10 best armored vehicles from the Discovery Channel

144
Continuing the “10 Best” rating from the Discovery Channel, I would like to draw attention to one more amusing selection. This time, the experts got into the attention of “Armored Personal Carriers” - a general designation for all types of armored vehicles intended for transporting personnel. The review includes both light armored personnel carriers weighing 5 tons and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Despite the seeming absurdity, it is quite logical - all this equipment, tracked or wheeled, regardless of its size, performs the same task - transporting people and goods in military conflicts, protecting them with their armor. For example, there are no strict differences, for example, between an APC or a BMP. The only thing that distinguished them in theory is that an infantry fighting vehicle is capable of supporting infantry in combat, when, as an APC, it only delivers them to the battlefield. With the disappearance of a clearly marked front line, namely, it is observed in all local conflicts of the last quarter of the twentieth century, an armored personnel carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle now perform the same functions. Modern armored vehicles, regardless of their mass, often carry the same weapons, and serve as a platform for the creation of specialized military equipment - from command-post and ambulance vehicles to self-propelled howitzers and multiple rocket launchers.

In contrast to the controversial and controversial rating of "10 best tanks according to the Military Channel ", the rating of" 10 best armored vehicles ", in my opinion, is very adequate and actually correct: it contains really decent cars. It would be useful to add that you should not take such ratings seriously - after all, this is an infotainment program. Therefore, dear readers, I recommend that you pay attention not so much to the places in the ranking as to the machines themselves. For example, I myself, not being an expert in the field of armored vehicles, did not suspect the existence of many of them. And yet, in this review there is a serious conclusion - the review shows the most promising directions for the development of armored vehicles, the correct decisions and mistakes of designers. Indeed, if the landing party prefers to move ON armor, rather than UNDER armor, then something is really wrong with the armored vehicles.



Comparison criteria, as always, will be technical excellence, innovative solutions for creating this sample, manufacturability and mass production, and of course, the main judge will be combat experience.

Well, probably this is all that I wanted to add from myself, on this the prelude is over, let's move on to the rating. There are many decent cars in the world, but exactly 10 fit into the top ten.

10 Place - Marder

10 best armored vehicles from the Discovery Channel


Bundeswehr infantry fighting vehicle, combat mass - 33 tons. Year of adoption - 1970. Crew - 3 man + 7 man landing.
Created as a response to the Soviet BMP-1. The armament complex includes the 20 mm Rheinmetall-202 automatic cannon and the ATGM Milan. Speed ​​(up to 75 km / h on the highway), excellent security, German quality - what else do you need a good BMP? The overall picture is slightly spoiled by Marder’s lack of combat experience - with the exception of episodic participation in operations in Afghanistan, this armored vehicle almost did not go beyond the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany.
In total, the Germans assembled their wonder-BMP 2700, including self-propelled SAMs at their base. Good in all respects the car. Tenth place.

9 location - M1114



American armored vehicle. As you can already guess from the pictures, this is the legendary Humvee with a set of armor. By the middle of the 90-x, from the experience of the combat use of the M998 chassis, it became clear that the army needed a light armored personnel carrier on its base, with anti-fragmentation booking and, most importantly, resistant mine protection. The M1114 possessed all these qualities, combining mobility, security and firepower with a total mass of less than 5 tons. A set of detachable weapons for the M1114 includes everything from light machine guns on the roof to remotely controlled 12,7 mm machine gun installations, MANPADS and anti-tank missile systems.

From here you should make a small excursion to history "Humvee" (he - the chassis M998 HMMWV). Adopted by the United States in 1981, as a “highly mobile multi-purpose wheeled vehicle,” the Humvee became one of the symbols of the American army, shining in all the conflicts of the last 30 years. According to General Motors, 200 000 of all Humvee versions has been produced to date. One of the most important properties of this half-face-semi-jeep was the versatility of the design. Here are just some of the machines based on it:

M998 - open cargo car,
M998 Avenger - version with the Stinger anti-aircraft missile system,
M966 - armored jeep with anti-tank complex TOW,
M1097 - Double Pickup,
M997 - sanitary jeep with a four-seater cabin,
M1026 is a variant with a fully closed quadruple body and a winch,
M1035 is a sanitary version with a four-door cab,
M1114 - light armored personnel carrier, one of the most popular versions of the Humvee



Designers of General Motors were able to find the optimal balance between the carrying capacity, allowing to perform all the functions of a universal army vehicle, mount a variety of weapons and armor, and, at the same time, unnecessarily over-heavy the car, while maintaining the size of a large jeep. The Humvee has become a benchmark in its class. Now army off-road vehicles in all countries of the world borrow its technical solutions, layout and appearance.

Army technology a priori can not be successful in the civilian market in conditions of free competition. This axiom always serves as proof of the excuse of exorbitant military spending: “If you don’t want to feed your army, you will feed someone else’s,” etc. in the same vein. In the case of the Hummer, we see the opposite - a stylish army vehicle, retaining the main components (including the liter engine, transmission, suspension) 6, became a successful commercial project - in the 1992, the civilian version of the Hummer H1 with a minimum cosmetic changes, later developing to the iconic luxury class SUV “Hummer H2” with a luxury-salon and automatic transmission.
The armored army version of the Humvee M1114 fought a lot around the world, often came under fire, burned, exploded, stuck in the mud, but nevertheless saved the lives of the soldiers sitting inside. What is required of this army technology.

8 Place - The Universal Carrier



British multi-purpose tractor-hauler - the main assistant to the British soldier. The seemingly unsightly car with a crew of 5 people famously moved at speeds up to 50 km / h on the battlefields of World War II. The Universal Carrier fought on all fronts: from Europe and the Eastern Front to the Sahara and the jungles of Indonesia. Later he managed to take part in the war on the Korean Peninsula and gloriously ended his career in the 1960s.

With a mass of just 4 tons, The Universal Carrier had a decent maneuverability and was protected by 10 mm armor. The armament of the linear armored personnel carriers included an 14 mm anti-tank gun and / or a 7,7 mm Bren machine gun. In addition to the basic version, the flame-throwing machine “Wasp” and self-propelled guns with an 40 mm gun were delivered to the troops.

Total for years of mass production from 1934 to 1960. At the enterprises of Great Britain, the USA, Australia and Canada 113 000 of these small, but such useful cars was made.

7 Place - Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251



A formidable war machine that crushed the European countries, the sands of North Africa, and the icy expanses of Russia with its wheels and tracks.
The half-tracked SdKfz 251 armored personnel carrier fully complied with the strategy of the Blitzkrieg - a fast, spacious and well-protected vehicle with high traffic. The crew - 2 man + 10 man landing, speed on the highway 50 km / h, wheel-tracked propulsion, round-trip booking thickness up to 15 mm. Like any German technology, the armored personnel carrier was equipped with a huge variety of options and equipment to perform any tasks. The German engineering genius sold out in full force, so appreciate the scale: SdKfz 251 was equipped with a variety of surveillance and communication devices, cranes and winches, radio stations of all types and frequencies, assault bridges, sets of removable armor and various weapons, among which were even such exotic as jet rocket launcher systems Wurframen 40 280 caliber mm.
On the SdKfz 251 platform, a great variety of specialized machines were created: in addition to the basic model, ambulance and command-staff vehicles, observation and communication machines, mobile telephone stations, artillery spotter posts, self-propelled anti-aircraft guns with automatic 20 mm MG 151 / 20 guns, flamethrowing machines , mobile firing points with 37 mm and 75 mm anti-tank guns, engineering and engineering ...
Among these constructions were truly unique models of armored vehicles, such as the Schallaufnahmepanzerwagen - a direction finder to determine the position of enemy artillery positions out of sight, or the Infrarotscheinwerfer - a self-propelled infrared searchlight to illuminate the night sights of the Panther tanks.
From myself I can add the following: lovers of revelations and followers of the work of Vladimir Rezun, meticulously counting the number of German armored vehicles, somehow always forget to include in their 15 000 BTRs SdKfz 251, issued by the German industry, although these armored vehicles exceeded many capabilities of the period .
By the way, the SdKfz 251 armored personnel carrier was so good that it was produced in Czechoslovakia before the 1962 year.

6 place - M1126 "Stryker"



The youngest US Army recruit. The Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles was created specifically for low-intensity conflicts and "colonial wars", when the use of heavy armored vehicles, Abrams tanks or Bradley infantry fighting vehicles is excessive, and light combat brigade groups are not effective enough. The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan confirmed the correctness of such a decision.



The basic version of the M1126 was the first wheeled armored vehicle of this class in the US Army. Due to the exceptional smoothness of the course, the armored personnel carrier received the nickname “Shadow” in the troops. Particular emphasis in creating the M1126 was made to increase the protective properties of the machine. The steel spaced booking is complemented by mounted MEXAS-type armor modules weighing 1700 kg. This type of armor contains a ceramic layer that is bonded with an adhesive bond to a layer of high-strength Kevlar fibers. The purpose of the ceramic layer of aluminum oxide is to destroy the projectile and the distribution of kinetic energy over a larger area of ​​the base. In terms of resistance MEXAS, with the same weight with steel armor, it is twice as high. Much attention was paid to mine protection - double the bottom of the car, depreciation, additional reservation of the most vulnerable places - all this, according to American designers, should reduce the likelihood of destruction of the crew of the armored vehicle.
The armored personnel carrier has a high-tech armament complex, including a remote-controlled installation with a .50 machine gun of caliber and a 40 mm automatic Mark-19 grenade launcher with 448 ammunition ammunition. The detection module and target designation includes a night sight and a laser rangefinder.



The 18 ton armored personnel carrier can reach speeds up to 100 km / h on the highway, and the 8x8 wheel formula and tire pressure reduction system provide sufficient maneuverability. A serious drawback for machines of this type - the Stryker does not know how to swim.
In addition to the armored personnel carrier, the “Stycers” family includes
combat intelligence unit M1127, fire support machine M1128 with 105 mm snc; 120 ”, and the M1129 radiation, chemical and biological reconnaissance vehicle.
The “Strikers” have been doing military service in Iraq since 2003.

5 place - אכזרית (Achzarit)




Heavy tracked armored personnel carrier of the Israel Defense Forces. It is the most protected armored vehicle in the world in its class.
The 200 mm armor of the Soviet tank (you won’t believe, but Achzarit is captured Syrian T-54 and T-55 with towers removed) was reinforced with perforated carbon steel sheets, and a set of dynamic protection was installed on top. The total weight of the additional booking was 17 tons, which, combined with the low silhouette of the car, this provided an exceptionally high level of protection for the BTR.


On the way to the border


The Soviet engine was replaced by a more compact 8-cylinder diesel engine "General Motors", which allowed equipping the corridor along the starboard side of the tank, leading from the troop compartment to the stern security door. When tilting the stern ramp, part of the roof is lifted hydraulically, facilitating dismounting of the landing. In addition, a partially open aft door is used as an embrasure.
Achzarit is equipped with a remote-controlled machine gun installation OWS (Overhead Weapon Station) of the company 'Raphael'. As an additional weapon, three 7,62-mm machine guns are used: one on the pivot commander hatch and two on the back hatches.
As a result, the 44-ton monster is an excellent tool for fighting in urban environments, where in the opening of each window there may be an RPG launcher. Achzarit is not afraid of fire at all, out of all the means in service with the Hezbollah and Hamas militants, securely covering the crew of his 10 armor.
In fairness it should be noted that the most protected BTR in the world is still Namer (weight over 50 tons) on the chassis of the Merkava tank, only Namers had a symbolic quantity - 60 pieces, in contrast to Achzarit. X-NUMX T-500 / 54 tanks were retooled.

