Briefly about the BMP-3's aluminum armor

It's often believed that aluminum alloys used in light vehicle armoring are purely for bulletproofing and have nothing to do with protection against anything larger than 12,7mm. However, this, of course, isn't entirely true. By tweaking the alloy's composition and manufacturing techniques, quite reasonable projectile resistance can be achieved.

A striking example of this is the domestically produced projectile-resistant aluminum alloy ABT-102 (used for the armor of the BMP-3), which replaced the bulletproof ABT-101 used in the BMD-1. Its introduction, it must be said, greatly expanded designers' ability to strengthen the armor of combat vehicles without dramatically increasing their weight.

An article about the ABT-102's projectile resistance and its characteristics was published in the Soviet journal "Bulletin of Armored Equipment" in 1980. It's fairly brief, but very informative in terms of a general understanding of the capabilities of aluminum armor compared to steel. We recommend reading it.

Aluminum armor ABT-102

The ABT-101 aluminum bulletproof armor has gained widespread recognition in Russian tank manufacturing. It is used to manufacture the all-aluminum hulls of the BMD-1 airborne combat vehicles. The use of aluminum armor in these vehicles allows for a weight savings of up to 30% compared to steel armor.

However, while the initial development of aluminum armor only addressed 7,62mm and 12,7mm bullets, the current goal is to create lightweight vehicles that also offer protection against small-caliber gun shells up to 30mm. These requirements are met by the new ABT-102 aluminum armor alloy, which, compared to ABT-101, has lower zinc, magnesium, and manganese content.

The characteristic mechanical properties of the ABT-102 alloy are as follows: σв = 46–48 MPa; σ0,2 = 38–42 MPa; δ = 10 %; αк = 10–14 (N m)/cm²; hardness 135–145 HB.

Heat treatment conditions are similar to those previously developed for the ABT-101 alloy. Reducing the zinc and magnesium alloying levels makes the ABT-102 alloy more processable during casting and pressure working (rolling, pressing, forging, stamping), and also increases its corrosion resistance.

Currently, the alloy is used for the production of rolled products up to 80–100 mm thick.

The development of the ABT-102 alloy was aimed at increasing armor survivability. It is known that one of the main criteria for armor survivability under shell fire is the ratio of armor thickness b to shell caliber d. Bulletproof aluminum armor typically performs at a b/d ratio of 3-5, while projectile-proof aluminum armor performs at a b/d ratio of 1-3. However, armor materials science requires increased armor toughness at lower b/d ratios.

The need to ensure a combination of bulletproof and projectile-proof resistance leads to rather strict limitations on the hardness of projectile-proof armor. The projectile resistance of aluminum armor is directly dependent on its hardness and requires a hardness of at least 140 HB (for ABT-101 alloy, the hardness is 140–160 HB).

However, although the relationship between projectile resistance and hardness in the range of 115–165 HB has not yet been established, the survivability of this armor requires limiting the upper permissible hardness values. It can be assumed that the optimal hardness for projectile-resistant aluminum armor is approximately 140 HB.

Comparative tests were conducted on the projectile resistance of ABT-102 armor, three aluminum alloys, and two armor steels when fired at with a 23-mm solid-body BZT projectile from a distance of 100 m (Fig. 1).

It turned out that armor made of ABT-102 alloy with a thickness of up to 70 mm significantly surpasses steel armor grade 43PSM, is not inferior to BT-70 steel and is the best among all known aluminum armor materials.

With the introduction of high-velocity tungsten carbide-cored sub-caliber projectiles in NATO armies, testing aluminum anti-ballistic armor with such projectiles is of particular interest (Fig. 2). Comparative testing of a number of aluminum materials, 43PSM steel, and ABT-102 armor with 30mm sub-caliber projectiles also demonstrates the significant superiority of armor made from ABT-102 alloy.

The estimated weight savings from using it instead of 43PSM steel could reach 30%. Industrial production of armor made from the ABT-102 alloy is currently underway; it has proven itself in the construction of light VGM armor hulls.

Conclusion: The new ABT-102 aluminum armor outperforms all known aluminum alloys in terms of resistance to small-caliber cannon shells and is comparable to steel armor (with a 30% reduction in armor weight).

