Military Review

Armor is strong. How to collect armored personnel carriers

40
We went on an excursion to the Arzamas engineering plant. See how to make the BTR.
An armored personnel carrier on close acquaintance turned out to be very beautiful and somehow correct in terms of proportions. A clot of pure functionalism multiplied by the crocodile animal plastics.





Ready machines to send to the customer. Customers are different, but above all it is the Russian army.











Conveyor.



Each machine is assembled individually. It all starts with the fact that the chassis is screwed to the gondola (hull).







For rolling on the conveyor - tires put "temporary".



Inside the armored car at the initial stage, lay all highways and wires.



"Front door", Armored car is completely sealed.



The KAMAZ engine, diesel, after installation passes running around 100km. At each stage of assembly, constant monitoring of quality.



Workshop final assembly and debugging.



Installation and adjustment of the transmission and suspension.



Assembly and installation of electronic systems and weapons systems.





Ready machine before checking by Military customer.







Preliminary check of tower and suspension mechanization.



The reception area of ​​the military commission. Before the arrival of the "most important General", the car is washed, vacuumed and checked again.



Everything is ready to check.



Conveyors already work in three shifts. On each, they collect 3-5 machines per day.



Demonstration race at the site.



He goes very powerful and defiantly!







Originator:
http://redbrandstudio.livejournal.com/19126.html
40 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. g1kk
    g1kk April 30 2012 07: 32
    +16
    I am very glad for the company that there are 3 work shifts every day !! We are waiting for the new armored personnel carrier "boomerang" from the factory workers. Good luck to them!
  2. Novosibirsky
    Novosibirsky April 30 2012 08: 07
    0
    "The armor is strong"


    Yes, what kind of "armor is strong". Whoever felt will understand what I mean ... "Mass grave" we called them.
    1. Aleksey67
      Aleksey67 April 30 2012 08: 34
      +8
      Novosibirsky, and the side landing is also not ice, right under the bullets crying
      1. Novosibirsky
        Novosibirsky April 30 2012 09: 32
        +5
        Yes, everything is not ice there, except for patency! Mine protection is absent as a concept. )))
        1. bamboo
          bamboo 18 June 2012 19: 10
          0
          I agree 100%, but patency and softness awesome !!!
      2. Gocha kurashvili
        Gocha kurashvili 1 May 2012 14: 03
        0
        Lateral landing on both sides, why under the bullets ???.
    2. g1kk
      g1kk April 30 2012 09: 25
      +15
      In general, the armored personnel carrier was designed as a means of delivering infantry to the place of hostilities - it should not have been in the forefront, and they certainly did not think about the partisan war, as is now being waged around the world, there was only one war - nuclear
      1. Novosibirsky
        Novosibirsky April 30 2012 09: 35
        +5
        In a modern war, the front is everywhere! The PC makes a sieve out of an armored personnel carrier, even an Ak at 7,62 breaks this "armor-plated" in a direct hit, at a distance of 5 meters. What can we say about grenade launchers or mines.
        If the machine is morally obsolete, you need to stop its purchase for your army, and if you do it only for export, to whom it is still relevant.
        1. g1kk
          g1kk April 30 2012 09: 46
          +6
          I heard that the BTR-80,82 armored protection (the one in the photo) was strengthened by laying something from the inside of the case, so there are still a lot of questions about the penetration by the machine. New will be the boomerang that is being developed. If you don’t buy anything now, what will the infantry ride? Which armored personnel carrier can withstand a grenade launcher or a high-explosive? I have not heard of such
    3. chukapabra
      chukapabra April 30 2012 12: 44
      +3
      Quote: NovoSibirets
      Yes, what kind of "armor is strong". Whoever felt will understand what I mean ... "Mass grave" we called them.