4 place - BMP-1



The armored infantry vehicle (that is, in the opinion of American experts) noticeably increased the offensive power of the infantry units. The brilliant concept of the BMP-1 was to increase the mobility and security of the infantry, acting in conjunction with the tanks. The global public was shown the car during a parade on Red Square in 1967.
The body of the BMP-1 was welded from armor plates of thickness 15 ... 20 mm, according to calculations, this was enough to provide circular protection against bullets fired from a manual rifle weapons, and on course angles protection was provided even from small-caliber cannon shells.
The 13-ton combat vehicle developed up to 65 km / h on the highway and up to 7 km / h afloat (to increase the buoyancy even the track rollers were made hollow). Inside were placed 3 man crew and 8 paratroopers. The armament complex consisted of the 73 mm smoothbore 2А28 "Thunder" grenade launcher, a PKT machine gun and the 9М14М Malyutka anti-tank missile system. For those sitting inside the paratroopers were equipped with separate loopholes. All this, in theory, turned the BMP-1 into a universal machine of the new generation.



Alas, it turned out to be more difficult. The Americans strictly criticized the decisions of the Soviet designers, especially the design of the rear doors of the troop compartment (indeed, very doubtful): “Probably this is thick armor, reliably protecting the crew of the car?” Not! These are fuel tanks! ”With the defeat of the car, such a layout turned the BMP into a fire trap.
As a result of the battles in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it quickly turned out that the designers had nothing to spare on armor - the BMP was confidently amazed at the DShK machine gun. Low protection from mines, small arms and grenade launchers led to the fact that soldiers prefer to move sitting on armor, not venturing to descend into the fighting compartment of the car. The shortcomings of weapons also made themselves felt - in the highlands, the Thunder was useless because of the low elevation angle.


Those tanks in the stern hatches


Soviet designers attempted to correct errors in the next-generation machine. The new BMP-2 received an automatic 30 mm gun with an elevation angle of 85 degrees. The next model, the BMP-3, despite the loud calls by the military to increase security, was the apotheosis of the absurdity: possessing almost tank armament, it still has “cardboard” armor.
And yet it is worth paying tribute to the Soviet designers. Infantry fighting vehicle became a fundamentally new class of armored vehicles. Despite its innovation, the BMP-1 went through more than a dozen military conflicts around the world. In addition, it was cheap and massive: just 20 000 machines of this type were released.

3 place - MCV-80 "Warrior"



British infantry fighting vehicle. There is more to her name than just “Warrior”. Combat weight - 25 tons. Speed ​​on the highway - 75 km / h. The MCV-80 armor case is welded from rolled sheets of aluminum-magnesium-zinc alloy and protects from 14,5-mm bullets and from fragments 155-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles, and the bottom - from 9 kg of anti-tank mines. Boards and running gear are covered with rubber anti-cumulative screens. The Warrior’s armored hull has an interior backsheet that protects the crew from fragments of armor, which is also soundproof. The space between the backs of the airborne seats and the sides of the hull is used for laying spare parts and property of infantrymen, which creates additional protection for the troop compartment. Outside the armor is enhanced by dynamic protection. Armament: 30 mm automatic gun L21A1 "Rarden", twin machine gun, 94-mm launcher LAW-80. The crew of the car - 3 man. The landing party is 7 man.

The British command had high hopes for its promising infantry fighting vehicles. And “Warrior” did not let down its creators - of the 300 machines that took part in “The Tempest in the Desert”, not one was lost in battle. Notable is the incident in Al Amarah (Iraq) 1 of May 2004 of the year: an 14 RPG grenade got into the “Warrior” patrol. The heavily damaged car managed to fight off and under its own power came out from under the fire, saving the lives of the fighters inside it (the entire crew was burned and injured). BMP commander Johnson Gedeon Biharri was awarded the Victoria Cross.



In 2011, the UK government has allocated 1,6 billion pounds to upgrade MCV-80 under the WCSP program. In particular, it is reported that the BMP will receive a new weapon system with an 40 mm automatic weapon.
This is the MCV-80 “Warrior” - a machine that soldiers trust.

2 Place - M2 "Bradley"



American infantry fighting vehicle. Combat weight - 30 tons. Speed ​​- 65 km / h on the highway, 7 km / h afloat. Crew - 3 person. The landing party is 6 man.
Multi-layer armor made of steel and aluminum 50 mm thick provides all-round protection against small-caliber artillery shells. The hinged dynamic protection system serves as a reliable barrier for RPG jet grenades. The hull has a kevlar lining on the inside, preventing the formation of fragments. In the latest versions, 30 mm steel screens are additionally mounted on the sides.
Armament: 25 mm automatic gun M242 "Bushmaster" with a computerized fire control system, ATGM "TOW" and 6 machine guns M231 FPW. The equipment of the armored vehicle includes such excesses as the tactical navigation system TACNAV, the laser range finder ELRF, the infrared passive protection system against ATGM and the food rations heater MRE (Meal, Ready-to-Eat).
At the time of its appearance, in 1981, the US military doubted the fighting qualities of the new BMP. But in 1991 during the “Storm in the Desert” all doubts were dispelled: “Bradley”, using shells with depleted uranium cores, destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the main battle tanks M1 “Abrams”. And only 1 BMP was lost from enemy fire.
Honored combat vehicle has become one of the most massive BMP in the world - just released 7000 M2 "Bradley". At its base are also produced: military reconnaissance vehicle M3, self-propelled air defense system M6 and launcher for MLRS and tactical missiles M270 MLRS.

1 place - M113


M113 Lithuanian Armed Forces parade in Kaunas


11 tons floating tracked vehicle. Circular protection is provided by 40 mm aluminum armor. Excellent capacity - 2 crew member and 11 paratroopers. Standard weapons - heavy machine gun M2. Fast (speed on the highway - up to 64 km / h), passable and easy to maintain the car became the most famous in the world of an armored personnel carrier. 85000 М113 of all modifications were in service with 50 countries of the world. The M113 has gone through all the conflicts from the Vietnam War to the Iraq invasion -2003 and as of today, it is still being produced and is the main armored personnel carrier of the US Army.
In addition to the armored personnel carrier, the M113 existed in the form of a command and staff vehicle, a self-propelled 107 mm mortar, an anti-aircraft self-propelled unit (armed with everything from Vulcan six-guns to Chepparel air defense missile system) , machine radiation and chemical reconnaissance and launcher MLRS.



Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    5 March 2012 09: 20
    On the 1st place it’s not clear what at all! Our BMP is better!
    1. beech
      +12
      5 March 2012 16: 20
      Well, this is discovery, it would be unusual if they did not put their shit in the first place !!! Bradley amazes me especially: above the tank, the armor is no better than others ... I don’t understand how it became 2nd. And m113, even more interesting why
      she took 1st place- her place is 7 or 8 !!! why a hammer on 9 and a marder on 10 !!!
      1. 0
        30 August 2017 15: 22
        Judging by the dimensions, you can shove a mobile closet there
    2. +6
      5 March 2012 23: 20
      To be honest, I do not understand at all by what criteria the places were placed. And the classes of cars, their purpose and tasks are also different. How can you compare, for example, light Hummers and heavy Israeli BMPs from the converted T-54 and T-55. In general, the rating is somewhat dubious, but what I agree with is that we need new heavy infantry fighting vehicles, possibly based on the Armata tank.
      1. +1
        10 March 2012 21: 54
        Quote: 1tankist
        And the classes of cars, their purpose and tasks are also different.

        Horses mixed in a bunch, people (s) How can different classes of equipment be compared? If it’s security, it’s more like a mockery ... We need clear comparison criteria - then their choice will be clear :)
    3. Fidain
      +4
      6 March 2012 00: 00
      Etot Amerikasnki Ga ... M113, pulimyot kalibrom 12.7 mm setku delaet.ne znayu chem dumali krome propogandi, no eto smelo stavit na samoe poslednie mesto
    4. Altergo
      0
      28 March 2012 23: 43
      Yes, I agree it is unclear by what criteria this box was put in 1st place.
  2. - = KeepeR = -
    +6
    5 March 2012 09: 25
    Something they forgot our BTR-80 (90) ....
    1. Tram boom
      +22
      5 March 2012 09: 28
      And remember about them. They have armor of 6 mm - like a laugh. Marines are afraid to sit in these tin cans.
      What kind of armored vehicle is this if the assault rides on horseback?
      1. +4
        5 March 2012 09: 57
        Here you are my friend tram boor and rude on.
        If you are lazy to study there different classes of technology.
        I'll give you a little educational program. BTR-80 is a floating armored personnel carrier. And better than BTR-82A
        Not in class yet.
        1. Tram boom
          +5
          5 March 2012 10: 02
          Quote: leon-iv
          I'll give you a little educational program. BTR-80 is a floating armored personnel carrier


          M113 - also a floating armored personnel carrier, but armor 40 mm
          1. +12
            5 March 2012 10: 35
            uu even laziness to read pedagogy.
            for fun read about A1 A2 A3 extreme blocks no longer swim
            And look for the difference between steel rolled armor from aluminum.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +25
                5 March 2012 11: 06
                sorry no smile
                Well, let's continue the educational program.
                Leave the dialogue between Chechnya and Afghanistan. For this is not the element of these machines. These machines were created that M113 that armored personnel carrier for global nuclear war.
                So in the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense, people were clearly smarter than us. And calculated that
                1 The main weapon of the BBM NATO is 12,7 mm. 10mm of armor in the forehead and with such a slope it is easy to hold. But this is not the main thing.
                2 fragments of 155 mm projectile. This will be one of the main weapons of destruction in the great war. (do not forget these machines were created for this).
                3 The main theater would be Europe and there every 10km there is a river. And they must be forced and not only on bridges.
                4 Do not forget also that in the main advancing units were supposed to go tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. And there is another defense. Therefore, it is more appropriate to compare it with BMP but not with armored personnel carriers.
                And all the same, I recommend to study the difference between steel rolled from aluminum armor.
                1. Mr. Truth
                  +12
                  5 March 2012 11: 56
                  I agree that he probably does not know about the fireproofness of aluminum either.
              2. 0
                11 March 2012 17: 16
                more than one armored personnel carrier or a BMP will not protect against a grenade launcher, both ours and not ours, especially if a grenade with a tandem warhead.
            2. Mr. Truth
              +11
              5 March 2012 11: 54
              Why would he climb there? Discovery has decided everything for him.
          2. +7
            5 March 2012 10: 55
            Quote: Tram boor
            but armor 40 mm

            Not 40mm, but even 44mm, only an aluminum alloy (aluminum-magnesium-manganese), which did not lie with armor. Provides protection from a 7,62mm bullet board and a 12,7mm forehead.
            Our BTR-90 forehead holds a 30mm shell.

            By the way, our BMD and BMP-3 also have an aluminum alloy body, but this is armor, not aviation aluminum.
            1. +8
              5 March 2012 11: 16
              not 12,7 but 14,5 mk, the main weapon of Soviet light armored vehicles is 14,5 KPVT.
              But Kamrad Tram Ham likes to measure in mm.
            2. vitya29111973
              0
              23 January 2013 19: 33
              Inadvertently joked at the expense of 30 ml. shell and armored personnel carrier.
      2. +25
        5 March 2012 11: 08
        Quote: Tram boor
        What kind of armored vehicle is this if the assault rides on horseback?
        Are you talking about this?