Source:
"Aluminum armor of the ABT-102." A.A. Artsruni, G.A. Balakhontsev, M.I. Maresev, et al. "Bulletin of Armored Vehicles," No. 6, 1980.

Comments

[Amateur]

7.62, 12.7, 14.5, 30, 115, 125, etc. What a difference! The widespread use of drones on the battlefield has completely changed the tactics of using armored vehicles on the battlefield.
It's time to rethink the entire concept and strategy for designing and using armored vehicles, and to think about engineering solutions and construction materials based on it.

[Per se.]

Quote: Amateur

It is time to rethink the entire concept and strategy of designing and using armored vehicles.

Boys on mopeds—that's a poor rethink. When drones, like flies, are dropped by electromagnetic pulses, buckshot, or other active defense devices, then the use of armored vehicles will regain its relevance, especially when nuclear weapons are used. The nature of the "SVO" remains a constant aside, where Donbas hasn't been fully liberated in its fifth year, and the "operation" itself seems endless, especially given the declared "denazification" and "demilitarization" of the Bandera regime in Ukraine. With the "grinding" tactic, where ammunition is being consumed not by train cars but by trainloads per day, warehouses and arsenals are quickly emptied, the economy is ruined, and irreparable losses of manpower and equipment occur. The trench warfare of World War I was the result of machine guns and barbed wire; the predominance of drones is the result of the "operation" tactic, which simultaneously trades with the enemy and restricts the army's actions. Without established positions and targeted areas, the role of drones will inevitably diminish. We need to address the problem itself, not draw conclusions from the consequences.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Per se.

When drones, like flies, fall from an electromagnetic pulse, a charge of buckshot or other means of active protection, then the use of armored vehicles will return to its relevance,

Not when, but if. Drones are here to stay. Unfortunately, any active defense measures have had and will have only limited effectiveness, so the use of armored vehicles will never be the same. Large groups of armored vehicles will never be used again; countering drone swarms will still be difficult. The only option is dispersal and high mobility. In the future, it may be possible to use relatively powerful ground drones, comparable to tanks in firepower, to accomplish the same tasks as armored vehicles. But their size will still be smaller, and their mobility will be greater.

The role of drones will grow, and the nature of conflict will no longer be decisive. Drones will be effective in both maneuver and positional warfare; they are only just beginning to realize their potential. Combat drones have changed their nature forever, and returning to their former state is impossible.

[Per se.]

Quote: Illanatol

The role of drones will grow, and the nature of the conflict will not be decisive.

The drone is vulnerable. Yes, it's a new weapon, but torpedoes didn't put an end to the surface fleet.

[Netl]

Quote: Per se.

The drone is vulnerable.

But it's very cheap.

Quote: Per se.

torpedoes, didn't put a cross

Aircraft carriers put an end to battleships. And overall, naval aviation and missile weapons changed the face and nature of surface naval operations.

It is possible that there will be comparable or even greater changes in ground technology due to drones.

[Per se.]

Quote: Netl

It is possible that there will be comparable or even greater changes in ground technology due to drones.

It's true, progress and evolution never stand still. However, drones alone won't win, and the best air defenses are still our tanks at their airfields, and their "drone pilots" with their hands up in our captivity. The goal is victory, not the process.

[Illanatol]

Nobody claimed that drones alone could win.

Well, tanks still need to reach enemy airfields. However, not all drones need airfields. As for drone pilots, modern communications and control technologies make it possible to control a drone on another continent. That's for now. In the future, AI deployed in orbit will be able to control swarms of drones.

And when the tanks reach enemy airfields, these tanks may turn out to be unmanned, that is, ground drones.
The idea isn't new. You might recall S. Gansovsky's short story "Polygon" or watch the cartoon of the same name, which is very good. The plot dates back to the Soviet era.

[Dmitry Eon]

Exactly. A drone is just as vulnerable as any other vehicle. To knock out a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, you'd need a 3-kilogram HEAT grenade, but to bring down a drone, a small charge of pellets (like a pistol shell) might be enough. And this entire drone kill zone will only be relevant until fighter drones with multiple-shot weapons appear.

