Dangerous "Fox" in the service of the Bundeswehr. BTR TPz 1 Fuchs

BTR TPz 1 Fuchs

German love to call armored vehicles by the names of various animals did not disappear even after the end of World War II. It was in the post-war time that the Bundeswehr was in the service of Tanks “Leopard”, reconnaissance fighting vehicles “Lynx”, as well as armored personnel carriers “Fox”. The latter were triaxial wheeled floating armored personnel carriers, adopted for service in 1979. The combat vehicle was actively exported; Algeria is the second largest fleet operator of the armored personnel carrier.


The process of creating an armored personnel carrier TPz 1 Fuchs


Work on the creation of a new wheeled armored personnel carrier, which was to be included in the line of second-generation armored wheeled vehicles for the needs of the Bundeswehr, began back in 1961. The first prototypes were presented to the military in 1964. In the course of work, the project was repeatedly modified, the requirements for the combat vehicle, and the composition of the contest participants changed. For example, in 1966, Henschel, Büssing, KHD, Krupp and MAN worked on creating their own versions of combat vehicles, and later Daimler-Benz also joined them. At the same time, work directly on the armored personnel carrier, which was adopted by the German army under the designation Fuchs ("Fox"), entered the active phase only in the early 1970s. In the Bundeswehr, new wheeled armored personnel carriers were to partially replace the tracked M113 SPZ and Hotchkiss SPz 11-2 of American and French production, respectively.

Issuing technical specifications for the creation of a new combat vehicle, the German military proceeded from the desire to make the design as simple and reliable as possible. In many respects this was dictated by the conditions of the time. The army of Germany at that time was formed due to a draft for military service, for this reason the new wheeled armored personnel carrier was to be as simple as possible in command and development. The calculation was made to train draftees as quickly as possible to operate an armored car, and, therefore, to reduce the cost of training. Particular attention was paid to the fact that the armored personnel carrier could be easily maintained and repaired. In fact, the representatives of the Bundeswehr expected to get a modern combat vehicle, the level of service of which would correspond to serial trucks. Separately stipulated the possibility of providing a circular view. In this case, it was not only about the place of the driver, a good visibility was required to ensure the landing. That is why in the airborne compartment along with the main hatch in the roof of the hull, designed for mounting various weapons, separate observation devices were installed in the sides and doors of the hull.


Another requirement of the Bundeswehr was the capacity of the machine. The armored personnel carrier was supposed to carry up to 10 fighters with full armament. At the same time, the soldiers in the airborne squad were planned to ensure satisfactory freedom of movement. Ideally, the crew and the landing should calmly survive a 24-hour stay inside the combat vehicle without the appearance of symptoms of premature fatigue. As one of the measures to increase the convenience of finding the landing inside the combat vehicle, the option of increasing the height of the hull was considered. But this idea was quickly abandoned, since a high center of gravity would seriously limit the passability, the car would lose stability, which could increase the accident rate. Ultimately, the maximum height of the armored personnel carrier was 2300 mm, which is quite comparable to the peer - the BTR-70 Soviet-made.

Engineers from Daimler-Benz, one of Germany’s leading automakers, were actively working on the new armored personnel carrier project. It was this company in 1971 that received an order for further improvement of the developed APC with a 6x6 wheel arrangement. Since 1973, Daimler-Benz has handed over to the Federal Arms Supply Administration a total of 10 pre-production models of the future wheeled armored personnel carrier, six of which were directly tested in the military. In 1979, the car was adopted. The order for the production of new armored personnel carriers was transferred to Thyssen-Henschel in Kassel, which became the general contractor of the project. Later this company was acquired by Rheinmetall Landsysteme, since 1999 it is part of the large defense concern Rheinmetall AG. The German armored personnel carrier TPz 1 Fuchs fits into the range of new Bundeswehr wheeled combat vehicles, which also includes the light Condor UR-425 armored personnel carrier with a 4x4 wheel arrangement and a combat reconnaissance vehicle SpPz 2 Luchs with a wheel arrangement of 8x8. All wheeled combat vehicles were united by an increased power reserve (in comparison with tracked vehicles), a long service life and good maintainability.


