Is there any sniper rifle capable of penetrating this vehicles armor?
Video of vehicle here Présentation du petit véhicule protégé (PVP)
Sure, .50 cal sniper rifles will. I don’t know about .338 rifles though. I presume it’s mainly intended to protect against 7.62X54mm and below although several hits of that near each other could stress the armor beyond its limits.
According to your link, it provides level 2 protection, which looks to be standard rifles up to 7.62 mm. Level 3 protection stops 7.62 AP rounds, level 4 stops 14.5 mm rounds, which I assume are the equivalent to a .50 caliber (Barrett sniper rifle) round. So, yes, most snipers that are expecting to go through armor could punch through this. Standard troops probably couldn’t.
Need answer fast?
Strictly speaking, a scoped rifle with a caliber of .50 or greater is an anti-material rifle rather than a sniper rifle and is intended for use against exactly this type of lightly armored target:
Strictly semantics! The M107 Nomenclature is "LONG RANGE SNIPER RIFLE (LRSR),
CALIBER .50, M107.
I’m probably wording this badly but would that depend slightly on the ammo? Substitute a steel jacket for the copper (I’m thinking something like the Germans had in WW II but larger than their 9mm variant) and I’m thinking most of the larger military calibers could go through it.
it says 7.62x39mm. which is an “intermediate” power round most widely used in the SKS and AK rifles. it’s based on kinetic energy. no guarantee a higher power .30 caliber (7.62mm) round couldn’t penetrate it.
Yes.
The STANAG 4569 level 2 protection is designed to provide protection from up-to-and-including a 7,62x39 round. Level 3 would grant it protection against a 7,62x51 (7,62 NATO or .308 Winchester) AP (WC - tungsten carbide core) round. So, basically, it can’t even protect the driver from someone with an FN SCAR with AP rounds. (Or an M14)
I’m not a gun expert by any stretch of imagination, so someone will probably be along to correct me. But to put that in perspective, the muzzle energy of that 7,62x51 bullet it can’t stop is about 4000 joules. The muzzle energy of a .50 BMG is about 10-15000 joules.
In other words, anything on the partial list of .50 BMG firearms at the end of this link could probably put a bullet straight through that thing.
Hell, there are old M113 Armored Personnel Carriers out on ranges which have been shredded by standard ball 50 cal rounds. They had aluminum armor which was never meant to protect it from such rounds despite the “armored” designation.
I agree except maybe the phraseology ‘based on’ kinetic energy. The 7.62x39mm API-BZ round is just given as the standard within the category ‘kinetic energy’, ie projectiles which penetrate using their kinetic energy (not chemical energy as in a shaped charge round relevant to higher protection levels, not the combined blast/fragmentation effect of artillery shells etc). Another round with as much or more kinetic energy might not, for example 7.62x51mm ball rounds would not.
The standard just benchmarks actual rounds, so you can do a test v those particular rounds at those velocities and see the results. As opposed to alternatives like quoting a benchmark equivalence of the vehicle’s protection, whatever materials it used, to some thickness of Rolled Homogeneous Armor. The latter is also common in discussions of heavier protection, but less practical in the sense of not specifying a particular test: this particular round v that particular vehicle.
To approximately convert though, 7.62x39mm API-BZ near muzzle has a penetration capability somewhere around 12mm of RHA at 0 deg (ie perpendicular). IOW this is a fairly serious rifle round, albeit from a ‘medium power’ rifle, and that’s not very light protection by historical standards. US WWII half tracks, the APC’s of their day, were armored only ~6mm over most their exterior. They were somewhat notorious for allowing German 7.92mm penetrations at close range, but still provided significant protection against small arms and fragments.
A typical spec for modern 7.62x51mm (NATO) AP round though is 18mm at 100m, so someone with an M14 and AP ammo could expect a good chance of defeating that armor at close range. However a typical spec for 500m with same round is 7mm RHA. IOW the vehicle would provide significant protection at longer range, as is implied by ‘sniper rifle’. Also consider that the target angle won’t always be 0 deg, though the vehicle in video has little in the way of armor slope.
But a big .50 ca ‘anti-material rifle’, a typical spec of Mk.211 multipurpose* .50 round is 11mm RHA at 45 deg (not perpendicular as before) at 1000m so such a weapon would have a broad range of capability against a ‘Level 2’ vehicle.
