"FEBA Rules Question by QRF/LKM" Topic

I think I may have a copy of these rules tucked safely away, somewhere, and would like to know if anyone has a copy of them, and can tell me the color of the cardstock cover they're printed on?

Might help me in searching for them here at home.

Also, I'm interested in the front, side, and rear armor rating for the West German Marder IFV, if anyone can share that, just in case I can't find my copy, and have to use the East of Suez rules I have located, instead.

Barring that, knowing how the armor ratings are derived might help as well.

Seems to me from the Suez rules, each point of armor rating is equivalent to about 10mms of armor, with mods made for armor slope as well. In some cases, the APC/IFV/Scout armor ratings seem to be a little generous compared to their main battle tank brethren, so perhaps some sort of logarithmic armor scaling is used, instead of a linear method.

Peach colored first page, see through plastic cover, red plastic backing.

Marder A1/A2 8B/5/3
Marder A3 9B/6/3

Let me know if you need any other stats.

CW

Thanks Cold Warrior.

Looks like I was close – was guessing 8C/6/? for the Marder 1.

I really appreciate it.

Will do.

Sincerely,

Rob

Yup mine are white paper in a yellowy orangey card covers, within a red plastic cover…

I only have 1 value for Marder though: C 8 6 3 20mm CAN 7 5 4 4 4 2

Interesting on the variation of the ratings.

I like the 8C/6/3 better, since IIRC, that matches the BMP-1s rating better, and I imagine the Marder has at least the same armor as it.

Seems to me the frontal armor ratings for some IFVs/APCs are about double what they should be (same goes for the side ratings for some too, like the BMP-1), assuming 10mm of armor per point of armor value (and also accounting for armor slope thicknesses in the overall protection scheme). Seems pretty clear the armor ratings are rounded up, e.g. 21mm – 22mm of armor gets the vehicle an armor rating of 3.

The M113's value for its side and rear armor, rated at 1 for those angles is too low, in my opinion. Accounting for its aluminum armor, which is weaker than steel, looks to me like the side and rear should be 3, instead of 1.

The FV432 seems about right, if perhaps a little over-rated. Haven't been able to find details on its armor thicknesses, other than mention of 1/2" and 1/4" armor plating. Might be rated too high if it doesn't have 1/2" of side and rear armor placed vertically.

I'm a bit confused between the BTR-50 with very low side and rear armor, and the OT-62, which has a much higher side and rear armor. I thought they were essentially the same vehicle (OT-62 is the Polish variant), save for doors in the side of the OT-62 to permit bailouts from there. Does the OT-62 really have such better armor than the BTR-50?

While I'm asking, what's the rating for the Luchs, for armor?

Presumably its 20mm cannon rating is the same as that for the Marder?

I'm rating the HS-30 at 5/5/5 for armor. Might be slightly lower for the rear arc, but apparently the front and side armor are the same. Not clear on its rear armor thickness.

Will post the Spz Kurz (11-2) info later, but thinking about 5/2/1, or 5/3/1, perhaps.

FWIW my copy has a July 2004 publication date, no info on what edition it may be.

In my book the BTR-50 and OT-62 are rated the same, 4A/3A/2
Luchs has same cannon as Marder, armor rating is 5B/3B/2
FV432 is 4A/3/2, M113 is also 4A/3/2.

BMP-1 is 4C/3B/2, BMP-1P 4C/4B/2

Ah, I see.

Those numbers do sound considerably more reasonable, CS.

What is the rating for the AMX VCI (if that's included in there) in FEBA?

The HS-30's front hull should be twice the armor rating of the VCI, according to Wikipedia, but 10 seems a bit high to me for that (since the VCI is a 5, frontally).

In the January 2003 issue of East of Suez, the following ratings apply:

M113 6/1/1
FV432 4/2/2
AMX VCI 5/3/2

BTR-50 7C/1/1
OT-62 6/6/4

BTR-60 6/5/3

BRDM-1 3/2/1
BRDM-2 3/3/1

BMD-1 7C/5/3
BMP-1 8C/6/3

PT-76 5C/3/3

JgPz Kanone & Rakete 8B/8A/6

The side and rear armor on the M113 should definitely be higher.

I suspect the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 may be a little high too, with their frontal ratings of 16B for the front armor, 10A or 10, respectively, for the side armor, and 7 for the rear.

The T-62's rated as 16B frontally, and the M60 tank is only rated as 15C (doesn't list the M60A1, IIRC). The T-54/55 is rated as 15B.

Seems to me I recall both the Leopard and AMX being very thinly armored in front, but well shaped.

Curious about the rating(s) for the West German Jaguar 1 and Jaguar 2 also (HOT and TOW, respectively).

Seems to me the ATGM/RPG ratings are about 1 point for each 25mm of armor penetration, give or take, in East of Suez.

Also, curious to know if the following ratings in FEBA are different than in Suez?

BRDM-1
BRDM-2

BTR-60PB

BMP-2 (perhaps the same as the BMP-1P?)

PT-76

BMD-1

My edition is marked Version 2.1 and Geoff's intro is dated July '98…

AMX VCI 4B/3/2
BRDM 1&2 3B/2A/2
BTR-60PB 3A/2A/2
BMP-2 5C/3B/2
PT-76 4C/3/2
BMD-1 3C/3A/2

Thanks for all the info, guys.

Those values look a lot more realistic than some of the higher ones in Suez.

I suspect in some cases, the very high ratings of some vehicles was an attempt to modify their defensive values due to their lower profiles, instead of tweaking the to-hit number values.

Check you have the FEBA+ version

There will be difference between Suez and FEBA+, as some adjustments were made for vehicles that were new and cutting edge but were significantly past their sell by date by the early 1980s