[barbos]

To knock out a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, you need a 3-kilogram cumulative grenade, but to shoot down a drone, a small charge of pellets (for example, in a pistol shell) may be enough.

Let's play a game of rationality. How much does a tank cost, including its crew, weapons, and equipment, and how much does a drone with a shaped-charge grenade cost? How many orders of magnitude difference does that represent?
Now let's compare the cost of the same drone and shotgun shells with a shotgun (because without a shotgun, your shotgun shell is just shotgun shells). How much of a difference is that? They're practically comparable in price. But can you stop a tank with a double-barreled shotgun and two shotgun shells?

And this whole drone kill zone will be relevant until the advent of fighter drones with multi-charge weapons.

We're not the only ones waiting for this to happen. For now, drones themselves are evolving very quickly.

[Illanatol]

They didn't. But surface warfare tactics changed forever, especially when torpedoes could be carried on aircraft. And battleships, as the navy's primary combat force, gave way to aircraft carriers, which also found room for torpedo bombers.

Drones will also be improved. Fiber-optic drones, resistant to electronic warfare, quickly appeared. I remember some people laughing at this innovation here, but the laughter died down over time.

[barbos]

The drone is vulnerable.

Give an example of an invulnerable weapon.

[Per se.]

Don't exaggerate, there is no invulnerable weapon or invulnerable defense, but there are more vulnerable and less vulnerable ones.

[alovrov]

In any other location, and especially in a real war, drones would be an order of magnitude less important. For example, in the Chechen wars, drones would have been virtually ineffective, with the exception of Grachev's blunt frontal assaults.
And yes, it wasn't drones that stopped the LBS. It was the LBS that gave birth to the drone war. The vast majority are simply confusing the chicken and the egg.

[Illanatol]

Drones would have played a decisive role in the Chechen wars and significantly reduced the duration of combat operations. Drones would have been particularly effective in conflicts characterized by quasi-guerrilla tactics. Drones could have been used to promptly identify Czech ambushes and easily destroy them, especially since the enemy had virtually no air defense systems or electronic warfare.

But it was drones that, in many ways, made it impossible to deploy large numbers of manpower and armored vehicles on both sides. It's practically impossible to even conceal the concentration of significant forces in a specific area; reconnaissance drones will uncover it. It's difficult to create large depots of weapons, ammunition, and fuel. Too often, these end up within drone range. And no air defense system is sufficient to completely block the threat posed by drones; there are simply too many of them. And their range sometimes far exceeds that of the Heimars or even the OTRK.

It's not just what's happening on the LBS. The widespread use of drones has become a real nightmare for infrastructure, sometimes deep in the rear. Cheap and very, very annoying.

[alexoff]

No one is banning drones from protecting equipment. It's just that they're not smart enough to do it—there aren't any drones like that on Aliexpress, and the technology itself doesn't have the capabilities.

[Capt cook]

100%. There's chaos in our heads :-(

[barbos]

When drones, like flies, fall from electromagnetic pulses, buckshot charges, or other active defense measures, then the use of armored vehicles will regain its relevance, especially when nuclear weapons are used.

We've been reading too much science fiction again. How long can you keep harping on about this electromagnetic pulse without knowing anything about it? Have you ever seen any reports of the combat use of EMPs other than science fiction? There's a war going on in the Middle East right now, with virtually every conventional weapon being used. Have you ever seen a report about using EMPs against drones? There are videos of F-35s attempting to shoot down the Shahed, but not a single instance of an EMP being used is heard or seen. There's talk of using nuclear weapons against Iran, but somehow there's not even a hint of using EMPs against drones.
How far do you plan to throw the buckshot? Especially if the drone has a penetrating cannonball.
So, let's return to nuclear weapons, since we're talking about them. By your logic, military operations will only take place near the explosion epicenters and at times of maximum radiation levels? Because then the role of nuclear weapons will inevitably diminish. Otherwise, what's the point of constantly raising nuclear weapons as an argument?

[Per se.]

And what did they mean, like mopeds are better than armored vehicles, and drones are the pinnacle of creation? Well, well, I won't argue, to each their own.