Design Features BTR TPz 1 Fuchs


For the Fuchs armored personnel carrier, Daimler-Benz engineers chose a layout with a front-mounted control compartment, a mid-mounted engine and transmission compartment, and aft - an airborne compartment. In this case, the MTO was separated from the departments with a crew and an airborne firewall. You can get from the control compartment to the landing force along the left corridor on the right side of the combat vehicle. The body of the armored personnel carrier is self-supporting, all-metal, made of steel armored plates located at rational angles of inclination. The cross section of the body forms a rhombus. The hull provides protection for the crew and troops from fire from a small weapons rifle caliber (including armor-piercing bullets), as well as fragments of shells and mines. Later, during the modernization, the protection capabilities of the crew and the landing were seriously enhanced through the use of mounted composite armor.

In the control department were the places of the driver and the commander of the combat vehicle. The overview of the road and the situation is provided through the frontal bulletproof glass of a large size, comparable to conventional automobile ones. Also, the review is improved by bulletproof glass installed in the side doors. In combat conditions, all bulletproof glass is easily covered by steel armored shutters. In such conditions, the crew monitors the terrain using periscope observational instruments located on the roof of the hull. In addition to the doors to leave the combat vehicle, the crew can use two hatches in the roof of the hull.


In the landing compartment, which is located in the rear of the armored personnel carrier, could accommodate up to 10 people. Depending on the models, the number of paratroopers could vary. Gradually, for the standard version of the armored personnel carrier, the number of paratroopers was reduced to 8 people, and the squad itself was seriously modernized, including in terms of ergonomics. Inside the combat vehicle, motorized arrows are located on the seats along the sides of the hull - facing each other. The main method of boarding / disembarking from a combat vehicle is the aft double-wing door, this is the safest way to leave an APC, which is implemented on almost all members of the class. Also, for emergency exit of the combat vehicle, paratroopers can use the hatches in the roof of the hull.

As a power plant on the TPz 1 Fuchs installed an 8-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine manufactured by Daimler-Benz OM 402A series. This engine develops a maximum power of 320 hp. at 2500 rpm. The diesel works in conjunction with a 6-speed automatic gearbox. The engine power is enough to disperse an armored personnel carrier with a combat weight of about 17 tons (standard equipment) to 100 km / h when driving on a highway, the speed of the armored personnel carrier on the water does not exceed 10 km / h. Cruising range - 800 km. The armored personnel carrier has amphibious properties; it moves on water with the help of two propellers and wheels. The maximum load capacity statements without loss of buoyancy are 4 tons.

Version with additional armor and a landmine suppression system

During the modernization, the combat mass of the armored personnel carrier grew. For example, the TPz 1A7 version, which received additional mounted MEXAS-type ceramic armor, anti-fragmentation lining and improved mine protection, including the jamming system for protection against radio-controlled landmines, “recovered” up to 19 tons. Similar armored vehicles were actively used by the Bundeswehr in international missions, including in Afghanistan.

Like all armored vehicles with a wheelbase, the TPz 1 Fuchs armored personnel carrier has excellent mobility and mobility. The 6x6 wheel arrangement and an impressive ground clearance of 400 mm provide the Fox with good cross-country ability. Three-axle chassis with a uniform arrangement of wheels on the base is the hallmark of the machine. A similar scheme was often used by European manufacturers of wheeled armored vehicles. Two front axles are steered, the total radius of the BTR turning is 17 meters. In combat conditions, an armored personnel carrier uses special bulletproof tires with a built-in internal metal deformation limiter, the diameter of which is less than the diameter of the tire itself. Such a device allows for a long time to move at a reduced speed even with seriously damaged tires.

The most modern option. BTR TPz 1A8 Fuchs

The armament of the machine is represented by a different combination of machine guns: from one 7,62 mm MG-3 machine gun to three such machine guns. On machines with anti-tank systems Milan, maximum two machine guns were installed. In order to defend themselves, 6 smoke grenade launchers mounted on the sides of the hull are also used. After upgrading to the TPz 1A8 version (a total of 267 combat vehicles remaining in the Bundeswehr’s service is planned to be re-equipped), Rheinmetall installs a remote-controlled weapon module FLW 200 with a 12,7-mm M2HB machine gun in the armored personnel carrier.

