Indonesia plans to purchase BT-3F

Indonesian Marines continue to look for a replacement for the outdated BTR-50PK. According to "Warspot" With reference to the portal janes.com, the delegation of the Indonesian Marine Corps Command (Korps Marinir - KORMAR) plans to arrive in Russia on August 21 in August to familiarize with the capabilities of the new BT-3F armored personnel carrier.

Initially, the KORMAR command planned to replace the Soviet BTR-50 with Ukrainian BTR-4. So far, the purchase was limited to a test lot of five units and, despite the fact that the Indonesian government allocated $ 95 million for the further purchase of the BTR-4, KORMAR continues to search for new equipment.

The BT-3F armored personnel carrier is a floating tracked armored vehicle. According to the developers, BT-3F was created in order to increase the mobility and security of the units of the marines and ground forces. On the roof of the armored personnel carrier can be installed remotely controlled combat module with a machine gun caliber 7,62, 12,7 or 14,5 mm, as well as 40-mm automatic grenade launcher. The machine can hold about 14 people. The VgTZ tractor company, better known as the Volgograd Tractor Plant, developed BT-3F on its own initiative to replace the outdated MT-LB armored personnel carriers, designed by the Kharkov Tractor Plant back in the 60s, the material says.

Comments

[Irokez]

Is Volgograd Tractor still alive?

[Bourbon]

Quote: Irokez

Is Volgograd Tractor still alive?

Of course ..... they delivered cast iron there last year, though they didn’t pay right away ((

[Chills]

With light excitement turns into a submarine?

[St Petrov]

With light excitement turns into a submarine?

p_vodny choven

[iConst]

Quote: Alexey RA

size, apparently. specially chose - so it wasn’t so scary to watch

Guys, floating armored vehicles - generally nonsense. These are essentially incompatible things.

If I were an engineer developing floating armored vehicles (PBT), then I would approach the solution of the problem like this:
Question: How much time does PBT spend in water. In percents. I think - this is an auxiliary function and not under dense enemy fire. Because PBT is already vulnerable to KK machine guns and is a good target. The probability of crawling ashore and participating in the battle "head-on" tends to zero. From here (offhand) two options:
1. To equip PBT with inflatable Kevlar (bulletproof) tanks that give the technique positive buoyancy. Which would be straightened and cleaned on the go. In a few minutes. I do not think that this (with the modern development of technology) is wildly difficult / expensive.

2. Use the underwater travel option. At a depth of 0.5-1 meter. That is a sort of submarine. Not like a tank - at the bottom. What a profit: half a meter of water is already a good additional protection. The rifle does not penetrate half a meter of water - the bullet falls apart. And if it breaks through, then the energy is lost (sure!) By an order of magnitude! Snorkel and periscope (in one bottle - a video camera in both hands) and a half meters - is this the problem?

Otmaza: do not kick painfully, many inventions were initially ridiculed, and now without them - nowhere!

These decisions are designed to reduce the requirements for weight reduction (degree of reservation), when for the sake of buoyancy the armor will turn into, sorry, pornography.

[hohol95]

They were given the task of Soviet designers to create the technique of the first throw through water barriers - create the PT-76 and the BTR-50 that were not surpassed by anyone!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: iConst

Question: How much time does PBT spend in water. In percents. I think - this is an auxiliary function and not under dense enemy fire.

For armored personnel carriers of the marines - this is the main function. Even with the Yankees, despite all the landing boats, the marines continue to use LVTP (and require replacing them with something faster, armored, and necessarily floating).

Quote: iConst

To equip PBT with inflatable Kevlar (bulletproof) tanks that give the technique positive buoyancy.

Poorly combined with,

PBT is already vulnerable to KK machine guns and is a good target. The probability of crawling ashore and participating in the battle "head-on" tends to zero.

If PBTD is vulnerable to CCP, then what will happen to inflatable tanks?

Quote: iConst

Use the underwater travel option. At a depth of 0.5-1 meter. That is a sort of submarine. Not like a tank - at the bottom. What a profit: half a meter of water is already a good additional protection.

The thing is small - to develop a depth maintenance system that works in the coastal zone (with waves, currents and near the bottom), and cram it into the dimensions of the PBTR with the least space for separation of the MP.

[Mikado]

If PBTD is vulnerable to CCP, then what will happen to inflatable tanks?

this was done back in the 44th year in Normandy, when the Americans equipped their Shermans with similar "floating screens." Units crawled to the shore .. if they crawled.

[iConst]

Shermans were equipped with “skirts” open at the top. The excitement raised by landing barges and other boats added waves that were already higher than permissible and began to overlap over the edges.
Not just so the allies waited for the weather.

Learn the materiel.

[Mikado]

I already saw you, it seems, under a different nickname, but under the same flag. "Ability to communicate" gives out. Yes, the "skirts" were open at the top - you're right.

[iConst]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: iConst

Question: How much time does PBT spend in water. In percents. I think - this is an auxiliary function and not under dense enemy fire.