[Zaurbek]

No one has cancelled mines, shells, shrapnel and bullets

[Popandos]

It's time to rethink the entire concept and design strategy

Don't ground drones or mine-clearing systems need armor? Materials science is no less important than other sciences. IMHO.

[the same doctor]

We need to rethink not armor, but tactics and active defense systems. The principle of armoring light vehicles in the future: armor should protect against light drones, ATGMs and shaped-charge projectiles should be protected against ADS pellets, but there is no protection against armor-piercing projectiles. The only solution is to avoid exposing yourself to these weapons and to destroy them preemptively at distances greater than the effective range.
Only the driver and the combat module operator need armor. The troop compartment doesn't need armor and degenerates into a truck bed. The infantry rides on armor anyway.

[invisible_man]

In the current situation, the cost of destroying one piece of equipment (any type) starts at $200, regardless of whether its armor is aluminum, steel, or cast iron.

[traveler 63]

Interesting point of view! Isn't it true that during WWII, German T-2 and T-3 tanks (not to mention captured and Czech-made ones) were disabled by 12,7mm and 14,5mm anti-tank rifles? And how much does such a round cost? So, you're already missing the point about the price, and I'll just keep quiet about the "cast iron" one!

[Bongo]

Quote: Traveler 63

Is it true that during WWII, German tanks like the T-2 and T-3 (not to mention the trophies and Czech production) were disabled by 12,7 and 14,5 mm anti-tank rifles? And how much does such a cartridge cost?

To be fair, very few anti-tank rifles chambered for the 12,7mm cartridge were produced, and their combat effectiveness was low. As for the cost of the cartridge, one must consider not only the ammunition but also the cost of the weapon and crews, as well as their survivability and effectiveness on the battlefield. Frankly, the use of anti-tank rifles was a strictly necessary measure due to a shortage of anti-tank artillery. By mid-1943, anti-tank rifle production had sharply declined, and their numbers in service were reduced.

[Illanatol]

The 14.5mm caliber was still primarily used, with a 20mm shell casing. This led to the development of the 14.5x114mm round, a fairly powerful one. It was initially capable of successfully engaging even medium tanks. And quite a few antitank rifles were produced. Their use was explained not only by a shortage of antitank guns—there were plenty of 45mm antitank rifles at the front. However, the Germans were able to detect and destroy antitank guns promptly, while antitank rifle crews were more difficult. Antitank rifle production declined due to the increased armor of German tanks.

[Bongo]

Quote: Illanatol

The 14.5mm caliber was still primarily used, with a 20mm shell casing. This led to the development of the 14.5x114mm round, a fairly powerful one. It was initially capable of successfully engaging even medium tanks. And quite a few antitank rifles were produced. Their use was explained not only by a shortage of antitank guns—there were plenty of 45mm antitank rifles at the front. However, the Germans were able to detect and destroy antitank guns promptly, while antitank rifle crews were more difficult. Antitank rifle production declined due to the increased armor of German tanks.

Why are you writing this? You're not even Captain Obvious or Major Indisputable, but Lieutenant Colonel Banality!

[Illanatol]

You're forcing me to write such obvious things. Perhaps you should refrain from making such outlandish statements?

[Bongo]

Quote: Illanatol

You yourself force me to write such obvious things.

Oh, so it turns out you're a victim, and I'm forcing you to write banalities, as well as spout out harsh nonsense about Inskander missiles, Tu-22M3 bombers, and the THAAD missile defense system.

Quote: Illanatol

Perhaps you yourself should refrain from making too "out of the ordinary" statements?

Could you please quote my most "non-trivial statements"?
Every person has a reputation, and you have already formed one on this site.

[traveler 63]

Quote: Bongo

Bongo
(Sergei)
+1

Yes, that's right! But let's start with the nuances. First, anti-tank rifles were designed to combat T-2s, T-3s, captured tanks, and Czech products. By 1943, the Germans had practically no such "archaisms" left! Against the T-5, let alone the T-6, or even the T-4, the anti-tank rifle is no more effective than the Mosin rifle against the Mark II in World War I! And regarding the cost, in your opinion, the drone takes off on its own, finds its target, and hits it? So it doesn't need an operator or maintenance personnel?