      I do not quite understand, but what's so new? Lateral landing-- it has been criticized for a long time, there is no mine protection, look at the quality of communications communications (especially copper pipes) in 12 photos, just a shame, who controls the quality? Wires without heat-resistant insulation will burn out from a match. They work in 3 shifts, why? What would the soldiers have to do? continued to ride on the armor under bullets? What's new in it? A gun ? so now there’s less room to sit on the armor, and inside you’ll get someone to hell with. It’s exactly written off by hundreds. The disappointment is continuous, they will cut the dough again, in a year or two they will write it off as obsolete. So, what is next
      1. Gocha kurashvili
        Gocha kurashvili 1 May 2012 14: 08
        0

        In general, the armored personnel carrier was designed as a means of delivering infantry to the place of hostilities; it was not supposed to be in the forefront.
        Guerrilla warfare requires other means of delivery and they are being developed.
    4. schonia06rus
      schonia06rus April 30 2012 17: 10
      +6
      you can't argue! The grenade launcher swore for a long time before getting into the armored personnel carrier, I asked him why does he not like him so much? he quarreled even more and said that at the training camp this armored personnel carrier burned like foil !! but about PNV, so he is there some kind of "commander's tank" as it was called so) for him, another lamp was illuminated by a special "moon" it seems. and btra has a very smooth ride!
    5. Rustam
      Rustam 2 May 2012 19: 48
      0
      yeah, ish said the western technology is invulnerable

      Nevertheless, they know very well who mainly writes these comments. As a rule, people who have never seen a live armored personnel carrier (tank, infantry fighting vehicle, etc.), but posing as great experts and combat officers (soldiers, sergeants, etc.). Regarding the shooting of an armored personnel carrier from an automatic machine or a PC, it’s completely nonsense, last summer in Kubinka specifically for the head of the GABTU they shot at an BTR-80 from an SVD cartridge with a B-32 bullet with 15, 50, 100 and 150 m. On board and in the roof. They didn’t shoot. Well, mine protection is all myths. Withstand 6 kg, put 7, withstand it - they will put more. Kohl Merkavas smashed to smithereens, which is there to talk about some MRAPs. The best mine defense is a shot terrorist, and this must be done before he puts a mine or a land mine
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 4 May 2012 21: 48
        0
        Nuno merkava to the down who can withstand 100 kg of TNT under the bottom And why did the Nikralogs on the telly show blown up armored personnel carrier, etc.
        1. g1kk
          g1kk 6 May 2012 22: 27
          +1
          no one answered which armored personnel carrier will withstand the HE bomb that our armored personnel carriers are undermining - no answer
  3. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim April 30 2012 08: 08
    +2
    Very interesting photo report!
  4. Tiberium
    Tiberium April 30 2012 08: 21
    +1
    It was interesting to see. I put + good
  5. RBXize
    RBXize April 30 2012 08: 28
    +4
    BTR-80A !!!!!
  6. Gamdlislyam
    Gamdlislyam April 30 2012 08: 31
    +8
    I am grateful to the author of the photo story for the opportunity to look at the factory. There would be more such photo stories.
  7. Igor
    Igor April 30 2012 09: 10
    +2
    And on this armored personnel carrier use new armor? And is there a thermal imager, PNV?
  8. Redpartyzan
    Redpartyzan April 30 2012 09: 16
    +3
    Nice pictures. I see the new BTR-82a. As for the mass grave, in terms of protection and safety, the armored personnel carrier is fully consistent with the best Western infantry transport vehicles of a similar type. If an armored personnel carrier cannot withstand a hit by an ATGM or an RPG, this is not a reason to call it a mass grave. ETOGES is not a tank.
    1. Novosibirsky
      Novosibirsky April 30 2012 09: 42
      -3
      Quote: Redpartyzan
      If an armored personnel carrier cannot withstand a hit by an ATGM or an RPG, this is not a reason to call it a mass grave. ETOGES is not a tank.