The armored personnel carrier developed in the 1970s continues to serve in the Bundeswehr in 2020, as well as in the armies of other states: Algeria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela. After the upgrades, which seriously increased the security of the crew and the landing, including from detonation by mines and improvised explosive devices, the APC still remains relevant.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Graz 7 January 2020 06: 04 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    everything would be fine but I’m still confused by the large area of ​​the frontal glazing, such a machine except in convoys (caravans) you’ll not especially use anywhere
    1. 32363 7 January 2020 08: 39 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Graz
      everything would be fine but I’m still confused by the large area of ​​the frontal glazing, such a machine except in convoys (caravans) you’ll not especially use anywhere

      there it hangs over the frontal visor when firing, and there are also armored curtains on the side windows, hanging down from the glass.
    2. marmalade 26 January 2020 16: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I agree completely
  2. Alexander Alekseev_2 7 January 2020 06: 33 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Karoshy German campfwagen, however! They would have been stopping women to do their own voivode ... Thank you for the article, informative!
    1. 32363 7 January 2020 08: 24 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      Quote: Alexander Alekseev_2
      Karoshy German campfwagen, however! They would have been stopping women to do their own voivode ... Thank you for the article, informative!

      current is not campf and kampf .. like mine kampf, and do you think the Germans put these fools ??? these are pawns on the board, think of the gynecologist yourself as a minister of defense, clearly avenged the locohost, showing that the Germans did not solve nichrome in their country, while humiliating ... but the boomerang was already launched.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Narak-zempo 7 January 2020 13: 13 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: 32363
        think of a gynecologist yourself as a minister of defense

        It, you know, is not born as a soldier. Remember Bulgakov:
        All his life until 1914, Trump was a rural teacher. In 14, he went to war in a dragoon regiment and by 1917 he was promoted to officer. And the dawn of December 14, 18, under a window, caught Kozyr a colonel in the Petliura army, and no one in the world (and least of all, Kozyr himself) could tell how this happened. And this happened because the war for him, Trump, was a vocation, and teaching was only a long and major mistake.

        Remember the Stalinist People’s Commissars - which of them had a specialty in those sectors that he led? Some (the Kaganovich brothers, for example) didn’t have much education at all.
        In a ministerial post, it’s important not only to understand military affairs, but to understand people. Surround yourself with competent specialists, listen to their voice. If the minister is not Taburetkin, if the person is sensible and root for the cause, then the necessary understanding will come in the process of work. This is not in defense of this frau, but general considerations.
        1. Karen 7 January 2020 13: 25 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Remember the Stalinist People’s Commissars - which of them had a specialty in those sectors that he led?

          You, except about Kaganovich, apparently did not read and do not know ... I understand ... a writer, not a reader ...
    2. Narak-zempo 7 January 2020 09: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Alexander Alekseev_2
      They would have been stopping women to do their own voivode ...

      William II at the turn of the 3th and 4th centuries could speak from XNUMXK for women - Kinder, Küche, Kirche. But now is the XXI century, the progress of technology and all that. For example, XNUMXK is being actively introduced. So German women want a fourth K - Kampf. Or Krieg.
      1. Alexander Alekseev_2 7 January 2020 09: 53 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Tada exactly 5th K comes fast-Kaput)
        1. Narak-zempo 7 January 2020 13: 01 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Kaputt. With two t.
      2. Alexander Alekseev_2 7 January 2020 14: 29 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        It would be better if they would want to.
        1. Alexander Alekseev_2 7 January 2020 14: 30 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Those. sorry "Kondomen" in German ...
          1. martin-159 7 January 2020 17: 42 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Then Kinder will fail.
      3. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 21: 16 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        William II at the turn of the 3th and XNUMXth centuries could speak from XNUMXK for women - Kinder, Küche, Kirche.

        And the other German, Frederick, who the Great, condemned me on the contrary - the devil pulled me to contact two women at once! This is it about Maria Theresa and Elizabeth. The latter even wrote compassionate letters, asking at least to return Berlin. And then it’s inconvenient for a monarch without a capital .. laughing
        1. Narak-zempo 7 January 2020 22: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          There was still Madame Pompadour who ruled the French king. The Union of the Three Petticoats is also Frederick's expression.
          1. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 22: 37 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Narak-zempo
            The Union of the Three Petticoats is also Frederick's expression.

            Right! Everyone was trying to remember whom the third Frederick still remembered. So the women of the great commander and scored a bunch .. :)
            1. Narak-zempo 7 January 2020 23: 07 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              So the women of the great commander and scored a bunch .. :)