        1. +14
          5 March 2012 12: 13
          M-113, an anti-ban option, to shoot blacks and Vietnamese in the bushes, and a shield on a machine gun helps to shoot from stones and arrows.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +1
              11 March 2012 17: 19
              I dwell on you as a homeworker who loves everything foreign
              1. 0
                30 August 2017 15: 28
                Something you guys have some misunderstanding that has somehow turned into a personal skirmish
  3. +5
    5 March 2012 09: 38
    Discovery of such a discovery.
  4. BAT
    +6
    5 March 2012 10: 51
    Never believed this discovery. Continuous ordering and discounts.
  5. Sergl
    +5
    5 March 2012 10: 54
    The creators of armored personnel carriers now have the main tasks, IMHO, are: to protect the crew and the landing force from getting 20-23 mm shells, anti-tank grenade launchers; protection against anti-tank mines. In this case, you need to maintain speed, maneuverability, buoyancy, power reserve. How to combine these requirements in one machine is another puzzle.

    A possible way out is to create a combat tandem from an armored armed module and a moderately armored transport module. But there are even more questions on the creation and combat use.
  6. Alex-z84
    +11
    5 March 2012 11: 06
    Naturally in the first place they put their coffins))) Objectivity on the face so to speak.
  7. kPoJluK2008
    +25
    5 March 2012 11: 43
    Damn, I'll cry right now))
    Here is the UG to put in the first place?
    BMP-1 is a revolutionary vehicle, a new class of armored vehicles that did not exist before. BTR-60 - proved to be just a tank when a conflict with China took place on Domansky Island in 1969 .. Only one BTR-60 destroyed a Chinese company ..
    1. kPoJluK2008
      +9
      5 March 2012 11: 52
      And as always, pro-Western worms began to minus than to answer - it's easier to put a minus! tactics however!
    2. +11
      5 March 2012 12: 06
      He served on the BMP-1, operator-gunner, I liked the car.
    3. Tram boom
      -14
      5 March 2012 15: 17
      Quote: kPoJluK2008
      BTR-60 - proved to be just a tank when on the island of Domansky


      Ale for all Russian historians, patriots, it was about. Dаmansky

      The BMP-1 showed its worthlessness there, 73 mm grenades did not reach the enemy, there was no normal gun, and machine guns were useless at such a range
      1. slas
        +15
        5 March 2012 20: 16
        Quote: Tram boor
        The BMP-1 showed its worthlessness there, 73 mm grenades did not reach the enemy, there was no normal gun, and machine guns were useless at such a range

        Yeah and boots didn’t go and the stew didn’t eat and automatic machines didn’t chop firewood laughing
      2. kPoJluK2008
        +1
        6 March 2012 15: 59
        TovariSCH have you really learned to google? (looked now, really through "a", but does not change the essence) you are looking for the slightest trick to find fault with the words - about people like you, I said in the previous post! Either they do not know how to argue, or simply put downsides - strategists !!! lol

        And its uselessness was that it was a breakthrough car - attacks on the move, and not shootings from the bush for 100 km ...
  8. Mr. Truth
    +6
    5 March 2012 11: 48
    Discovery, the famous American objectivity in all its glory.
    1. 0
      30 August 2017 15: 31
      It seems that there has always been a type of pocket expert who broadcasts behind the scenes and proves his point of view. But I did not look, but I condemn!
  9. +3
    5 March 2012 11: 52
    But fans of Western technology do not have enough thrust for arguments, hit the minuses. Feel better?
    1. BAT
      +4
      5 March 2012 12: 01
      And pro-Western worms are smarter than they can do without minus.
    2. Tram boom
      -10
      5 March 2012 12: 06
      Have you read the article carefully? Everything, I emphasize EVERYTHING, modern armored cars have tremendous protection, simply incomparable with the protection of our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. An Israeli monster in general, Bradley and Warrior - 5 centimeters of combined armor + dynamic armor (this is not close to ours).

      Taldychat alone - swims, swims.
      Bradley and M113 also swim if it makes you so pinned
      1. +12
        5 March 2012 12: 15
        o5
        And what about their pressure on the ground?
        By the way, are you not ashamed to compare light wheeled armored personnel carriers with heavy tank-based ones.
        Or you don’t know that they have different tasks. Maybe we can reserve the MLTB on the very eyebrows.
      2. Mr. Truth
        +22
        5 March 2012 12: 25
        Bradley does not swim, and never normally swum, the first modifications were minimally floating due to the canvas cover around the body, which many professional gamers now consider to be composite armor. Now this fat one weighs 12 tons more than it was originally designed, and does not meet the main requirement, which in TK was to keep up with the abrams over rough terrain. And there is no 5 cm of combined armor, 6,5 mm of steel, polyurethane foam and 25 mm of aluminum. DZ still on some machines. Mostly on the M-3.
        1. Mr. Truth
          +10
          5 March 2012 12: 30
          That child will minus, even if not right. At least refuted or proved something.
          1. +6
            5 March 2012 17: 35
            I have one friend, a test engineer at the AMZ, and so they drove the BTR-90 to Moscow for a show, and on their own, and this is 500 km on the highway on such a fig, he was delighted with his driving performance, by the way, the gay men who accompanied them also were in awe. You can write a separate story about that trip.
            1. +1
              5 March 2012 21: 30
              but write. here it will be interesting for many to read from the "primary sources." wink
        2. 0
          30 August 2017 15: 32
          It may not swim, but due to its peculiarity it does not sink! )))
      3. Zynaps
        +2
        6 March 2012 01: 56
        how wonderful it is. on a blue eye, it is authoritative to compare armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles created for different theater of operations, in different weight categories, old and new, dupole and finger.
        1. +3
          6 March 2012 02: 31
          for me, any comparison of military equipment according to the declared specifications makes no sense that the t-34-85 will carry any modern armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles to parts, but at the same time it’s still outdated
  10. SIT
    +17
    5 March 2012 12: 01
    Hummer, how did you get into this rating? Weight 5 tons on 4 wheels. It moved down from any of our federal highways in any direction and run to the nearest collective farm behind a tractor, well, or wait for your tankers to be pulled out.
    1. Mr. Truth
      +6
      5 March 2012 12: 33
      This is the main symbol of the United States Army, and the main transport they have 2/3 of the army ride on it, but he could not add it to the rating. Moreover, this is the only car during the Reagan military engineering programs of the United States, which exceeded all requirements for technical requirements.
  11. jar0512rus
    +31
    5 March 2012 12: 01
    As always, Discovery is predictable !!! What else to take from the American channel !!! Thank you for at least adding the BMP 1 to the list despite the fact that this is not the most successful model !!! armor made its way from the DShK machine gun !!! it is clear that BMP1 will beat Bradley !! Well, Bradley did so after a careful study of the BMP. and the layout was mostly retained by the Americans, radically changing weapons and armor !!! But let me where then BMP 2, which the Mujahideen called the Shaitan Orb in Afghanistan !!! And he was armed more seriously than competitors 30-mm automatic cannon 2A42, 7.62 PKT machine gun, ATUR9M111 "Fagot" or 9M113 "Competition" !!! To date, about 30 countries have it in service and the same number are looking for ways to counter them !!! And where is the BMP 3 with a fundamentally new design, where Alexander Blagonravov Constructor and BMP 2 and BMP 3 abandoned the classic layout !! He moved the power plant to the stern and it became a counterweight to the powerful frontal armor, the space vacated in front
    2 machine gunners and a driver mechanic took it, the fighting compartment turned into a double tower for the commander and gunner, immediately behind it there was a landing place !! For BMP 3, for the first time in the world, a hydromechanical transmission was installed, thanks to which the car received an extraordinary ride for which it was called a soldier Mercedes !!! A new generation of aluminum armor was also developed for him, and two water-jet engines are also installed on it !! Today, BMP 3 is the only combat vehicle in the world that can sail with a three-ball storm and still fire !!! WEAPONS 100mm gun / launcher 2A70, 30mm gun 2A42, three 7,62mm PKT machine guns !!! And where it’s interesting in their lists these unparalleled cars !!! And the list can be continued with a story about an armored personnel carrier, BMD, !!! I think we need to prepare a publication, an objective comparison !!! So say our answer !!!
    1. kPoJluK2008
      +2
      5 March 2012 12: 08
      I agree! Find sensible and adequate people and conduct a full analysis, so to speak ..
    2. Mr. Truth
      +4
      5 March 2012 12: 10
      In the photo, it’s not BMP-3 but BMP-3M with DZ from research institutes of steel, by the way a very good option, it holds 12,7 mm on board thanks to DZ (and generally holds a lot of things), the weight increased to 22 tons, but the amphibiousness remained. But I'm not a fan of the triad (100-30-7,62), I think a 57 mm AP with a 12,7 pair would be better suited.
      1. jar0512rus
        +4
        5 March 2012 12: 26
        This photo is just like one of the upgrade options !!! The base is still one! Just a long time to describe the various equipment options !!! I also like the option of installing the AP-688 automatic gearbox, additional voluminous armored screens, and the spring-K sighting system,
    3. Sergl
      +2
      5 March 2012 13: 05
      Unfortunately (or fortunately), but the latest modifications of the BMP-3 (which are in your photo) did not pass the test of the military conflict, EMNIP.
      And the operation of an unfinished car during the war in Chechnya left a double opinion about itself.
      Comparing purely TTX is pointless.
      1. jar0512rus
        +4
        5 March 2012 13: 44
        Understand I’m talking about BMP 2 and BMP 3 in general, and not about any one in particular, the fact that the photo is just an example !!! There are different options for modernization, different design bureaus !!! And TTX is the characteristics of machines and I do not see anything judicious in their comparison, it is not in vain that they will be exposed in the end !!! And during the war in Chechnya, many things, in principle, left a double impression !!!
        1. Sergl
          0
          5 March 2012 20: 46
          How many emotions ...

          Then you will be able to give an answer to the question - when will our soldiers begin to trust the equipment and in a combat situation will begin to ride inside the "boxes", and not outside?
    4. oleg-sochi68
      +1
      6 March 2012 02: 23
      I support you. The authors of the article somehow did not adequately evaluate. They dumped a truck, an armored personnel carrier, an infantry fighting vehicle and a heavily armored infantry fighting vehicle (based on the T-54 Israel tank). They would put and write in this row - invulnerable Abrams. Nonsense for kindergarten. And whoever read about the adoption of Bradley’s armament - in general, his tears must have wiped from laughter. Amer still can not give her armor of mind. She, poor already stopped swimming and weapons got weaker than expected, but all the same failed. Everything burns, so it’s more correct to compare the same type of car and do not forget about the cost of the instance
  12. Yurkin
    +6
    5 March 2012 12: 03
    So we have nothing sensible in the series for the delivery of infantry. :( BTR 90
    MO did not accept. Probably they will do something new. It is high time. You give adequate protection to the composition, you give firepower, you give a series of several thousand, and not a couple of exhibition items!
    1. Mr. Truth
      +1
      5 March 2012 12: 14
      They do, next year we will see an armored personnel carrier for the "Boomerang" design and development, the protection will be much stronger than that of the 70/80/82 and 90 armored personnel carriers. There will be a weight in the range of 25 tons, protection can be made from AP in the forehead and sides from large-caliber machine guns, and the bottom from 5-6 kg of explosives, while leaving amphibiousness.
      1. Yurkin
        0
        7 March 2012 00: 22
        It is high time. And put the Typhoon family on the conveyor
  13. Mr. Truth
    +2
    5 March 2012 12: 29
    By the way, the article contains a mistake: Gavin has 38 mm of forehead and 12 cm of feed.
  14. Splin
    +4
    5 March 2012 12: 37
    The best light armored vehicles that are not Scandinavian here.
    The Americans see Swedish BMPs as a replacement for their Bradley BMP, and FINNISH armored personnel carriers are in demand all over the world!
    1. Mr. Truth
      +3
      5 March 2012 12: 43
      I agree that the wheeled BTR AMV from PATRIA is currently the best in the world. Good security, mobility, and most importantly remains floating.
      And the Swedish armored personnel carrier is IMHO overestimated, especially in terms of protection, I saw photographs of their bodies, it seems to me that all angle protection from 30 mm has been bent, and the gun and the LMS are good.
      1. Splin
        +2
        5 March 2012 12: 57
        And the Swedes with their Strf 90 are there any competitors? Not in a single copy like the Ukrainian BMPT, but in a series. No, and so far they are alone with this path. All of them are just trying to catch up.
        1. Mr. Truth
          +3
          5 March 2012 13: 11
          The same BMP-3M, one devil both from the same category.
  15. +14
    5 March 2012 12: 43
    Indeed, if the landing party prefers to move ON armor, rather than UNDER armor, then something is really wrong with the armored vehicles.