      And if he does not hold a bullet from an automatic rifle ?! ;)

      At what level does it match the best ...? What is "security"? Which is the best Western ..? Do not make me laugh. This is a coffin on wheels, and so it will remain. There is no new armor there and will not be. It became obsolete in the 80s of the last century.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 April 30 2012 11: 19
        +8
        Means of destruction will always go ahead of the means of defense ... All of it is knocked down, shot down, drowned and burned - and tanks, and planes, and helicopters, and ships, and submarines. And the armored personnel carrier including ... But for some reason no one thinks to refuse either the first or the second, nor the fifth and tenth ...

        And the report is really good. And the fact that people have work is also pleasing ... smile
        1. chukapabra
          chukapabra April 30 2012 14: 13
          +3
          Quote: Chicot 1
          And the fact that people have work is also pleasing ...

          if people were simply paid without letting go of everything, and all the forces were spent on developing a new armored personnel carrier, it would have ended up cheaper. Why release junk?
          Quote: Chicot 1
          Means of destruction will always go ahead of the means of defense ..

          then why improve security at all? you can ride a cart
          1. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 April 30 2012 19: 03
            +5
            "Old" - say, dear chukapabra... The Americans are periodically modifying their M113 and are not going to abandon it at all. But he is the same age as his "old" ...
            By the way, the base on the BTR-80 is quite acceptable for its class. And the ability to install a combat module with a 30mm artillery system on it gives an advantage over its classmates ... It is a completely different matter that the prevailing opinion is that the Ministry of Defense did not need to be placed in front of the machine. Yes, this gives an advantage in security in the frontal projection, but does not make the machine itself more secure in general ...
            So the "eighty" car will still serve. For the new armored personnel carrier, at best, is still under development ...

            And the fact that the means of destruction are always ahead of the means of protection was not my idea. This is evidenced by the entire history of weapons, conflicts and wars known to us ... However, once the armor still left a shell behind. At the dawn of the armored fleet. But even then not for long. And the solution to this problem was found by none other than S.O. Makarov, who proposed to make nozzles from soft metal on the head of the shells (it was he who did not subsequently allow the ammunition to split when hitting an armor plate), called the "Makarov cap" ...

            And let people work, collect the BTR-80. This is not in vain and worthless work ... The time will come, and they will collect new-generation armored personnel carriers ...

            As for the heavily protected means of transporting infantry, the most cardinal means at the moment is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on a tank base. Like the Israeli "Akhzarit" Mk.II. But we do not yet have such a machine in the troops. Maybe it will appear in the foreseeable future on the basis of "Armata". And the BTR-T currently available, it seems to be there, but in the troops it is not at all ...
            1. Novosibirsky
              Novosibirsky April 30 2012 19: 36
              +2
              Have you been inside? Why do fighters prefer to ride on armor?
              Any amount of ink can be polemicized and poured, and the truth is before us. This is an indicator.













              That's the whole story. Armor for the infantry we have no way in the troops. At least you dismount from the armor quickly, you will hide where, there is an opportunity to spit aimingly, but out of the box while you "croak" !!
              1. Chicot 1
                Chicot 1 April 30 2012 22: 30
                +6
                You must be surprised, uv. Novosibirskybut inside the BTR-80 I was. And not once. And why do the infantry ride on armor too, I know ... Any other questions? ..

                Well, in the meantime, you will think about new questions for me, I will ask you mine:
                And first, what can you personally offer now to replace the BTR-80 from what is already mass-produced and most importantly is there in sufficient numbers in the troops? ..
                The second question is purely hypothetical - will the infantry refuse to travel on armor with the arrival of equipment such as the BTR-T or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the same "Armata"? ..

                As for the truth, it is still not here. It is somewhere nearby ... For even the newly minted MRAP as a class of military equipment has not fully justified itself. Just as the early concept of HMMWV did not prove to be a little. But even the army of the world has not refused a wheeled APC, even with all its shortcomings (poor protection, compelled to ride on armor and other, other and other) ...
                1. Novosibirsky
                  Novosibirsky April 30 2012 22: 58
                  -2
                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  Any questions?..

                  As they arise, SW. Chicot 1.

                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  Well, in the meantime, you will think about new questions for me, I will ask you mine:

                  Yes, for God's sake, I always respect the answer, if there is anything to say ...