              Women of politics. They did not steer armies in the field.
              Although, IMHO, let the women to the highest command posts, will be no worse than men.
              But the results of the Seven Years' War are not so clear. On a global scale, France has merged England. Those. Frederick was in the camp of the winners, but economically Prussia was defeated. And we, although they occupied Berlin, remained losers.
  3. novobranets 7 January 2020 07: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If the declared performance characteristics are true, then the car is quite gut. The speed on land and on water is high; it can perform well in search and rescue operations. The only thing that confuses the short triaxial base, it seems to me that through the ditch, a meter and a half wide, he can not get over.
  4. The leader of the Redskins 7 January 2020 09: 56 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Throw stones at me, but I believe that this armored personnel carrier was better than our armored personnel carrier 70. In terms of convenience and layout.
    1. Zaurbek 7 January 2020 11: 30 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      ... and by MTO.
      1. Vladimir_2U 7 January 2020 11: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Actually, the location of the MTO decides everything, but the firepower here is more likely weakness, I'm talking about the BTR version of course.
    2. LastPS 7 January 2020 16: 40 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      For me, any BTR of the time with a rear door is better than the BTR 70.
    3. Falx 7 January 2020 20: 04 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Well, my friend, you compared ... they compare what is at least in the same weight category.

      The weight of the BTR-60PB is 10,2 tons, the BTR-70 is 11,5 tons, and the BTR-80 is 13,6 tons ...
      and the protagonist of this opus is already 17 tons empty and 23 + tons with full equipment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPz_Fuchs)

      catch the difference?

      well, and besides, all the talk about the benefits of a rear-mounted layout is nothing. For BMP - yes, this is important. and for an armored personnel carrier it is immaterial.
      In my opinion, the layout of the Fox is unsuccessful, better then on the Spaniard from the previous article. MTO should be in front, well, or behind, as on our armored personnel carriers. In the middle - this is not the most optimal solution, because a corridor is needed to connect the driver with the landing. it's a lost volume ...
      1. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 21: 21 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: Falx
        In the middle - this is not the most optimal solution, because a corridor is needed to connect the driver with the landing. it's a lost volume ...

        Better a communication corridor than a landing groove as on our BMP-3 .. Well, we don’t count the front two there right away. They were not even given the grooves.

        In general, you are right, the side hatch on the BTR-80 is an excellent solution specifically for the BTR. Under fire, at least you can choose which board to land.
        1. Falx 7 January 2020 21: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, I myself didn’t have the opportunity to use this / such a groove, so it’s hard for me to judge here ... but it looks really uncomfortable ...
          1. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 21: 54 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Falx
            but it looks really uncomfortable ...

            He himself did not believe it until suddenly he saw in kind.

            Knee-deep there is this groove, only crawling or on all fours, and so everything is shot in front. And about the landing from the front hatches back to BMP-2 questions arose. But the mound has already suffered .. So far, Chelyabinsk has already sculpted its seven-wheeled chassis among the Kurgan people, and it’s done. negative
            1. Falx 7 January 2020 22: 14 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Of course, all this is true, but it has nothing to do with the APC. For infantry fighting vehicles, as for a class of combat vehicles, the layout is fundamental, the landing should be behind. and in this sense, the BMP-3 is unsuccessful. The groove does not compensate for this. (although I admit that I have no personal experience) ...

              but BTR is a completely different league. here the designers are not so much connected in the choice of layout. and on the Fox the Germans managed to choose the least optimal layout ... and ours on the Motolab, too, because the armored personnel carrier was, albeit a caterpillar, but also part-time tractor ....
              1. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 22: 42 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Falx
                and ours on the Motolab, too, because the armored personnel carrier was, albeit a tracked

                However, MT-LB was born as an artillery tractor. In the APC as it is, by itself, it has become an explicit procedure. :)

                Although I like MT-LB, you are essentially right, the layout is not ideal for an armored personnel carrier. But he didn’t forget to dig at least one loophole on board. To shoot back if they shot. The Germans didn’t do this for some reason.
              2. The leader of the Redskins 8 January 2020 21: 04 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Why do you think the least comfortable? She is optimal! The main landing exit is at the rear. If necessary - hatches and doors. Assume an ambush with frontal fire. From the "fox" you can leave through the stern, but from ours? Side shoot. And from the stern fire, they and us.
                1. Saxahorse 8 January 2020 23: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Leader of the Redskins
                  Assume an ambush with frontal fire. From the "fox" you can leave through the stern, but from ours?

                  Where did you see the front fire ambush? Which burdock will shoot armored vehicles in the forehead? laughing

                  A classic of the genre, undermining the first and last cars, followed by fire from the flank. Therefore, the rear exit is vulnerable to this kind of action like no other.

                  Quote: Leader of the Redskins
                  If necessary - hatches and doors

                  This .. in what place at MT-LB did you see the door? laughing
                  1. The leader of the Redskins 9 January 2020 01: 03 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Actually, the conversation is about "Fox" ...
                    1. Saxahorse 9 January 2020 01: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
                      Actually, the conversation is about "Fox" ...