    With armored vehicles, everything is fine, there are questions about insurance! Our insurance doesn’t and they travel where it is safe (with explosive explosives), amers have insurance, one of the points says that insurance is not paid if they were killed outside the BTR (BMP) building, so they drive inside, although it’s dangerous, when they blow everything kayuk !!! BMP (BTR), by definition, can not be made invulnerable !!!!
  16. dred
    -2
    5 March 2012 12: 44
    So I think the problems end up on the BTR 100 and BMP Kurgan.
  17. +2
    5 March 2012 12: 45
    2nd place in the armor of a car with the disease of our "Zhiguli", namely ball ... who owned or owns he will understand what I mean =) and it's not at all funny when the wheel turns like a plow =)
  18. +14
    5 March 2012 13: 12
    The main argument of the Americans and their fans is as old as the world ...

    "Ololo, fuel tanks in the doorway, what did they think ?!"
    In combat conditions, they are always devastated in advance.

    "Ololo, russkies ride on armor, it doesn't protect patamushta from anything"
    When mines are almost the only type of danger, being on the roof of an armored vehicle makes sense. But in a normal war, if the enemy has artillery and MLRS, the main danger is shrapnel: the fall of a 120mm mine or 105mm OFS 50 meters from the "saddled from above" armor - and no one will leave offended. And inside, the majority will survive. Those. in a war against the regulars, everyone will sit inside like cute. Regardless of religion or ideology.
  19. aleksej
    +1
    5 March 2012 13: 58
    Guys yes, you hammer on this list, all these ratings are complete rubbish. These results will only be visible if they shoot at these vehicles from armor-piercing guns, and no one has fired from most of the vehicles on the list for about 50 years.
  20. VIKING
    -2
    5 March 2012 14: 02
    The rating is not entirely correct, for example "Hammer" is worthless here, its place is in another category. Either the French VAB or the German TPz1 Fuchs could be placed instead. The Universal Carrier - this freak also has no place here, since only post-war samples are considered, then all ten should be only post-war. Only SdKfz.251 is allowed, at least this one was produced in Czechoslovakia until the 60s, and remained in service until the end of the 80s, although I would also replace it, well, for example, with the Soviet BTR-152. But "Marder" can be raised to a higher step of the pedestal. If I had the will, I would make a rating (if we were to dump both BMPs and armored personnel carriers) like this:
    1st place for M113, without reservation.
    2nd place - BMP-2
    3rd place - M2 "Bradley" and heavy armored personnel carrier "Namer"
    4th place - "Marder"
    5th place - VAB and TPz1 Fuchs
    6th place - Stryker
    7th place - Warrior
    8th place - FV432
    9th place - "Piranhas" family
    10th place for BTR-152, well, or BTR-80.

    Somehow like this. I am sure that the bulk of the comrades will not agree with me, well, well, let everyone offer their own version. wink
    1. +4
      5 March 2012 14: 09
      you are wrong you need to distinguish between versions and places of application.
      For example, wheel equipment
      Tracked Light / Heavy
      Tracked conveyors
      Therefore, faith in this rating is 0, like everything else from discovery.
    2. Splin
      +1
      5 March 2012 15: 23
      Each of the vehicles on the Discovery list (except for the English Warrior and the American Stryker) influenced the armored vehicles development branch. With the distribution of seats, you can argue and add the BTR-60, but not the BMP-2 or BTR-152. This is just a reystaling of a particular model.
  21. gor
    gor
    -9
    5 March 2012 14: 07
    oh well, everything swims. who saw the Germans in 6 minutes collecting and passing a bridge across the Danube battalion of leopards and within a minute all these watercraft are dispersed along the river. Moreover, these boats to the river and the river drive on their own. I think the BMP in a river like the Danube is really a target with a modern level of damage
    1. +4
      5 March 2012 14: 17
      and now we are doing it under fire. wink
      Smile and wave (s)
      1. gor
        gor
        -5
        5 March 2012 17: 58
        Well, like nobody floundering in a river at a speed of 12 km per hour. Yes, there is little chance that someone will swim. So yielding in armor and winning buoyancy is a very dubious win
    2. oleg-sochi68
      +2
      6 March 2012 02: 27
      In 1987, the Germans scolded our soldiers in the speed of pointing the pantone crossing and deploying the transmitting radio center almost twice - a fact. Very precisely, they follow the instructions.
      1. gor
        gor
        0
        6 March 2012 12: 01
        since that time, a lot of things have changed and now their pontoons are self-propelled and autonomous. I’m sure that the pontoons remained old-fashioned. And another fact in 1987 could be Germans from the GDR, and these are different things
  22. +2
    5 March 2012 14: 23
    It’s somehow incorrect to put BTR and BMP in the same rating, not to mention an SUV.
  23. swat2238
    0
    5 March 2012 14: 30
    Surprised, rarely in sky publishers publish our technology, but nice;) I thought from 10 to 5 place will be a humvee and from 4 to 1 will be m113, but what does the striker do here? He is cardboard!

    The first 8 should be ours, and the last 2 places can be given to foreign cars.
  24. 0
    5 March 2012 14: 43
    Marder is out of place here at all.
    Warrior and Bradley are at the bottom of the list. If you already take the then German armored vehicles of the Second World War should be at the top.
    And on the first 2 infantry fighting vehicle, the M113
    1. Splin
      +3
      5 March 2012 15: 30
      German Marder is the first normal, and not remade like a Jewish BMP based on a tank.
      1. +1
        5 March 2012 15: 51
        Marder is nonsense weighing T-55, with 20 mm scarecrow, and with such a large weight, it also didn’t have much protection, the forehead of the 30 mm with a homogeneous homogenized anti-20 mm projectile, and the sides from small arms.
        Generally nothing special considering the cost,
        Quote: Splin
        Marder is the first normal

        the first western infantry fighting vehicle, and with heavy infantry fighting vehicles like Nakladona, or even Azharida is not even compared.
    2. gor
      gor
      -8
      5 March 2012 18: 00
      BMP 1 and 2 are generally an interesting thing, especially when the tanks lighted up when they were blown up. Such a friendly coffin. And where did they show themselves. Bradley fucked them in full in Iraq
      1. +6
        5 March 2012 18: 38
        But how does Marder behave when undermined? Or is his fuel not combustible?

        And in general, he even fought somewhere?
        Quote: gor
        Bradley fucked them in full in Iraq

        Honestly? And how did they (BMP 1) then survived to the ravings? Why then did the A-10 release half a million shells? And so they also fired at the Warriors (two for sure)

        but about the ravings of a fairy tale, maybe they shot at the abandoned ones, and even missed the TOU.
      2. 0
        5 March 2012 20: 20
        Quote: gor
        and where it is that they showed themselves so. Bradley fucked them in full in Iraq
        1. gor
          gor
          -6
          5 March 2012 22: 58
          in fact, who won the one and gouged, and not vice versa))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
        2. VIKING
          -2
          5 March 2012 23: 13
          Dear person! All these "masses" of photographs of the broken US armored vehicles are all propagandoid bullshit. Most of them were amazed by their own, what is a Friendly fire you know? I think yes. The other large part was destroyed by landmines. In reality, ATGM and RPG have a very scanty attitude to this, about absolute "zero" - cannon artillery. Well, if you consider that most of the damaged equipment was restored, then Discovery's "tales" about "not a single lost M1 Abrams tank" have a very large grain of truth.
          1. 0
            5 March 2012 23: 35
            But the Iraqi rebels have the artillery? This is not to mention that the ravings, the Warrior and the 2 infantry fighting vehicles are not intended to hold artillery (so the forehead against 30 mm is his brother,)

            A friendly fire is precisely those notorious ten pieces at the very beginning of the company.

            And about RPGs ---- in my photo than it is your way? Landmine? CAB, OPEN?
            Quote: VIKING
            "not a single lost M1 Abrams tank" has a very large grain of truth underneath.

            And if you look at how they restore them, and the cost of this repair, then in principle you can say that the T-72 did not suffer irrevocable losses. If you restore the tanks at a cost that you can buy 70% of the new Abrams, or a half T-72
      3. VIKING
        -1
        5 March 2012 23: 23
        Quote: gor
        BMP 1 and 2 are generally an interesting thing, especially when the tanks light up when undermining. friendly coffin

        Well, it was not I who came up with the decoding of the abbreviation "BMP" as - the Mass Grave of the Infantry, and as an option for the BMD - respectively - the Mass Grave of the Landing Force.
        There is no non-spawned armored vehicles - the abrasive Abrams and the vaunted T-90, and the M113 and BMP-3 will burn in the same way ...
        1. gor
          gor
          0
          6 March 2012 00: 14
          I completely agree with this. Everything burned and will burn. It’s okay to dilute the topic. I found out one garbage. If you put the pilot’s body in liquid, he will not experience any overload at all. Since the force of gravity will be compensated by the Archimedes law and completely extinguish .
          this is a topic, not that someone made the rating wrong))))))))))))))))))))))
        2. Slavyan I.
          -1
          6 March 2012 00: 26
          Give a gag and instructions to him to this demo representative of homo sapiens.
      4. oleg-sochi68
        0
        6 March 2012 02: 30
        Do not forget that equipment without a crew is rubbish. And in Iraq, not our guys ov hollowed. And was there a BMP2 in Iraq?
  25. VIKING
    +2
    5 March 2012 14: 49
    Quote: leon-iv
    BTR-80 is a floating armored personnel carrier.

    Quote: Tram boor
    M113 - also a floating armored personnel carrier

    Quote: leon-iv
    for fun read about A1 A2 A3 extreme blocks no longer swim

    That you are all focusing on this notorious buoyancy? MBT do not float, and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are kind of like a means of escorting tanks. Note that the Marder BMP never knew how to swim, and the Germans never bothered about this. By the way, "be-me-peshki" in Afghanistan also lost their ability to swim, after strengthening their reservation. And how often in the modern history of wars for armored vehicles there was a need for such an option? Perhaps only during exercises.


    Quote: leon-iv
    And look for the difference between steel rolled armor from aluminum.

    The effectiveness of aluminum is determined by its superiority over steel armor while providing protection from armor-piercing bullets of 12,7 and 14,5 mm caliber, as well as from small-caliber shells. In addition, aluminum is more technologically advanced, provided with a raw material base, is well welded, and has a unique anti-mine and anti-fragmentation protection.

    Quote: Bad_gr
    By the way, our BMD and BMP-3 also have an aluminum alloy body, but this is armor, not aviation aluminum.