For armored personnel carriers of the marines - this is the main function. Even with the Yankees, despite all the landing boats, the marines continue to use LVTP (and require replacing them with something faster, armored, and necessarily floating).

From it what! And the military, it is a sinful thing to believe that the main purpose of floating armored vehicles is to support the fire on the battlefield.
And the ability to swim is the possibility of landing "on the fly" from the sea in an unexpected place. But, it turns out, the PBT with cardboard armor should swim tood-syud and fight on the water ...

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: iConst

To equip PBT with inflatable Kevlar (bulletproof) tanks that give the technique positive buoyancy.

Poorly combined with,

PBT is already vulnerable to KK machine guns and is a good target. The probability of crawling ashore and participating in the battle "head-on" tends to zero.

If PBTD is vulnerable to CCP, then what will happen to inflatable tanks?

Not just combined, but as a consequence of one to another. What is the difference if the armor is comparable in strength to Kevlar? Next, the Kevlar “bag” should be multi-section plus swap. Have you heard about the BTR wheels? How many bullets can be planted in them before they "sink"?
Here is a profit that you can strengthen the armor. Buoyancy is achieved not only by the volume of the "box".

And, in general - did you read my post? Everything is clear there, for a technically educated person. Or the Chukchi is not a reader - a writer.

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: iConst

Use the underwater travel option. At a depth of 0.5-1 meter. That is a sort of submarine. Not like a tank - at the bottom. What a profit: half a meter of water is already a good additional protection.

The thing is small - to develop a depth maintenance system that works in the coastal zone (with waves, currents and near the bottom), and cram it into the dimensions of the PBTR with the least space for separation of the MP.

Oh-tyzh super task. A drone from any store for a couple of hundred bucks and that one can hang in the air and track gusts of wind. And here - military equipment - not-ee, our engineers cannot develop such equipment in vain.

[Dead duck]

Quote: p-k Oparyshev

Kindly suggested good people that Indonesians can get involved

They did it all and they weren’t alone ... the assembly of the supplied equipment often “desires the best”

[svp67]

The Volgograd Tractor Plant, developed the BT-3F on its own initiative to replace the obsolete MT-LB armored personnel carriers,

It may be so, but the BTR-3F is a modification for the Navy, that is, its marine corps, and it mainly used the BTR-80 to transport infantry.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: svp67

It may be so, but the BTR-3F is a modification for the Navy, that is, its marine corps, and it mainly used the BTR-80 to transport infantry.

In the Caspian Sea, the marines definitely had motor-leagues - they even got cars with a 30-mm module. In the north, MTLB were with marines and coastal troops. And on the Pacific Fleet MTLB lit up.

[svp67]

Quote: Alexey RA

And on the Pacific Fleet MTLB lit up.

Only the gunners, as expected

[Olegovi4]

Quote: Alexey RA

MTLB were

non-replaceable and superior technology

[Guru]

An interesting device - can I get a TTX in the studio?

[Zaurbek]

BMP-3 chassis, only without weapons.

[v1tz]

why to plan, why to experiment especially with krajina ... in Syria the indestructibility of Soviet and Russian equipment has already been proven, the broken ones work and go to the trash.

[Settlement Oparyshev]

MTLB is longer, or is it only visually?

[Olegovi4]

Quote: p-k Oparyshev

MTLB is longer, or is it only visually?

https://topwar.ru/99471-perspektivnyy-gusenichnyy
-armortransporter-bt-3f.html
here is an article on this unit

[Romanenko]

I don’t know how good he is in business, but in appearance and “body kit” he is drawn to the novelty of the 70s of the last century. Birdhouse on the tracks.

[Genry]

Maybe life is armed with a machine gun 7,62, 12,7 or 14,5 ....
Cartridge 7,62 is weak against modern body armor, and 12,7 is already too much.
Maybe it's time to introduce a 9mm machine gun for technology? Will penetrate all infantry body armor and at long range.

[Romanenko]

Introducing the “nine” for the machine gun in mass production is a very difficult decision, here they cannot cope with the old flange cartridge 7,62 for how many years, the sleeve with the groove allows you to get away from a lot of design problems, but there are too many weapons under the old cartridge.

[Genry]

Quote: Romanenko

a sleeve with a groove allows you to get away from a lot of design problems, but there are too many weapons under the old cartridge.

7,62x54R with a rim is a very successful cartridge for infantry machine guns and is indispensable for stationary multi-barrel (GShG-7,62). But it is weak for long distances and against modern body armor.
Cartridges with a groove are convenient for magazine weapons. But for tape power, it is better to have a flange, plus it's easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Nine, too, should be done "the old fashioned way" in a sleeve with rim 70mm, specifically for tape machine guns. For another weapon, this cartridge is not needed (except for rhino hunters).

[Vladimir SHajkin]

Alive smoking room - Volgograd Tractor. Well done, that developed, now would be the case to run. But here I have a question, probably there is a wave breaker, but still, like a low hatch