                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  And the first thing that you personally can offer now to replace the BTR-80 from what is already mass-produced and most importantly is there in sufficient numbers in the troops? ..

                  I personally can propose that the technical assignment be formulated correctly by all suppliers and manufacturers, taking into account the realities of today, the armament of the pot / opponent, tactics, and strategy, and demand its high-quality implementation.
                  And it’s not my business to make such proposals, I have other business. Let specially-trained people offer. In the worst case, it is necessary to purchase equipment abroad. Savings fighter d / b prerogative, because a dead fighter will not complete a combat mission.
                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  The second question is purely hypothetical - will the infantry refuse to travel on armor with the arrival of equipment such as the BTR-T or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the same "Armata"? ..


                  If a fighter sees that the equipment will really start saving, he’ll be sure to move inside. Who wants to catch a piece of iron on armor ... You cannot drive anyone out of a good life inside.

                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  For even MMRAP as a class of military equipment has not fully justified itself.


                  I think everything is relative. Undermine on the same landmine, or fire from the same caliber BTR-80 and MRAP, you yourself understand that the result will not be exactly the same ... Here the dog rummaged. The level of armor must constantly increase, and not remain for 30 years in one pore. That is precisely why the article was not pleased, unfortunately. No progress is visible. And a hint of perspective, too. Rubbish is a shorter matter.
                  1. Chicot 1
                    Chicot 1 1 May 2012 06: 35
                    +3
                    "Form TTZ for the manufacturer", "purchase abroad" ... The TTZ has certainly been formed and directed, otherwise there would be no talk on the topic "Boomerang". But the development, production of prototypes and the conduct of comprehensive tests (both factory and state) take time ...
                    Procurement abroad, alas, is not a panacea. To do this, considerable funds are needed in order to purchase the necessary amount of equipment. And again, you need time spent on the production of a considerable amount of equipment (I don’t take into account the delivery and training of personnel) ...
                    And I thought it was a sinful thing that you would offer an armored Ural. He then should keep mines better than the BTR-80 ... But alas, not a panacea, and above all, their insufficient number ... Domestic MRAP has not yet been put on stream and it is not in the troops ...
                    So it turns out that everything rests on the required amount of necessary light armored vehicles and, most importantly, the time needed for its production or acquisition, development in the troops. And what should the infantry ride all the time when there is no news and is not expected? ..
              2. Gocha kurashvili
                Gocha kurashvili 1 May 2012 14: 22
                +1
                Dear Novosibirets. Great photo series! You are right that such transportation is safer. In any case, you can respond to the shelling with lightning speed. Conclusion??? Are carts cheaper? Or create a box that will still be a mine there or shrapnel? Or what ??? Specify what can replace it? It seems to me that this is the most convenient and calculated option. There is no such armor on which there are no means of destruction.
                1. felixis69
                  felixis69 1 May 2012 16: 49
                  0
                  If you are not lazy, then carefully read the statistics below on the losses of Israeli armored vehicles, crews, military personnel involved in the use of armored vehicles in the Second Lebanon War:
                  "A total of 30 tankers (19 regular army and 11 reservists) were killed in 13 tanks. In addition, a soldier from the reconnaissance company of the 12st armored brigade Itai Steinberger (i.e. an infantryman, not a tanker) was killed on August 401, so many sources indicate the number the dead soldiers of the armored forces as 31. It should also be noted that some sources considered the major of the engineering troops Hillel Nimrod, who died on 10.08.06/32/XNUMX, to be a tanker, respectively, they indicate the number of tankers killed as XNUMX.

                  Summing up the data, for 30 dead tankers we get:

                  • For reasons of death:
                  • 25 tankers in 11 tanks died from ATGMs.
                  • 5 tankers in 2 tanks died from landmines.