                      And we started with frontal ambushes .. laughing
            2. Elturisto 8 January 2020 10: 27 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              In the BMP-2 (as well as other vehicles with front MTO), only the machine gunner has an individual hatch in front of the turret. The placement of the MTO in the front of the hull means overloading the front rollers, vertical yaw during movement, which negatively affects the crew’s fatigue and accuracy of shooting immediately and short stops ....
              1. Saxahorse 8 January 2020 23: 37 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: ElTuristo
                The placement of the MTO in the front of the hull means overloading the front rollers, vertical yaw during movement, which is negative

                The tasks of overloading rollers, vertical rolling and other engineering problems should be solved by engineering means and not due to the blood of soldiers. Landing from BMP-3 under fire and without loss is impossible. It is amazing when in peacetime such machines are adopted. What .. little time to solve problems? The Chinese over there, no problem solved the pancake. Look at their ZBD-04. Elementary!
                1. Elturisto 9 January 2020 08: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, the Chinese canceled the physics, how can it be. The infantry itself, after landing, develops into a rifle chain at intervals of 6-8, where it doesn’t come out, but without fire support to the infantry chains of the kirdyk, the effective range of a machine gun is 1000 m., Only having an APC or BMP heavy weapons and an optical sight, one can hope to suppress enemy firing points. So the German infantry from Fuchs will be put out of a machine gun long before it can get close to effective firing range.
          2. Elturisto 8 January 2020 10: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            What's inconvenient? Is it more convenient to get out of the BMP-1,2 landing?
            1. Saxahorse 8 January 2020 23: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ElTuristo
              What's inconvenient? Is it more convenient to get out of the BMP-1,2 landing?

              You forget that an infantry fighting vehicle is a front line vehicle, it usually chooses a landing point, and as a rule, faces an enemy. A conveyor (BTR) is a support vehicle, and fire contact is always an unpleasant surprise for him. The less such surprises the better.
              1. Elturisto 9 January 2020 08: 36 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                You don’t need to write any nonsense already. The complete set of motorized rifle formations in the USSR BMP or BTR depended on the state of the road network and the geology of the region, functionally both types of equipment occupied one niche.
                1. Saxahorse 10 January 2020 01: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: ElTuristo
                  The configuration of motorized rifle formations in the USSR BMP or BTR depended on the state of the road network and the geology of the region; both types of equipment functionally occupied one niche.

                  Especially from geology of course. laughing

                  That BMP and armored personnel carriers and armor and weapons radically different.
                  "No need to write nonsense already." (with)
                  1. Elturisto 10 January 2020 09: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yeah, yeah, they were just so radically different.
                    For you, the news is that the density of the soil, which determines the mobility of equipment in the territory, depends on the geological structure of a particular section of the earth's crust, is this news?
        2. LastPS 8 January 2020 22: 15 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          In general, you are right, the side hatch on the BTR-80 is an excellent solution specifically for the BTR. Under fire, at least you can choose which board to land.

          But that’s why that’s probably why no one suffers from such addiction and any seedy APC has hatches from above and behind.
          1. Saxahorse 8 January 2020 23: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: LastPS
            But that’s why that’s probably why no one suffers from such addiction and any seedy APC has hatches from above and behind.

            Apparently this is why the most seedy BMP-3 has hatches for landing and in the front too. Why worry? It also turned out cheaper.
          2. Elturisto 9 January 2020 08: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            That's exactly what the seedy ... such as fuchs ...
    4. mamonthful 8 January 2020 20: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Yes, he is better than any serial Soviet / Russian BMP. Until now, they are only dreaming of something similar, so that they can swim and the rear ramp is.
  5. Klingon 7 January 2020 10: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    and we have little animals, and they ride and swim and even fly (those who are supposed to swim) and glide over the water, artiodactyls laughing
  6. monster 7 January 2020 11: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The most beautiful of the zoo is Fennichek. Awesome car. wink
    1. Zaurbek 7 January 2020 11: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Half BRMD, half hammer.
  7. Elturisto 7 January 2020 15: 30 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    what else is there relevance-Machine shit, compared with the BTR-80, of course.
    With this arrangement, deployment of any serious weapons is impossible. An open turret at the end of the 14,5th century? 80 KPVT installed in the BTR-1 tower will make a sieve from this wagon from a distance of XNUMX km.
    This is not to mention the mass of 17 tons, for comparison, the same BTR-80 has less than 14, and 15 tons weighs a variant with a 30 mm cannon. In addition, with the indicated weight and size of the hull, this wagon will float like an ax.
    1. prodi 7 January 2020 17: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      just do not have to absolutize any one layout.
      With the average location of the MTO, it is quite difficult to locate a sufficiently powerful combat module along with the landing.
      And with the rear location of the MTO, it is also difficult to arrange the landing along with any combat module.
      As for a particular machine, it seems a mistake to have a passage between the airborne assault and command and control departments. For an armored personnel carrier, it would be necessary to put the in-line engine on its side and place (optionally) the rear of the box, so that a modest remote combat module was placed above it: a KPTV with a PKT and a pair of ATGMs in armored boxes on the sides, this is enough.
      Well, the three axes are clearly not enough
      1. Elturisto 8 January 2020 10: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "And with the rear location of the MTO, it is also difficult to place the landing along with any combat module." - Why, what?
        1. prodi 8 January 2020 12: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Is not it? Below BTR-87