    By the way, the M113, like many other Western models of armored vehicles, also has an aluminum alloy, that is, armor, and not aviation aluminum, as you put it here.

    Quote: leon-iv
    Discovery of such a discovery.

    Quote: sichevik
    Never believed this discovery. Continuous ordering and discounts.

    Oh yes, Canes! wink But you unconditionally believe in the schizophrenic delirium of "carbon monoxide". laughing Here it is, this "carbon monoxide power" - the standard of objectivity, truthfulness, impeccability. laughing So what? fool

    Quote: Alex-z84
    Naturally in the first place they put their coffins))) Objectivity on the face so to speak.

    Were they supposed to put your coffins first? laughing
    Look at "carbon monoxide"! There, yes-ah ... objectivity rushes from all cracks ... am am

    Quote: kPoJluK2008
    BTR-60 - proved to be just a tank,

    Complete shit! Well this is necessary !? fool Landing through the sides of the hull, through the roof ... fool

    Quote: kPoJluK2008
    when there was a conflict with the PRC on Domansky Island in 1969 .. Only one BTR-60 destroyed a Chinese company ..

    So what? Does it characterize him like a tank? laughing Yes, just as successfully, a Chinese company could be destroyed by any other armored object. The Chinese, as I understand it, in that case, they simply did not have a grenade launcher with them.

    Quote: Mr. Truth
    Discovery, the famous American objectivity in all its glory.

    How do you characterize "carbon monoxide"? AND?
    1. +3
      5 March 2012 16: 03
      What do you all focus on this notorious buoyancy? MBTs do not swim, and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are sort of a means of escorting tanks.
      No, this is an infantry delivery vehicle. For example, the same BMPT is the best means of escorting tanks so far.
      And how often in the recent history of wars for armored vehicles there was a need for such an option? Unless only in exercises.
      And you often have seen global wars for the past 60 years, and I’m not going to see them. But in the case of its forcing of water barriers in non-equipped areas, there will be a very urgent problem. And engineering parts will not always be in time if they will be attached at all.
      The effectiveness of aluminum is determined by its superiority over steel armor while providing protection from armor-piercing bullets of 12,7 and 14,5 mm caliber, as well as from small-caliber shells. In addition, aluminum is more technologically advanced, provided with a raw material base, is well welded, and has a unique anti-mine and anti-fragmentation protection.
      shozh we have poor tankers still do not use aluminum? And we have aluminum armor only with airborne equipment. And now we can talk about the viscosity and strength of aluminum alloys compared to steel.
      Oh yes, canesna! wink But you unconditionally believe in the schizophrenic delirium of "carbon monoxide". laughing Here it is, this "carbon monoxide" - the standard of objectivity, truthfulness, and perfection. laughing So, what? fool
      I wrote somewhere about the impact force? No, I’m not looking at her for 3 years. And I do not recommend it to others, like the Discovery channel.
      Complete shit! Well this is necessary !? fool Landing through the hull, through the roof ...
      This is again a requirement for buoyancy.
      How do you characterize "carbon monoxide"? AND?
      Extremely dull transmission.
      So maybe we will not interfere with a bunch of all the classes of technology to determine the best.
      1. gor
        gor
        -4
        5 March 2012 18: 05
        BMP is so that the infantry from the tank does not lag behind))))))))))))))))))) it was necessary to save the trailer for the tank and decided to question. the armored trailer. the tank’s frontal armor would be excellent the trailer and did not spend, so much dough for different garbage))))))))))))))))))))
        1. -1
          5 March 2012 18: 13
          And how long does a stationary tank live on the battlefield? laughing
    2. +5
      5 March 2012 17: 50
      Quote: VIKING
      Complete shit! Well this is necessary !? fool Landing through the hull, through the roof ... fool

      But do you generally know that armored vehicles are mostly hit from the sides, from ambushes on the roads, and mainly from one direction? Therefore, the exit from the sides here has its advantages, at least one side, but not shot, and the exit from the stern is shot through in any case. But this is not an opinion for you, for you the authority of the West, and since there is a way out of the stern, then we should always have the same everywhere.
      1. Splin
        0
        5 March 2012 18: 02
        And then the West ?. On our first bets, they also landed from the stern, the BMP went in the same direction. Just because of the location of the engines in the BTR-60, they solved the problem in a similar way.
      2. gor
        gor
        0
        5 March 2012 18: 10
        but what’s the meaning of being unshootable if it pierces them? and from the stern it makes sense since the car needs to be turned in the face where they shoot from if it is not possible to continue moving. Since the armor from the front is the most powerful and the stern is left behind, why should the bmp 1 and 2 exit the stern. only now the tanks were coolly hooked. he probably was given the Lenin Prize for it. probably some kind of Kremlin son
        1. Splin
          +1
          5 March 2012 18: 17
          The rear door tanks, which are necessary only for the march, as in the tank, additional tanks are reset before the attack, and here the feed tanks must be dry. It’s only fucking ... in general’s trousers, they can give orders from the march to battle, and even in the city.
          1. gor
            gor
            0
            5 March 2012 23: 05
            and if on the march they were ambushed or fired at planes? whom then to throw off?))))))))
            1. Splin
              0
              6 March 2012 06: 23
              For local conflicts, the Soviet BMP is not suitable, but it was not created for this.
              Aircraft on the march attack very rarely because the Soviet air defense system is very strong and leaves no chance of surviving aircraft. Aviation has only a chance to attack when equipment is deployed in platoon columns
              1. gor
                gor
                0
                6 March 2012 21: 10
                nefiga itself. powerful. therefore, its probably built on the Soviet principle, the NATO air defense forces ripped up during the day
                1. Passing
                  -1
                  8 March 2012 14: 54
                  Quote: gor
                  nefiga itself. powerful. therefore, its probably built on the Soviet principle, the NATO air defense forces ripped up during the day

                  Well, of course, we are watching Iraq and Yugoslavia, with overwhelming superiority of forces, they were crushed for several months, and so they were not completely crushed.
                  Of course, they did not fulfill their task of protection from aviation, but this is not surprising, it is obvious that these Soviet air defense systems were not only very outdated, but also export options, i.e. with degraded qualities. With all this, in the first Iraqi, the loss of Western coalition amounted to seventy aircraft.
  26. +1
    5 March 2012 15: 00
    Discovery ratings can be viewed only if you don’t want to go to the circus ...
  27. VIKING
    -1
    5 March 2012 15: 07
    Quote: Splin
    The best light armored vehicles that are not Scandinavian here.
    The Americans see Swedish BMPs as a replacement for their Bradley BMP, and FINNISH armored personnel carriers are in demand all over the world!

    These are the latest developments, which have not really fought anywhere, have not seriously proven themselves in any way. They should be served for at least twenty years, and only then they should be allowed to participate in the "best" ratings.


    Quote: swat2238
    The first 8 should be ours, and the last 2 places can be given to foreign cars.

    Well, suggest your option. wink Only now it will not be typed in the first eight places of Soviet trash ... unless, only BMP-2, well, with a big stretch of the BTR-80.
    1. Splin
      0
      5 March 2012 15: 28
      Swedish BMP for 19 years in the service in a particular modification. Finnish Piranhas in Afghanistan are used by Canadians. Yes, they are not innovative, but the best for today.
  28. +3
    5 March 2012 15: 19

    7 Place - Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251

    And what about the Macedonian war chariots in the ranking is not visible? lol
    But the ancient "box of matches" M113 on the first laughing
    The Americans severely criticized ... ... the design of the rear doors of the airborne compartment (really, very dubious) was especially affected: “Perhaps this is thick armor that reliably protects the crew of the car? Not! These are fuel tanks! ”When the vehicle was hit, such an arrangement turned the BMP into a fire trap.
    ! This is the support vehicle of the ATTACK unit, not the retreating one! . .
    1. Tram boom
      -6
      5 March 2012 16: 54
      Quote: Castor_ka
      And what about the Macedonian war chariots in the ranking is not visible?

      What wink
      Sd Kfz 251 were produced in Czechoslovakia until 1962 and were withdrawn from service in the 80s

      Quote: Castor_ka
      This is the support vehicle of the ATTACK unit, not the retreating one! . .


      In w @ poo gunpowder we will fill - we will break all fascists
      1. +3
        5 March 2012 17: 43
        Quote: Tram boor
        We’ll stuff gunpowder in

        The classic says that "I stuffed the gunpowder into the CANNONY tight ..." that is, to fight, not fart wink read it. It will do.
    2. 755962
      +1
      5 March 2012 17: 11
      Quote: Castor_ka
      But the ancient "box of matches" M113 on the first

      The success of the M113 armored personnel carrier exceeded the wildest expectations of its designers. The machine proved to be very flexible and could be easily adapted to a wide variety of tasks. Its hull served as the basis for the creation of more than 40 specialized vehicles. What other vehicle of this class can boast of such a family. In the early 90s, American military specialists were tasked with studying the possibility of replacing all M113 series armored personnel carriers with M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. The higher firepower and better armor of the Bradley spoke in favor of this decision. However, in terms of mobility, power reserve, maximum speed, average speed when driving off-road, the ability to overcome water obstacles, the M113 was in no way inferior to the M2, and in some respects even surpassed it:

      M113 is designed to transport 13 soldiers (2 + 11), while only nine people (2 + 3) are accommodated in M6;
      four types of military transport aircraft can carry the M113 by air - the C-130, C-141, C5B and C-17, while only the C-2 and C-5 are suitable for the transportation of the M17 Bradley;
      economic indicators also speak in favor of the armored personnel carrier of the M113 family: the many thousands of different models of the same family significantly reduces the cost of operation, training of crews and technical personnel. The M113 armored personnel carriers are also more attractive in terms of purchase price. In 1995, one M113A3 cost taxpayers about $ 280000, and one M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle - $ 1050000.
      Taking all the factors into account, one can be sure that the M113 family vehicles will be in service with the US Army and the armies of countries that have long been closely cooperating with the US in the military-technical and military-political spheres for many years. So write off the "old man" too early ...
    3. +1
      5 March 2012 21: 11
      Castor oilThis is the support vehicle of the ATTACK unit, not the retreating one! .------ there is no American army retreating wink - There are only supermen of the world advancing in another direction !!! feel fellow laughing
      1. gor
        gor
        -1
        6 March 2012 00: 19
        huh, I didn’t understand what about the BMP. I wrote about the Soviet BMP, but where did you distinguished saw the Americans advancing in the opposite direction on the Soviet BMP?))))))))))))))))))))) )
    4. gor
      gor
      -1
      6 March 2012 00: 16
      and what the shell does not fly through the entire BMP?))))))))))))))))))
  29. swat2238
    +4
    5 March 2012 15: 26
    Something I went too far, but for sure it will be typed at 6. smile

    VIKING,
    Only now it’s not typed in the first eight places of Soviet trash,


    "Soviet trash", taking into account modernization, will last another 10 years tongue
    If we take into account new developments, then there is nothing to compare.