                  • According to the total loss of tank crews:
                  • 4 tanks in which the entire crew died (3 from ATGMs and 1 from a land mine);
                  • 2 tanks, in which 3 tankers were killed;
                  • 1 tank, in which 2 tankers died;
                  • 6 tanks, in which 1 tanker perished.
                  • Killed by tank type:
                  • Merkava MK 2-10 in 3 tanks (4 + 2 + 4);
                  • Merkava MK 3 - 9 in 4 tanks (3 + 1 + 4 + 1);
                  • Merkava MK 4 - 11 in 6 tanks (1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 4).
                  • Note: considering cases of damaged tanks with dead crew members, you can see that the Merkava MK.4 showed the highest chance of crew survival in case of defeat. Their crew losses amounted to 1.8 people per tank, while the Merkav Mk.3 had 2.25, and the Merkav Mk.2 had 3.3.
                  Irrecoverable losses - 5 tanks:

                  1.12 of July - “Merkava” MK.2, a land mine, 4 of the dead;
                  2.24 of July - “Merkava” MK.4 (tank battalion), land mine, 1 dead;
                  3.9 of August - “Merkava” MK.2, ATGM (or land mine, and then ATGM), 4 of the dead;
                  4.12 of August - “Merkava” MK.3, ATGM (or ATGM, and then a land mine), 4 dead.
                  5.12 of August - “Merkava” MK.4 (“Koah Banaya”), ATGM, 4 of the dead.
                  Apparently, the ammunition detonated on tanks hit by ATGMs of 9 and 12 on August. Perhaps in this regard, some reports say not only about ATGMs, but also about a landmine.

                  Losses of crews of armored personnel carriers and engineering equipment
                  During the war in Lebanon, 7 fighters of engineering troops were killed, including three - from ATGM hits in two D9 bulldozers:

                  • 10.08.06 - Major Reservist Hillel (Hillel) Nimrod, 8173rd Engineer Battalion, area of ​​the village of Levona;
                  • 13.08.06 - senior sergeants Evgeny Timofeev and David (Dudu) Omer, Kantara district, - the last dead before the ceasefire.
                  One case of the death of a soldier with a defeat in an APC is known:

                  07.08.06/101/35 - Senior Sergeant Philip Mosco, paramedic in the medical unit (TAAGAD) of the XNUMXst airborne battalion of the XNUMXth brigade dislocated his leg and was sent to the rear on the Puma armored personnel carrier. An APC was hit by an ATGM in the vicinity of the village of Dabel and Philip died.

                  Note: in some sources it is said about the death of 2 soldiers during the defeat of heavy armored personnel carriers, but no data were found on the second case.

                  Padded BTT, which did not have dead crew members
                  The list below is partial.

                  • On July 20, in the village of Marun a-Ras, 2 Merkava Mk.3 tanks were hit, apparently from grenade launchers.
                  • On July 24, a D9 bulldozer was hit in the Bint Jbail ATGM area.
                  • On August 10, in the vicinity of the village of Levona, the Merkava ATGM Mark 2 from the 847th Armored Brigade was hit (in the same battle where the engineer major Hillel Nimrod died);
                  • August 11/12 - ATGM knocked out the Merkava tank MK 4 of the support officer (MASAH) of the 401th Armored Brigade.
                  • August 12th - during the movement through the wadi of Saluki, ATGMs knocked out several Merkava Mk.4 tanks from the 401th Armored Brigade. One of them lost the barrel of the gun, but remained on the move. In another, a battalion commander of the 9th battalion, Lt. Col. Efi Dafrin, was seriously injured.
                  • On August 12, at 19:20, the Merkava ATGM Mark 3 was hit from the 53rd battalion of the 188th Armored Brigade, the tank commander was wounded (in the same battle in which the crew of Oz Zemakh died).
                  • At 11:15 on August 13th “Merkava” Mk.3 of the 434th armored brigade was hit by ATGMs at Tel Naches, tank commander Avi K. and loader were wounded (in the same battle where platoon commander Tsur Zarchi died).
                  Сonclusion
                  Summing up the above figures, we can state the following:

                  • 45 tanks were hit by ATGMs and RPG grenades, in total 51 missiles hit the tanks.
                  • In 24 cases (47% of the number of hits), the cumulative stream penetrated the armor of the tanks, apparently in 3 cases out of these 24 in the tanks the ammunition detonated.
                  • In total, about 60 BTT units received combat damage, including 48-52 tanks. 5 tanks were irretrievably lost - 3 from ATGM hits (one Merkava Mk.2, Mk.3 and Mk.4 each) and 2 from HE explosions (one Merkava Mk.2 and Mk.4 each).
                  • 31 fighter of armored forces, including 30 tankmen. In addition, 4 more soldiers died from ATGM hits in the BTT - 3 in D9 bulldozers and 1 in the heavy Puma armored personnel carrier.
                  • Tanks "Merkava", especially the newest Mk.4, showed excellent resistance to combat defeat. On average, 1 tanker died in each tank whose armor was pierced, and the ammunition load, apparently, detonated in only 3 tanks out of 24 that were pierced. "
            2. Insurgent
              Insurgent April 30 2012 20: 54
              +1
              What amers on TV show in Iraq so there is only Bradley and M-113 can only Georgia use
              1. Chicot 1
                Chicot 1 April 30 2012 22: 43
                +4
                The fact that they were not shown on TV in Iraq does not mean that they are not in the American army. They are still in service today. I find it difficult to name the exact number, but more than 10 thousand units are for sure. Most of them have been brought to the M113A3 level. So this "old thing" is still in the ranks and is clearly not going to ferrous metal in the near future ...
                1. Novosibirsky
                  Novosibirsky April 30 2012 23: 05
                  -1
                  Yes, Ameri also didn’t especially run away to save their infantry, this does not surprise me ... How many fighters complain about the Hamers, things are still there. Also with the Abrams. In Europe, it seems to be better with this, in Germany it seems, but it’s not strong here, I won’t argue.
                2. Novosibirsky
                  Novosibirsky April 30 2012 23: 20
                  +1
                  Yes, I did. Behi has an interesting concept. With reclining landing compartment. Confuses only a high profile.

                  http://www.thetankmaster.com/english/afv/m8_greyhound_01r.asp



                  1. Chicot 1
                    Chicot 1 2 May 2012 10: 14
                    +1
                    If a roll is made to increase mine protection (V-shaped bottom while maintaining high clearance), to strengthen overall security (increased thickness of the reservation, and it is quite possible as an option to book additionally while maintaining the previous / required reservation volume), then to increase the height of the silhouette and overall dimensions there is nothing surprising. This is an inevitable consequence ...
                    A nice car, I do not argue. smile
                3. Insurgent
                  Insurgent 1 May 2012 20: 21
                  0
                  Maybe in the reserve where they are for the "allies" of Georgia, Balts, Poles, Romanians, etc.
      2. beech
        beech April 30 2012 11: 28
        +4
        hmm? and then we will start to ride, on UAZ,? there svd breaks too !!!
      3. felixis69
        felixis69 April 30 2012 19: 13
        -1
        Novosibirsk! I fully support !!!! Unfortunately, our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles do not meet the requirements of modern warfare in terms of armor protection! The most precious thing is behind the armor - our soldiers! And the protection of the delivery vehicles of the soldiers should be no less effective (or maybe more) than that of the tank! I, like many others, hope for "Armata", I don't see anything worthwhile (even BMP-3)! In modern conflict, the front is everywhere !!! Both in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the main losses of our delivery vehicles, and the saddest death of our guys, did not occur in direct confrontation, but during the movement of convoys of equipment or during an ambush shelling of the deployment sites! Tankers have much more chances to survive! Infantry needs a solid shield too!
      4. Insurgent
        Insurgent April 30 2012 20: 52
        +1
        Yes, and our bmp is not much better
  9. Ridder
    Ridder April 30 2012 14: 13
    +4
    It’s bad that the plant doesn’t produce BTR 90, because it has such a potential, and by the way there is armor and mine protection, no matter how many lives of our guys are matched. After all, armored personnel carrier 80 is morally obsolete, and purchasing armored personnel carrier 80a is an attempt to save money. Although something is better than nothing.
  10. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 April 30 2012 17: 02
    +4
    Soviet means Excellent!
    Decades pass, and the car is still relevant.
  11. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 April 30 2012 20: 41
    +1
    Handsome. Maybe not in Russian and not in rhyme, but you can’t say otherwise. Very male car. Glad for Arzamas and the military-industrial complex. Thanks to the rear workers.
  12. mind1954
    mind1954 1 May 2012 01: 27
    0
    Troops entered Afghanistan in December 1979,
    and conclusions have not yet been made.