    2. garri-lin 7 January 2020 18: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      By weight there is a nuance. The BTR80 does not carry an armor-piercing rifle caliber into the side. It is written about the fox that it holds. Otkda and a difference.
      1. Elturisto 8 January 2020 10: 18 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Yes, yes, it doesn’t hold ... where does such confidence come from? What were the comparative bombardments under the same conditions? Dushmans were fools in Afghanistan, right? Before broadcasting lies, you first need to think ...
        1. garri-lin 8 January 2020 11: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Lol Ordinary BTP80 on board even pierces 7,62 × 39 armor piercing. At close range. 7,62 × 54 takes without problems with the average. Comparative tests are not necessary. What does the Dushman in Afghanistan have to do with it? Do not clarify? It’s not clear a bit.
          1. Elturisto 8 January 2020 19: 34 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Son, go teach the ballistics. The Dushmans were operating in Anfield with English rifles in Afghanistan, the Boer on the local cartridge was 7,69X56, something was not heard about the holes in the BTR-70 or 80, the BMD-1 was full of holes. Once again, where are the woods about the comparability of the armored resistance of the BTR-80 and the sausage booth?
            1. garri-lin 8 January 2020 19: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              He himself shot at the armored vehicles. Automatic breaks. By 70th. The cartridge with a black head seemed to be. Half a lifetime ago it was. But the five did not penetrate the BRDM. Behind the covers behind which the fuel tanks stand. They shot at them. It didn’t break through. And according to the Fox, I did not say, but suggested that the difference in weight is due to a better reservation.
              1. Elturisto 9 January 2020 08: 55 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It is only necessary to replace the phrase “BTR” with the phrase “rusty, burned and shattered from different types of weapons before this is the skeleton, and everything will be ok, right?”
                You can assume anything. The tiger also weighed 55 tons, and the IS-2 46 tons.
                For example, Fuchs propeller drive drives weigh more. Well, it’s stupidity to lighten the protection of the lower frontal part due to cutouts for headlights.
                1. garri-lin 9 January 2020 10: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I will not change the phrase. For the APC on which it was shot was the APC. Not burnt and not shot. Just with a dead transmission. From him, as a donor, everything was taken off almost to the naked body. The armor will not become softer from this.
    3. Po-tzan 7 January 2020 18: 45 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: ElTuristo
      what else is there relevance-Machine shit, compared with the BTR-80, of course.


      The car has a rear door and this alone makes it better than the 60/70/80/90 armored personnel carrier. In Naz it only appeared on the Boomerang.
      1. Elturisto 8 January 2020 10: 21 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Yes, the door is behind ... it’s great to add some mood when the KPVT bullet will leak this tin can ...
    4. Vladimir_2U 7 January 2020 19: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      SKOT Czechs decently able to arm, but there are 4 axles, and the barn naturally.
  8. bk0010 7 January 2020 17: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    That's why they put 7.62 on the equipment? You can at least put 12.7 (or better 14.5): you don’t need to carry it, it’s not much more expensive, but the range and strength increase significantly. There is an opportunity to keep the enemy infantry at a distance greater than the effective range of infantry weapons (well, except for heavy snipers and ATGMs, of course).
  9. Private-K 7 January 2020 18: 00 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Ultimately, the maximum height of the armored personnel carrier was 2300 mm, which is quite comparable to the peer - the BTR-70 Soviet-made.

    For Fuchs, this is the height on the roof of the hull, and for the BTR-70 - the height on the roof of the turret!
    The height of the hull inside Fuchs is approximately 30 cm greater than in the BTR-70.
  10. honest people 8 January 2020 11: 30 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Interesting car!