen for common armour plates (RHA) increase the hardness requirement.

For example the US MIL-DTL-12560 standard calls for a hardness of up to 460 HB for thin plates. The British DEF-STAN 95 in its current version also demands a hardness of 470-530 HB for Class 3 steel. The Marder steel was likely supplied in accordance with the German TL 2350 specification. There are different issues of the TL 2350, but the later ask for hardness of up to 530 HB for steel plates with a thickness of up to 35 mm. The preliminary first edition of the TL 2350 specification was already used during the Leopard 1 development (VTL 2350-001 for rolled armour plates and VTL 2350-002 for cast armour).

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...