Amphibious armour: why/why not?

[UberIguana]

One of the major differences between eastern and western armour design is the tendency for eastern armour to be made amphibious if at all possible. I gather this is in part due to not wanting to rely on being able to find a useable bridge during a war. Some western vehicles are amphibious, usually those involved in reconnaissance and amphibious assault, but the ability seems widely ignored. This is even the case in vehicles originally designed for it, like the M113A1 versus later versions. Compare this to the BMP/BTR series and similar vehicles where they and every platform based on them float. The downside to this approach is their counterpart western vehicles often weigh nearly twice as much, with a corresponding increase in protection and presumably other capabilities.

Does the difference ultimately come down to power and survivability versus mobility?
Is amphibious capacity something western militaries should place more focus on?
Are eastern designers overestimating its importance?
How far should the trade-off of increased size for the same thickness of armour go?

 

[Zachowon]

they have thier pros and cons, but as far as Western nations go. They focus on combined arms reliability and armor over the ability to float. Plus it is doctrinal. Army doesn't need amphib while the Marines do.

 

[Marduk]

One of the major differences between eastern and western armour design is the tendency for eastern armour to be made amphibious if at all possible. I gather this is in part due to not wanting to rely on being able to find a useable bridge during a war. Some western vehicles are amphibious, usually those involved in reconnaissance and amphibious assault, but the ability seems widely ignored. This is even the case in vehicles originally designed for it, like the M113A1 versus later versions. Compare this to the BMP/BTR series and similar vehicles where they and every platform based on them float. The downside to this approach is their counterpart western vehicles often weigh nearly twice as much, with a corresponding increase in protection and presumably other capabilities.

Does the difference ultimately come down to power and survivability versus mobility?
Is amphibious capacity something western militaries should place more focus on?
Are eastern designers overestimating its importance?
How far should the trade-off of increased size for the same thickness of armour go?

Considering how Russia is changing the design of their vehicles, the western method is confirmed as a better idea.

During Cold War these vehicles were being built with one war in mind - WW3.
Going around destroyed bridges was an important feature, and less steel per vehicle meant more vehicles could be built. Not like an IFV, 20 or 40 ton, was going to survive a Hellfire or 120mm APFSDS anyway, losses were expected, HMG protection was good enough for third world customers too.
Didn't work out too well for third world customers with too intense wars, also wars in Afghanistan and Chechenya.
Then they stuck with what they had with what improvements they could get because what choice did they have.
And what are Russia's new, from scratch APC and IFV designs?
Nope, not low weight amphibious BMP.

T-15 Armata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

48 tons...

Kurganets-25 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

25 tons, like Warrior...
Barely amphibious in 25 ton version, so wonder how much extra armor they plan. Flashbacks to Bradley's story anyone?

VPK-7829 Bumerang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

34 tons wheeled and amphibious, somehow, you could call it a Russian fat Stryker...

 

[Zachowon]

Considering how Russia is changing the design of their vehicles, the western method is confirmed as a better idea.

During Cold War these vehicles were being built with one war in mind - WW3.
Going around destroyed bridges was an important feature, and less steel per vehicle meant more vehicles could be built. Not like an IFV, 20 or 40 ton, was going to survive a Hellfire or 120mm APFSDS anyway, losses were expected, HMG protection was good enough for third world customers too.
Didn't work out too well for third world customers with too intense wars, also wars in Afghanistan and Chechenya.
Then they stuck with what they had with what improvements they could get because what choice did they have.
And what are Russia's new, from scratch APC and IFV designs?
Nope, not low weight amphibious BMP.

T-15 Armata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

48 tons...

Kurganets-25 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

25 tons, like Warrior...
Barely amphibious in 25 ton version, so wonder how much extra armor they plan. Flashbacks to Bradley's story anyone?

VPK-7829 Bumerang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

34 tons wheeled and amphibious, somehow, you could call it a Russian fat Stryker...

Seems like they are following western designs..wierd.
Why do I always see people claim that the eastern design for tanks and IFVs and AFVs are supiror to Western designs yet here the Russians are taking after the west...

 

[Husky_Khan]

The Russians wanted all of that amphibious capability because as stated earlier in the thread, they value river crossings and didn't want to get caught on the shoreline. Since almost any concept of World War Three envisioned it be a Warsaw Pact offensive, it made sense they'd plan for river crossings. They'd be the ones attacking and crossing rivers after all.

NATO would be on the defensive and thus the need to make contested river crossings would be mitigated.

This is probably also an outgrowth of World War Two and Soviet practice there. The Soviets were masters of contested river crossings and it worked... Most of the time when they were advancing across the Eastern Front.