[Bongo]

Quote: Traveler 63

Firstly, antitank rifles were created to combat T-2, T-3, trophies and Czech products.

Frankly, I find it jarring when German tanks Pz.Kpfw. II and Pz.Kpfw. III are referred to as T-2 and T-3. Oh well...
As for the purpose of the PTR, they were intended to combat the whole spectrum German armored vehicles, which included many lightly armored models by the end of the war. Moreover, the side armor of the most widely produced German tank, the Pz.Kpfw. IV, was vulnerable to antitank rifle fire. But that's not the point: after Germany adopted a strategic defensive posture, German tanks were largely used defensively as mobile antitank weapons and rarely reached our infantry positions. Considering that our antitank defenses had ample artillery (albeit not optimal) in the second half of the war, there was little point in heavily arming the infantry with antitank rifles, even though 14,5mm rifles were used successfully until Victory Day.

Quote: Traveler 63

Regarding the cost, so in your opinion, the drone takes off on its own, finds its target, and hits it? So it doesn't need an operator or maintenance personnel?

Let's please do without demagoguery!

[traveler 63]

To be honest, the German notation is clearer to me; I’m just trying to make my life easier by not switching the keyboard. I'd be happy to avoid the demagoguery, but you started it! Read your previous comments. Weren't you the one who started including everything possible in the cost of a shot?

[Bongo]

Quote: Traveler 63

I'd be glad to avoid the demagoguery, but you started it! Read your previous comments.

Please quote where I was engaging in demagoguery about UAVs?

Quote: Traveler 63

Didn't you start including everything possible in the cost of a shot?

Do you not understand the difference between a single-use precision weapon and a weapon-cartridge system used within line-of-sight on the battlefield?

[traveler 63]

And this is demagoguery, when concepts and definitions are adjusted to suit oneself or to one’s own advantage!

[Bongo]

Quote: Traveler 63

And this is demagoguery, when concepts and definitions are adjusted to suit oneself or to one’s own advantage!

But really? I didn't even mention UAVs.

[invisible_man]

and as for the "cast iron" part, I'll just keep quiet!

You'd be better off learning to detect sarcasm. Develop your cognitive skills; it helps in life.

[Nemchinov Vl]

Source:
"Aluminum Armor of the ABT-102." A.A. Artsruni, G.A. Balakhontsev, M.I. Maresev, et al. "Bulletin of Armored Vehicles" No. 6 for 1980.

practical latest news...
And they also say time does not stand still... it flows like water through your fingers... (etc.)
It turns out it's not leaking everywhere...

[olegff68]

Briefly about the BMP-3's aluminum armor

Very expensive and useless - that's the short answer.
The amphibious capability (like the landing capability) in modern armored fighting vehicles is absolutely useless. The fighting compartment is extremely cramped, with very inconvenient egress and poor protection. The armament is excessive, which is extremely harmful – the detonation of 100mm shells, upon impact, kills the entire crew, and the cost of the combat module reaches almost half the cost of an already very expensive vehicle.
Yes, after five years of war, someone in the Ministry of Defense should have realized long ago that the troops need heavy armored fighting vehicles (APCs and IFVs) on tank hulls, which could be mass-produced from tanks in storage. But alas, training is not everything.

[Bongo]

Quote: olegff68

Very expensive and useless - that's the short answer.
The amphibious capability (like the landing capability) in modern armored fighting vehicles is absolutely useless. The fighting compartment is extremely cramped, with very inconvenient egress and poor protection. The armament is excessive, which is extremely harmful – the detonation of 100mm shells, upon impact, kills the entire crew, and the cost of the combat module reaches almost half the cost of an already very expensive vehicle.
Yes, after five years of war, someone in the Ministry of Defense should have realized long ago that the troops need heavy armored fighting vehicles (APCs and IFVs) on tank hulls, which could be mass-produced from tanks in storage. But alas, training is not everything.

It's like that!
I would also add the extremely low repairability and sensitivity of light alloy armor to high temperatures.

[deddem]

I would add that the BMP-3 was initially an attempt to pour three liters of beer into one 1.5-liter bottle, that is, to combine in one vehicle a pure infantry fighting vehicle (where the turret armament, no matter how you look at it, is auxiliary) and a combat vehicle for direct fire support of infantry (without troops, but with a powerful combat module).