    BTR - 64 was a fundamental response
    the massacre on the streets of Budapest when out of the windows
    the upper floors were thrown into armored personnel carriers - 52 grenades
    and there it turned out ...!

    And all the conclusions from Afghanistan are spinning.
    a tower with an automatic gun having
    anti-aircraft elevation, and fundamentally new
    there’s still no solution to the BTR itself,
    all the dances inside and around the "coffin"!
  13. mind1954
    mind1954 1 May 2012 01: 51
    0
    Troops entered Afghanistan in December 1979,
    and conclusions have not yet been made.

    BTR - 64 was a fundamental response
    the massacre on the streets of Budapest when out of the windows
    the upper floors were thrown into armored personnel carriers - 52 grenades
    and there it turned out ...!

    And all the conclusions from Afghanistan are spinning.
    a tower with an automatic gun having
    anti-aircraft elevation, and fundamentally new
    there’s still no solution to the BTR itself,
    all the "dances" inside and around the "coffin"!

    In a tank, it’s difficult to get away from experience-tested form.
    He himself brings fire and goes to the fire - nowhere to go!
    Try to reduce the crew and reduce as much as possible
    the impact of enemy weapons.

    And BTR’s tasks are fundamentally different, therefore
    no one bothers to experiment with the form
    enclosures and compensate for some partial
    shortcomings of form tank achievements
    means of protection.
  14. felixis69
    felixis69 1 May 2012 07: 18
    0
    ....... "The Israel Defense Forces have significantly limited the use of their main M113 APC in Gaza after two incidents in which M113 APCs were destroyed by RPGs in May 2004. Heavy APCs, including the Akhzarit, were moved there as an immediate solution. on the basis of the T-54 / T-55 tanks, and the Puma based on the Centurion tank and Nagmakhon based on the Centurion tank. The Israel Defense Forces are removing from service their aging Merkava Mk 1 tanks, in connection with Thus, the Ministry of Defense proposed to remove the towers from such Merkava tanks and use their chassis to create a heavy armored personnel carrier. " - no comment!
  15. Dmitry.V
    Dmitry.V 1 May 2012 17: 34
    +1
    I prefer military equipment in interest than sports karam.
  16. sergey261180
    sergey261180 1 May 2012 19: 23
    +1
    I don’t understand our military-industrial complex! Is it really so difficult to take the chassis and engine, for example the T-90, weld the body of ala Pzh-2000 from normal armor, so as not to break through from 12,7 mm weapons, make a V-shaped bottom, circle around and above with dynamic protection. Ammunition to separate from the landing. So much for the new generation BMP!
    1. beech
      beech 1 May 2012 19: 56
      0
      and it will turn out like with a terminator. The machine is super, but MO tries are not needed and we will sell it to some thread in Kazakhstan !!!
      1. sergey261180
        sergey261180 1 May 2012 20: 28
        0
        Terminator advance bullshit was. And listen to our Moscow Region, so only give them apartments, nothing more is needed.
    2. Novosibirsky
      Novosibirsky 1 May 2012 22: 39
      -2
      Sergey, but I strongly agree with you! Only add an armored capsule and a blunder, the boys will sleep at night in a box, it will be safe! )))
  17. Kosimov
    Kosimov 18 August 2017 16: 26
    0
    3-5 cars a day ... not bad.