*which has HE/incendiary effect v lightly armored targets, but v Level 2 the outer part of the round containing the HEI would be stripped off and mainly just the ~7mm AP core would penetrate, not good for the vehicle/occupants as pieces of the penetrator would break off along with armor fragments, but not the same spectacular effect you see in videos of those rounds v thinner targets where the whole round goes through and explodes.
14.5mm has like 50% more muzzle energy than the .50cal.
Interesting cite. Learned something (again) in GQ which I wasn’t expecting.
Well it’s actually envisioned as an anti-material weapon to be fired by an individual at long range. Who better to hit a target at long range then an already trained sniper. Not worth fighting over.
The typical ammo (Raufoss Mk211) is an SAPHEI round. For you acronym geeks - that’s semi-armor piercing, high explosive incendiary. Norway developed the round and they think it shouldn’t be used against personnel unless by accident. The US has no such problem. In actual use, trying to hit an individual at 1000 to 1800 meters is really tough. Now if that individual is standing next to a vehicle or wall or climbing in rocky terrain; that wall/vehicle/rock is a much bigger target and the explosive force and shell splinters will do in the individual just fine.
Pro tip here: If you ever have the opportunity to fire the Barrett, DO NOT scrimp on hearing protection. You need ear plugs AND ear muffs. You will go deaf in your ear nearest the rifle without the double protection. Cite is my gung-ho idiot friend who I can put you in touch with - speak loudly to him.
Back to the OP; the vehicle is good for what it’s designed to do - carry personnel, equipment, commo gear, etc… If you start adding on armor you end up with a main battle tank. The listed armor is fine against typical infantry small arms beyond a 100 m or so. It protects against shell splinters. The soldiers inside will also be wearing their individual body armor for another layer of protection.
Semi-war story (optional reading). I’m the ammo guy in Vicenza, Italy and the unit we support comes in with a request for the Mk 211 round (supply geek - 1305-A606) back circa 1998. We don’t have and can’t order because the unit (SETAF Lion Brigade) doesn’t have any Barrett rifles - not authorized on their equipment list.
“But we do have them”.
Our crusty sergeant, “Where did you get them, not on your MTOE/TDA (I forget which)”.
Them after a few days, “We bought them with unit funds”.
Crusty sergeant, “I’ll pretend I didn’t hear that because it’s a UCMJ / felony offense to use unit funds for purchases of weapons/ammo (providing them with relevant copies of regulation). Suggest you turn them in”.
Them a few months later waving document, “See we’re now authorized the rifles. And we have the A606 rounds too. They hand over two wirebound crates of the bullets.”
Crusty sergeant, “How did you get the ammo?”
Unit soldier who doesn’t know enough to stop digging, “Our LtC got a friend at Picatinny to MAIL them to us.”
You may be suspecting at this point that it’s illegal to mail high explosive incendiary ammunition through the US Postal Service - and you’d be correct.
Crusty sergeant reports this up through command to SETAF general, appropriate wrists are slapped - hey, it’s the 82nd Airborne - and all is well.
Unit comes for ammo for training, “Wadda’ya mean we can’t have A606, we jumped through hoops (violated numerous laws and regulation) to get them?”
Crusty, "One, that round is not authorized for training ($); two, the range you’re going to doesn’t have a safety fan to accommodate .50 cal rounds (no room); three, we don’t have a range locally that we can fire incendiary rounds on of any caliber (burning down the house).
Unit, “Dammit.”
And if you want to push the definition of “rifle” there’s the Anzio 20mm gun, which is technically classed as “man-portable” (at least if the man is Bruce Banner).
This gun is big enough for clown hunting.
Yep. The Soviet Union’s equivalent to the .50cal was their own .50cal (12.7mmx108mm). The 14.5mm was the next size up.
Why would I? Your own cite, in the first sentence that you quoted says it is a “semi-automatic sniper rifle”. Regardless, the official nomenclature in all bold letters on the cover of Technical Manual TM 9-1005-239-10 calls it a sniper rifle. To say it is not a sniper rifle is strictly semantics. Who defines “sniper rifle” anyway?
Or you could get the NTW-20 which is just slightly smaller…For those occasions when overkill is necessary.
Subsonic and suppressed Anzio 20mm. For when you’re plinking in your backyard.