[Cympak]

Quote: deddem

I would add that the BMP-3 was initially an attempt to pour three liters of beer into one 1.5-liter bottle, that is, to combine in one vehicle a pure infantry fighting vehicle (where the turret armament, no matter how you look at it, is auxiliary) and a combat vehicle for direct fire support of infantry (without troops, but with a powerful combat module).

Add to this the possibility of landing from aircraft on a parachute platform and landing ships afloat.

[Alexey RA]

The BMP-3 is a recognition of an objective reality in which inter-service cooperation and reliable communications exist only on paper and in theory.
Yes, according to the regulations and instructions of the MSO and MSF, a personal "high-explosive" gun is not required—in an ideal world of documents, all its tasks are performed by the company's heavy weapons and artillery/mortars at higher tiers. In practice, however, to call in fire from this artillery, you first need to ensure that there is communication—now, not "I was just there"And, secondly, you'll have to wait for the request to travel along the chain and be converted into an order and firing data. And all this time, the motorized riflemen will be lying under fire, and forward progress will be stalled. And in order to break through all this and establish communication and interaction, you need to work. And at all levels and sometimes contrary to the guidelines (the late Murza had an interesting story about how they were ordered to dismantle the digital communication system equipment from the vehicles, because non-standard equipment и not allowed).
Or you can give the squad your own cannon with high-explosive shells, the fire of which does not need to be requested, but can simply be pointed at the target.

[deddem]

Quote: Alexey RA

The BMP-3 is a recognition of objective reality.

This is understandable.
The fork, however:
- introducing infantry fire support combat vehicles (IFVs) into the staff of, say, a platoon in a ratio of 2:1 or 3:2 or even 1:1 (if they are very healthy and rich) is absolutely impossible, since the IFVs will be instinctively perceived as "this is a tank", and then the brain switches off, and the template "prevent the dispersal of tanks" is activated.
- to provide a BMOPP at the level of, say, a regiment, as a means of reinforcement - even worse, every first commander will want to lay his paws on them, forming "his" so-called tank reserve.

[Demon]

The conclusion is incomplete; there's no economic justification for its superiority over steel armor. This means the widespread use of such armor is questionable, and any discussion of weight is pointless. The choice between cheaper or lighter armor is only justified for aircraft.

[dragon772]

They started playing with this armor as soon as they took the captured M113.

[deddem]

Quote: dragon772

They started playing with this armor as soon as they took the captured M113.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Americans have nothing to do with this, we have enough of our own stupidity.

Work on the development of combined types of armor with low specific gravity was carried out in accordance with the order of the State Defense Committee #513 of December 31, 1957.
1958 - TsNII-48 produced experimental hulls with steel-plastic-AMg7 armor package
1960 - STZ produced a pilot batch of PT-76 from D-20 alloy, and at the same time, based on the results of tests, work began on the ABT-101/102 armor, which, in fact, was later used in our BMDs and BMP-3s.
There were still two whole years before the M113 entered military testing in Vietnam, and almost four years before the documented delivery of its wreckage to the USSR.
In fact, in 1965, the M113 was compared by firing at an _already_ finished experimental hull from the AMT-101.

[dragon772]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Americans have nothing to do with this, we have enough of our own stupidity.

You're mistaken, the M113 was specially brought to the USSR for disassembly; it was the world's first serially produced tracked armored personnel carrier made of aluminum.

[smadjavul]

Only the 113 is not made from armor alloy, but from ordinary AMg, which our industry already knew when the Americans began developing their armored personnel carrier.

[andrewkor]

I worked briefly at the Vtorchemet plant in Tashkent, where they crushed the hulls of decommissioned BMD-KShM tanks with a crane. It was interesting to see the design of the vehicles and their armor.

[deddem]

Quote: dragon772

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Americans have nothing to do with this, we have enough of our own stupidity.

You're mistaken, the M113 was specially brought to the USSR for disassembly; it was the world's first serially produced tracked armored personnel carrier made of aluminum.

So what?
Does this change the fact that we already had running AMG tank destroyers in 1958?