    Castor oil,
    And what about the Macedonian war chariots in the ranking is not visible?
    But the ancient "box of matches" M113 on the first


    It’s also interesting why this ... box is on the 1st ... and tochnyak, it's the same Endostan publishing house.
    1. +1
      5 March 2012 15: 36
      So after all, it is noted above - it is the most discovery in the world.
  30. vostok
    -2
    5 March 2012 16: 12
    It is worth noting that the NATO armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles take care of the safety of the crew and the landing force, not exactly what we have.
    1. vostok
      -1
      5 March 2012 16: 51
      Let's put the cons, but notice in Iraq and Avganestan they lost no more than 10 vehicles, and our Army in Chechnya more than 500 hundred units of armored vehicles.
      1. +4
        5 March 2012 17: 09
        Now let's talk about it.
        How do they count losses? And even so who considers them.
        Both in people and in technology.
        EMNIP in Afghanistan did not knock out a single helicopter from the Americans. Everyone fell for technical reasons. (And this is against the background of the fact that they do not have MANPADS)
      2. +6
        5 March 2012 17: 44
        NK no more than ten is ridiculous --- only on one sump that on YouTube only a dozen ravings are shown.
        1. gor
          gor
          -2
          6 March 2012 00: 23
          such as btr -80 on a land mine do not get undermined or bmp1-2. undermined. and how. and the americans basically lost their equipment there. RPG-7 more I believe that catch fire)))))))))))))
          1. +2
            6 March 2012 08: 59
            Well, here, in general, the statement of the victim of the discourse is just sorted out - the same as you are about
            Quote: vostok
            but notice in Iraq and Aganestan they lost no more than 10-cars, and our Army in Chechnya more than 500-hundred

            so tell him ---- and you would especially find statistics on US losses in Iraq by type --- I personally didn’t find it for some reason - that means the Yankees have something to hide --- so that the bald fighters of the special units of the tales told
    2. oleg-sochi68
      -1
      6 March 2012 02: 40
      The composition of the aluminum armor on Amer’s vehicles is such that during the defeat it emits so toxic smoke that it will not be alive. From amerskih sources.
    3. Alf
      -1
      3 June 2012 01: 27
      How to care? Did you put the biosort?
  31. 0
    5 March 2012 16: 50
    Come on! winked Is this also a Discovery Channel? And which of the "NATO" BeMePe or (gee-gee) BeTer you personally "" leaned against " wink
    1. oleg-sochi68
      0
      6 March 2012 18: 34
      I leaned more against a glass of alcohol at the same table with their pilots (I had to). Do not assume that everyone uses the Discovery Channel. And I think that you could not ask me questions.
  32. Tram boom
    -4
    5 March 2012 16: 50
    IMHO Israel wiped their nose for everyone, showing how to effectively use the technique. Outdated Soviet tanks made an excellent Achzarit armored personnel carrier

    How many lives of our soldiers would be saved by such cars in Chechnya and Afghanistan ... ehh woe, the designers from Nizhny Tagil, you only need to go to rallies, unlucky balabol
    1. +4
      5 March 2012 17: 06
      aa dad you reappeared.
      Please remind me what is the main means of defeat in Chechnya and in the Middle East.
      So there is even better. Namer is called that based on old carrots. But it can not be applied anywhere except BV. For it weighs like a good tank. And there is such a thing as logistics. Which is included in the definition of tactical and strategic mobility.
      And no matter how much they admired the carrots, they suffered good losses from our ATGMs in Lebanon 2006.
      How many lives of our soldiers would be saved by such cars in Chechnya and Afghanistan ... ehh woe, the designers from Nizhny Tagil, you only need to go to rallies, unlucky balabol
      and you would go there as an engineer and show the whole world how to make tanks.
      1. Tram boom
        -4
        5 March 2012 18: 58
        Quote: leon-iv
        Please remind me what is the main means of defeat in Chechnya and in the Middle East.

        RPGs and improvised explosive devices

        Quote: leon-iv
        So there is even better. Namer is called that based on old carrots.

        So somewhere in the article about her was. Few of them were released to remember them.

        Quote: leon-iv
        But it can not be applied anywhere except BV.

        Kaneshn, the climate is warm there and the sun shines brighter

        Quote: leon-iv
        For it weighs like a good tank.

        How else? That's why it is protection, to be heavy.
        How much is 1 ton of ferrous metal? Somewhere around $ 300. So you appreciated the lives of 10 soldiers at $ 5100 (17 tons of extra armor x 300), bespontovy manager.
        About the greater fuel consumption, lower efficiency, you can’t fill it in - this is the price of the life of 10 Russian soldiers. 44 tons, oh how expensive.

        Quote: leon-iv
        And there is such a thing as logistics. Which is included in the definition of tactical and strategic mobility.


        It is very far from Stavropol to Chechnya, I agree. It is necessary to carry "Mistrals"

        Quote: leon-iv
        And no matter how much they admired the carrots, they suffered good losses from our ATGMs in Lebanon 2006.


        ATGM you bent it. I chose the best and most expensive anti-tank tool

        A BTR-60,70,80, 60 and BMP burn like matches from rusty RPGs of the XNUMXs. After all, they were made by the Nizhny Tagil Masters. But BMP and armored personnel carriers are able to swim - very spectacular in the exercises in front of the commander in chief)
        I did not say that Achzarit is immortal, I did not say that they would save the lives of ALL soldiers. But if they were in our army, the losses would have decreased by an order of magnitude.

        Quote: leon-iv
        and you would go there as an engineer and show the whole world how to make tanks.


        It is not necessary to be a pastry chef to distinguish a chocolate bar from a piece of th ...
        1. 0
          6 March 2012 00: 29
          Quote: Tram boor
          But if they were in our army,

          And what do YOU ​​have to do with OUR Army ?! lol
        2. -2
          6 March 2012 09: 25
          RPGs and improvised explosive devices / b]
          No VCA and only they. RPGs tend to end quickly.
          So somewhere in the article about her was. Few of them were released to remember them.
          Why do I need this stupid rating
          Kaneshn, the climate is warm there and the sun shines brighter
          There are no rocky soils and practically no swamps, etc. Look at the map.
          How else? That's why it is protection, to be heavy.
          How much is 1 ton of ferrous metal? Somewhere around $ 300. So you appreciated the lives of 10 soldiers at $ 5100 (17 tons of extra armor x 300), bespontovy manager.
          About the greater fuel consumption, lower efficiency, you can’t fill it in - this is the price of the life of 10 Russian soldiers. 44 tons, oh how expensive.

          And where does the ferrous metal. For example, you saw dirt in Chechnya in which MTLB sits on its belly. I recommend to try.
          And fuel consumption is one of the biggest problems in armored vehicles.
          It is very far from Stavropol to Chechnya, I agree. It is necessary to carry "Mistrals"
          You are very stupid to distort distorting concepts and leading the conversation in a different direction. I'm talking about the transfer of technology for example at 3000-5000 thousand km.
          ATGM you bent it. I chose the best and most expensive anti-tank tool
          Not the most expensive but one of the most affordable.
          A BTR-60,70,80, 60 and BMP burn like matches from rusty RPGs of the XNUMXs. After all, they were made by the Nizhny Tagil Masters. But BMP and armored personnel carriers are able to swim - very spectacular in the exercises in front of the commander in chief)
          And you can separate the counterguerrilla war and the great war.
          I did not say that Achzarit is immortal, I did not say that they would save the lives of ALL soldiers. But if they were in our army, the losses would have decreased by an order of magnitude.
          no, maybe its body is also not resistant to IEDs. And it’s also sewn from an RPG into the roof.
          It is not necessary to be a pastry chef to distinguish a chocolate bar from a piece of th ...
          Do not know how to cf. do not torment the anus. (with)
  33. -1
    5 March 2012 16: 59
    Burn further bully
    reward zhzhot
  34. 0
    5 March 2012 17: 59
    Amer in Agan
    1. +1
      5 March 2012 18: 21
      By the way, a vivid example of a poopashnoy armored car.
      Estimate how much he will live in battle with a sane opponent.
      But in a guerrilla war, he will show himself perfectly.
      Such equipment is needed not by the army but by explosives.
  35. +3
    5 March 2012 18: 25
    The British rating, such a British
    I remember the same rating of Discovery - "Top 10 hand weapons". In order not to put the AK-47 first, they put the fist first.
  36. mib1982
    +1
    5 March 2012 18: 51
    Everyone praises his own.
  37. Conquistador
    +1
    5 March 2012 20: 23
    In general, it is surprising that at 10 there is our technique! Usually, we are in the ass in the opinion of the Americans!
    1. VIKING
      +2
      5 March 2012 23: 00
      Quote: Conquistador
      In general, it is surprising that at 10 there is our technique! Usually, we are in the ass in the opinion of the Americans!

      Look at my post in this thread somewhere above - for all my "Russophobic" and "Yusophilic", I made my rating, in which the BMP-2 is in second place.
      If I had my will, I would have compiled a rating (if we put together both BMP and armored personnel carriers in one heap) like this:
      1st place for M113, without reservation.
      2nd place - BMP-2 ...

      Incidentally, there are BTR -152 and -80, though at the end of the rating.
  38. +5
    5 March 2012 20: 42
    That
    this battalion arrived to us on new, experimental BMP-3. In appearance and in design, the car is magnificent, but in reality it is rubbish. Crammed with electronics that your foreign car, reader. But it was made by our, that is, Russian manufacturers. So we sipped with them dashing at first, on the move he cannot shoot, electronics refuses from shaking. The aiming system, the aiming system, is all on electronics, so it goes crazy, take an ulcer. And if it shoots, then, as it were, it doesn’t go, it’s also something to do with electronics. In a word - "raw", terrible car. In early January, twenty-four people in the third battalion died due to the failure of this fucking electronics. Terrible statistics. And all due to the fact that the equipment that was not brought to mind was delivered to the troops, and even to the combat zone. They burned her a lot, about five have already been lost. Now they took her to a safe place and use it either as machine-gun nests - after the first shot, the cannon sticks for half a day - or as a taxi, to move around more or less safe areas. Hands would be torn off those bastards who adopted this raw material into service.

    Vyacheslav Mironov - "I was in this war"
    1. 0
      6 March 2012 09: 27
      This is called VI and improper use of technology.
  39. +3
    5 March 2012 20: 47
    Unrated, just for information, photo of 8x8 APCs:
    Holland.

    Piranha. He is LAV - 25 different models in the USA and Australia


    German "Lynx"


    Italy B1 Centauro


    South African Rooikat


    Iponians Type 96

    German "Boxer"

    French VCBI
    1. Tram boom
      -5
      5 March 2012 21: 20
      How much does Boxer cost? 3 million euros!
      The question is closed on this. Such cars have nothing to do in the list of the best armored vehicles
      1. VIKING
        +2
        5 March 2012 22: 52
        Quote: Tram boor
        How much does Boxer cost? 3 million euros!
        The question is closed on this. Such cars have nothing to do in the list of the best armored vehicles
        For all my solidarity with you on many issues, I want to object here - GOOD weapons are very expensive, so the question remains open.
        1. Tram boom
          -3
          6 March 2012 13: 55
          Uh, not really like that
          A robust M113 combat vehicle costs about $ 300, a complex and expensive Bradley, which in many respects is not inferior to a tank - up to $ 000 (prices for 1).
          Therefore, the cost of 3 million euros for an armored personnel carrier is considered unacceptable. European bureaucracy completely stupefied
    2. VIKING
      +6
      5 March 2012 22: 48
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Unrated, just for information, photo of 8x8 APCs:

      Quote: Bad_gr
      German "Lynx"

      For reference: Luchs ("Lynx") is not an armored personnel carrier, this is an armored personnel carrier, by the way, the reincarnation of exactly the same vehicle from the "armored collection" of the Wehrmacht Panzerwaffe - Sd.Kfz.231 (8-Rad) - everything except the external design is one-to-one - to one. Those who want to argue are ready to accept the challenge.
    3. +1
      6 March 2012 16: 51
      Quote: Bad_gr
      Unrated, just for information, photo of 8x8 APCs:

      I Xpenny with these minus players !!! At the moment, under my post with pictures there are 5 minuses. Five people noted that the photo of armored personnel carriers in the topic about armored personnel carriers is "not in the subject."
  40. +2
    5 March 2012 21: 10
    What does Hamer do on this list?
    1. -2
      5 March 2012 22: 57
      Yeah, it’s amazing that there’s no armored Gelik
  41. +1
    5 March 2012 22: 35
    I read everything carefully.
    A question for the "experts". Explain this fact: why did the Arabs buy the BMP-90 in the 2s, and then the BMP-3? And such machines as M-113, Bradley, Warrior and others have been ignored? After all, a lot of things were brought to the competition!
    And the Russian BMP won it!
    This is probably due to the fact that the Arabs did not see the ratings for Discovery? Or how? What do they have? extra money? Didn't find anything decent?
    Or, after all, after hard tests at this competition, Russian cars ALREADY HAD NO COMPETITORS?
    1. Splin
      +1
      6 March 2012 06: 42
      If you ask about the direct confrontation (well, as if in the forehead), then the Soviet BMP is better in many respects with the same combat characteristics. Because Saudi Arabia. He is developing tactics for his territories, where there is a lot of free space and sand. Therefore, Arabs also buy worse accuracy, but more reliable BM-21s (of different production based on KraZov and Uralov) than more accurate Israeli LAROM MLRS or German LARS-2s.
      Because they have already been burned with Leclerc and understand what kind of equipment they need despite the ultra-modern characteristics.
      1. +1
        6 March 2012 20: 44
        This is when the Arabs signed a contract for the delivery of Leclerc, saying to ours "Sorry, guys, but your political situation in the country is not so hot. And how are we going to buy components and provide service later? That's why we choose Leclerc ..."? Yes, then they made the wrong bet! Forgot about the word maintainability!
        And the BM-21 is a model of the late 60s. But reliable. And her task is to work on areas, and not serve as a sniper rifle. And in the squares it works efficiently! The Chinese first sniffed her volley at Damansky!
        1. Alf
          0
          3 June 2012 01: 33
          The accuracy of the hit is compensated by the power of the projectile.
    2. Tram boom
      -1
      6 March 2012 13: 49
      1. What are the Arabs? Saudis for example use Bradley
      2. If you're talking about Abu Dhabi, then the answer is simple - price + politics. The emirates have a toy parade-showy army, so they don’t need expensive, really fighting vehicles
  42. 0
    6 March 2012 01: 26
    SWEET_SIXTEEN

    When to wait for the best 10 tanks?
    1. +1
      6 March 2012 01: 32
      Andrey.kak not so long ago looked at Discovery .... request To shame, I don’t remember the exact layout and names ... but I was very surprised at the occupied places and explanations of the reasons for winning and the failed positions. what ii ... bias ... Yes, technology is at odds with the Second World War to the present day.
      1. +1
        6 March 2012 01: 55
        Michael, I have this creation on a hard disk. The truth does not pull to review.
        But it is precisely in the interpretation of SWEET_SIXTEEN that interests me, because for example his best ships and discussion on this subject gave me real pleasure.
        1. 0
          6 March 2012 02: 00
          Quote: Kars
          in the interpretation of SWEET_SIXTEEN

          I agree, and I love myself. Yes
    2. jar0512rus
      0
      8 March 2012 17: 17
      Hold the best 10 TANKS !!! By the way, too, from the discovery !!! From the archive of the Military Review for June 14, 2010 !!! http://topwar.ru/449-desyatka-luchshix-tankov.html !!!! And as always, there were enthusiastic epithets in the direction of Western models !!!!
  43. felixis69
    -2
    6 March 2012 10: 06
    Spit on this rating! What are the first places for BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3 ?! These are coffins on caterpillars! When, finally, our generals will understand that the means of delivery of the soldiers should be as protected as the tanks ?! When will you learn from your mistakes and other people's achievements? Would take an example from Israel! ... The war in Afghanistan, our losses: 147 tanks and 1314! BMP and armored personnel carrier! Approximately the same ratio for the loss of tanks and infantry delivery vehicles in the first and second Chechen campaigns. But the loss of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is the death of 10-11 people.!
    1. 0
      6 March 2012 11: 18
      exhale or roll over.
      and also tell what types of repair of armored vehicles are.
      1. felixis69
        -1
        6 March 2012 12: 29
        I did not quite understand whether they were addressing me or not ... Just in case, I will write: I served at the "object 219" in 1988-1989 in the Ural, Central Asian, and then the united Turkestan military district.
        1. Tram boom
          -2
          6 March 2012 13: 42
          Object 219 ...
          mmm something painfully familiar smile
          1. felixis69
            -3
            6 March 2012 14: 23
            Apparently a colleague! I coded this for the "specialists", now it's no secret to anyone! It just hurts me to read about the praise of our BMPs and armored personnel carriers! Apparently this is considered patriotism! Only these patriots would have calculated how many soldiers' lives would be saved when using well-protected vehicles based on tanks! The most belligerent army in the world - the Israeli army practically does not use wheeled armored vehicles, because you can't hang a lot of armor on the wheels! There they are almost exclusively at the police station! And ours are the brainchild of the 60s, which have long been to be sent to the battle zone for scrap! And they are also praised! Woe patriots! For the use of such infantry fighting vehicles, and the armored personnel carrier must be tried! We had one BMP-3 in our unit, I can't say anything for its TTD, but the light weight already says a lot! We save on solad's lives!
            1. -1
              6 March 2012 17: 14
              Quote: felixis69
              It just hurts me to read about the praise of our BMPs and armored personnel carriers! Apparently, this is considered patriotism!

              The technique is created for specific tasks, which has already been written about here. To use a floating armored personnel carrier inside the city, with the same success it was possible to send soldiers on the Ikarus bus, and then scold the designers of the bus in the tail and mane, for the fact that its casing and windows do not delay bullets.

              For police operations, those armored vehicles that were created on the Typhoon theme, but in the city, without infantry cover, will be more suitable, and they will be burned like any other transport.

              1. Tram boom
                -3
                6 March 2012 18: 58
                And the Russian Federation is the leader in creating the largest in the world armored vehicle to disperse the demonstrations "Avalanche - Hurricane"


                Losses during combat use does not have !!! Absolute protection! Armed with white ribbons, banderlogs are not Afghan basmachi with RPGs.
            2. Green every
              -2
              6 March 2012 18: 30
              I won't even write much here and everything is clear - you don't know ANYTHING about these machines. read it first, and then write.
              1. -3
                6 March 2012 19: 11
                Quote: Greetings
                I won’t even write much here, and so everything is clear ....

                In principle, yes, when a person is silent, he looks smarter than the one who wrote stupidity, although in fact the picture can be completely opposite.
                The other is not clear, why did he write here even that little that does not carry any information?
                1. gor
                  gor
                  -1
                  6 March 2012 21: 13
                  but just kidding))))))))))) I understand him)))))))))))
    2. oleg-sochi68
      0
      7 March 2012 00: 49
      Hi felixis69 I understand your reaction, but agree. that all the same, it’s not correct to compare armored vehicles of different classes.
      1. felixis69
        0
        7 March 2012 07: 25
        Hi Oleg! And I wrote my attitude to this rating .... Another publisher, according to its own criteria, will create its own rating, and absolutely change everything, and the main part of the cars presented here will not be at all! I was more outraged by the cheers-patriotism of the commentators! Our BMPs made a breakthrough in the 60s. Now we urgently need to change the concept, create something like the Nizhny Tagil "Terminator", but only for the delivery of infantry! It is not by chance that I cited the figures of the losses of our tanks and armored vehicles in Afghanistan (they are taken from official sources), the ratio is almost 1 to 10. To knock out a tank, in any case, is much more difficult than an infantry fighting vehicle, an armored personnel carrier, especially in urban conditions (I mean so that the hull is pierced, and not the tracks, etc.). Our armored personnel carrier, which ran into a mine, simply flew to pieces along the welded seams - these are the words of a person who saw with his own eyes. There is a good experience in South Africa: armored vehicles against mines, there is a good experience of Israel in using tank hulls for transporting soldiers, there is our experience ... But ours rested on these bicycles - BMPs of the 60s, but cheap!
        1. oleg-sochi68
          0
          7 March 2012 08: 17
          Hello! You see, it’s impossible to say that our armored vehicles are shit - they are everywhere, a little better, a little worse, but weak. They are not intended to ride through minefields, to conduct a full-fledged battle. This is a technique for delivering personnel, and of supporting it, if necessary, with fire. So, our armored vehicles are better armed than foreign ones, and for counter-terrorist operations (in the city), accordingly, there should be other equipment. But the tanks were lost less, not because they justified themselves so much, they just used them less. Against RPGs, not a single armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle will stand, and the given rating is bullshit. Yes, and unfoundedly blame our and praise someone else's, as some do here - not right.
          1. felixis69
            0
            7 March 2012 09: 07
            Hello again! I personally do not intend to blame our equipment, and exalt the western .... But our generals need to change their attitude towards infantry delivery vehicles!
            I do not give a link, since there are many sections in it, just make a request: "Armored vehicles in Afghanistan (1979-1989)", in my search engine this heading appeared in the very top line. It analyzed the use of tanks and armored vehicles in Afghanistan, many unpleasant things, from which it is high time to draw a conclusion!
            1. -1
              7 March 2012 09: 56
              Quote: felixis69
              ................. request: "Armored vehicles in Afghanistan (1979-1989)"

              Followed the advice, made a request

              Quote: felixis69
              There, an analysis was carried out on the use of tanks and armored vehicles in Afghanistan, many unpleasant things, from which it is high time to conclude!

              "................ Conclusion
              ...... Therefore, there is no reason to talk about the poor quality of Soviet technology or its incorrect use. ................ If American "Abrams" or German "Leopards" were in place of the T-55, they would not have achieved more in a guerrilla war. It is characteristic that during the 2001 operation, the Americans did not dare to act in Afghanistan as a ground group, leaving the dirty work to the anti-Taliban opposition forces armed with Soviet equipment. "
              http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/wars0/page/1_afghan_5.htm
              1. felixis69
                +1
                7 March 2012 11: 06
                And by and large I do not care about the comparative characteristics of the T-55, Abrams, etc. On this occasion, many controversial articles have been written. The main conclusion from this article is that our soldiers, being in APCs and armored personnel carriers, are absolutely not protected from simple weapons! Everyone acknowledges this (including the author of the article), but nothing changes! In our warehouses, there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of tanks, which, if desired, can be converted into infantry delivery vehicles! We have created "Terminator" - a huge plus for ours, but we must go further in the same direction! A heavy, expensive, but reliable APC or armored personnel carrier should be created - it doesn't matter! The life of those who are in this armored vehicle is important!
                1. -2
                  8 March 2012 12: 52
                  Quote: felixis69
                  A heavy, expensive, but reliable BPM or armored personnel carrier should be created - it doesn’t matter! The life of those who are in this armored car is important!

                  In a nutshell, can you describe what should be an APC that will save a soldier from such a self-made mine? :
                  "......." The invention "of the Taliban is a homemade anti-side mine, working on the principle of a shock core. These mines are a sealed pipe with a diameter of about 30 centimeters, at the other end of which is inserted a steel or copper disc concave inward.

                  Here is such a disk inserted inside:

                  When a charge explodes, a disk weighing half a kilogram flies out at a speed of 2000-2500 meters per second, changes shape and turns into an iron rod:

                  This wonderful core (shock core) flashes armor with a thickness of more than 10 centimeters at a distance of 100 meters:

                  http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/03/achtung-minen.html#comment-form
                  1. felixis69
                    -1
                    8 March 2012 20: 38
                    Designers should think about it .... for every tricky one ... there is .... with a screw! From our BMP and armored personnel carriers there will certainly be nothing left! The tankers have at least some, but there is a chance to survive! How is the war with mines - the information is voluminous, if desired, it can be found in the internet! I served on the T-80, during the march, I was most afraid that somewhere in the side an inexperienced BMP-shnik would jump out of the green massif on his bicycle, then there would be nothing left of him! Except a bicycle, I can’t name our BMP anymore! These cars are not for war, but for slaughter! Hope everything changes soon! The armored personnel carriers seemed to have wiped their nose, they wanted to stick the old stuff again ...
                    1. -2
                      9 March 2012 11: 35
                      Quote: felixis69
                      The armored personnel carriers seemed to have wiped their nose, they wanted to stick the old stuff again ...

                      At the moment, the BTR-80 and BTR-82 modifications are being purchased in the Army. BTR-90, which was created with mine protection and has 8 tons more armor, did not go into the Army. MO refused to purchase this machine.
          2. Tram boom
            -2
            7 March 2012 09: 38
            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            to say that our armored vehicles are crap - they are everywhere, a little better, a little worse, but weak.


            They are essentially NOT armored vehicles at all. They are deprived of the main thing - armor capable of protecting their crew even from the simplest means of destruction.


            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            They are not intended to ride through minefields, to conduct a full-fledged battle.

            What do you! About a full battle, even no question. Domestic armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles cannot withstand single shots, the explosion of the most mediocre VCA turns the car into a jar of meat.

            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            So our armored vehicles are better than foreign

            Horrible young man. We still have not developed shells with a uranium core for small-caliber artillery. Until now, first-generation thermal imagers with infrared spotlights are used, through which nothing is visible in snow or rain.

            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            Not a single armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle will stand against RPG


            Domestic - yes. None of the Russian armored vehicles have dynamic protection

            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            and the given rating is bullshit

            Let us wean from the use of criminal prison vocabulary.


            Quote: oleg-sochi68
            Yes, and unfoundedly blame our and praise someone else's, as some do here - not right.

            In my opinion, these are your like-minded people unfoundedly admiring domestic equipment. And stubbornly do not want to recognize the obvious miscalculations of our designers
            1. negabaritnyy
              0
              7 March 2012 14: 17
              Tram boom

              You are some sick fool Or who offended you?
              1. Tram boom
                +1
                7 March 2012 14: 43
                WHY ARE YOU DELIVERING TO ME?
            2. oleg-sochi68
              0
              7 March 2012 19: 05
              Where did you get that I admire our technology? I just don’t admire someone else’s - she didn’t deserve it either
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. felixis69
                  0
                  8 March 2012 10: 41
                  Before the war with Japan in 1904, they also said in Russia: what these backward Asians can do, we have a powerful modern fleet (and it was impossible to say otherwise - all the same are patriots), but everyone knows what happened to this modern fleet, and if the death of ships in Port Arthur can still be explained by the factor of surprise, then the death of the Second Tikhohaken squadron is practically dry! (despite the courage of our sailors) it is possible only by the technical backwardness of our fleet from the Japanese! ... Now the same tendency: despite the obvious things, namely, the weak protection (practically lack of it) of domestic infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers (which was proved by the lessons of Afgan, Chechnya , South Ossetia) our comrades, like pompous turkeys continue - We are the most! But really offer a choice to any of the users (so that they would not evaluate it from the picture, but stand next to the equipment) to drive to a hot spot on our BMP or on an Israeli armored personnel carrier converted from OUR tank, I think that everyone will choose an Israeli monster than ours " a bicycle "that can be broken even with small arms (the latter fact is not unfounded, see above about the link to Afghan).
                2. slas
                  0
                  13 March 2012 21: 59
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  as I said, our armored personnel carriers are essentially not generally armored vehicles.

                  and than then --- stainless steel circles made in India belay
                  1. Tram boom
                    -1
                    19 March 2012 16: 03
                    No, Russian armored personnel carriers are inconvenient trucks for transporting infantry and cargo. They are not essentially armored vehicles
                    1. 0
                      18 January 2020 13: 04
                      Ham + alternatively gifted. A terrible mixture.
                3. 0
                  18 January 2020 13: 07
                  Extremely emotional liar of the 1st category.
  44. 0
    6 March 2012 11: 03
    A big minus to the Discovery channel for such "ratings". They mixed everything that is possible and everything that is impossible - machines of different classes and times. For serious programs, this is not solid ...
    Or is it just a frivolous program (which is most likely more true) laughing ... wink YYY
    1. negabaritnyy
      -1
      7 March 2012 14: 18
      Discovery +. They do their job well.
  45. Tyumen
    -1
    6 March 2012 14: 04
    The White Guard armored train is still topical today. wassat
  46. Dmitry.V
    0
    6 March 2012 18: 28
    Why be surprised? According to Discovery, they have the best in all transmissions, they compare them with AKs of initial developments, with their weapons that have been developed recently, and there is not much difference, they supposedly create advanced technologies that will appear soon in the army, etc. So in I would not accept the seriousness of their arguments, although that would have shown any of their weapons the best in the world ... Only one detail, our weapons around the world, demonstrates vitality, which is very important for a soldier.
    1. 0
      6 March 2012 20: 30
      So why are you surprised! The West still reduces the protection of its armored objects to RPG-7!
      And if so, then what do they invent? Probably a bike!
      But I do not take Discovery and its ratings seriously.
      1. oleg-sochi68
        0
        7 March 2012 00: 53
        They do not simply reduce to RPG-7, but to Russian (Soviet)-made grenades. For licensed ammunition for RPG-7 is weaker than ours.
  47. I am Russian
    0
    6 March 2012 19: 02
    oh these Americans love to embellish laughing
  48. 0
    6 March 2012 19: 58
    Somewhere I have already read .... a commercial in 1991 .... True, a little with other samples .... The book was called "The Red Storm Rises", by Tom Clancy wassat
  49. Vilis
    0
    6 March 2012 20: 41
    I’m very sorry! recoursebut the selection and appointment in places is only an American show-off, that is, like they have everything in openwork, the best weapons! And in general, all this is * uynya !!!
  50. 0
    7 March 2012 10: 08
    "The war in Afghanistan and Iraq - the United States Army is forced to abandon the M-2" Bradley "BMP ...
    .... Today, the US military is "looking for" a new BMP project, which will be a good replacement for the M-2. Cars "Stryker" and "MRAP" are not suitable for this role, as they have restrictions on the characteristics of cross-country ability .... "
    http://topwar.ru/12100-voyna-v-afganistane-i-irake-armiya-soedinennyh-shtatov-vy
    nuzhdenno-otkazyvaetsya-ot-bmp-m-2-bradley.html
  51. +1
    11 March 2012 18: 25
    Always with a mixed sense of pride, pity and bewilderment, for more than 30 years I have been looking at the pictures of the departure of our valiant motorized infantry. airborne troops and internal troops on a combat mission.

    Like chickens on a roost, they sit on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and God forbid this *chicken coop* runs into an ambush. But according to the design and purpose of armored vehicles, everything should be exactly the opposite. They should not sit on armor, but in armor, which should protect them from the primary and secondary damaging factors of various weapons, including nuclear ones. The explanation is equally valiant for the infantry and equally shameful for the manufacturers and designers of armored vehicles. Infantry prefers a glorious death from a bullet or shrapnel to a painful death from barotrauma, and for more than 30 years manufacturers and designers have not seen the problem that when our armored vehicles hit even a small mine, the entire crew and troops (if they are inside) die painfully from barotrauma. However, last year some fat guy from one of our leading machine plants solemnly said that in 12 they MAY START developing a new infantry fighting vehicle with mine protection elements. Well, just Christ (forgive me for the blasphemy), it took this fat guy 30 years and 3 years to recognize the problem and begin salvation. Of course, warriors and gunsmiths always argue; this dispute is thousands of years old. Warriors always say that gunsmiths make bad weapons, and gunsmiths say that warriors don’t know how to fight. And now a question for our gunsmiths and their defenders in this age-old, centuries-old dispute:
    - for what (or in the interests of whom) they do not like our valiant and sacrificial infantry, paratroopers and tankmen so much and are ready to burn and drench them in their coffins on wheels and tracks. They probably also think that there are too many of them, just like us Russians in general.
    - why buy and spend billions of rubles on such equipment. You can just as easily go on a mission in a cart pulled by a mare. Therefore, I propose to buy carts and carts instead of Arzamasmashzavod armored personnel carriers and Kurganmashzavod infantry fighting vehicles; the protective effect will be approximately the same and the maneuverability will be no worse.
    But in general, it would be better to argue about this at the military-technical commission, and not on the Internet, and this is a shame for Ivanov and Rogozin.
  52. Lech37
    +1
    18 March 2012 01: 08
    It’s strange that the South African freaks didn’t enter



    For its time, their layout was revolutionary
  53. +1
    19 March 2012 23: 02
    I’ve read your opinions and I can say for sure that you are not familiar with either the characteristics of the equipment or the tactics of the units. An armored personnel carrier in the 80s (BTR-80, BMP-1,2,3) is a technique for delivering units to the battlefield, where the infantry dismounts and works together with BMP and armored personnel carrier tanks. And nowadays, units are faced with ambushes, because they have armor (the field of view is wider and you can react faster until you get out of the armor). And just for the sake of curiosity, look at the photographs of the Vietnam War, where the Americans ride on armor, they just forgot about it, and from the footage that shows, they have all sorts of nonsense hung on their armor, most likely to try to make the vehicles less penetrable, and they go on foot to get the armor in places where ambushes are possible (everything is shown on YOUTUBE). Now about the armor, I dare to report to you that the armor of foreign BTERs is no thicker than ours; for example, the LAV-25 for the US Marine Corps breaks down to 7,62 for infantry units, a little thicker. I know of only two cars in which you can ride inside during the battle, “AHZARIT” and MARDER, and they do not have loopholes, so their effectiveness is reduced. As for the mines, no equipment can withstand them. And in general, guys, write with knowledge of the matter, otherwise you want to laugh, everything from abroad is just bad, but your own is very bad, read and analyze. Best wishes.
    1. 0
      19 March 2012 23: 22
      especially PTM-3, TMK-2, TM-62M, etc... Even tanks can’t handle them... let alone a landmine based on a 152mm HE shell...
      I know of only two units in which you can travel inside during the battle, “AHZARIT” and MARDER.

      They checked them somehow, from a hundredweight of saltpeter they turn over on their side, I don’t remember the link...
  54. Altergo
    0
    28 March 2012 23: 48
    The creators of the program approached this issue in a surprisingly unprofessional manner; not only did they compare warm with soft, but they did not mention many techniques better than those presented here.
  55. 0
    5 December 2012 13: 44
    Dear pro-Western cocksuckers, here you go to battle in the unit where there will be a heavy armored personnel carrier (one), but you will not have a place in it, the most experienced and valuable fighters will go in it (it's not you), and you will go, no, not to BTR-80, BTR-80 isn’t how much money was spent on one TBTR, you will ride in a tented Urals, and you will prove how good this tarp armor protects camels from spitting.
  56. Dr. Freedog
    0
    20 June 2013 17: 44
    Applause for Discovery Chanel. Sometimes it seems to me that they are randomly selecting their technique to promote them to the top3)
  57. 0
    April 21 2015 16: 49
    This is nonsense...
    Discovery smoking is only harmful to health.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"