Additional protection for light armored vehicles: from BTR-82 to "Kurganets"

BTR-82AM armored personnel carrier without additional protection. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In a real battle, any armored vehicle can become a target for powerful anti-tank weapons, incl. cars of light classes. Due to the limited durability of standard protection, such machines are exposed to special risks and therefore require additional means. In recent years, the Russian defense industry has offered several options for additional protection of existing and future light armored vehicles.

Screens and grilles

The development of additional means of protection can be considered on the example of recent projects for the modernization of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle. Its frontal protection is built on a spaced-apart pattern using aluminum and steel sheets, which provides resistance to 30-mm automatic cannon shells. Aluminum armor on other projections protects against large-caliber bullets. This does not provide protection against large-caliber projectiles, as well as cumulative ammunition.

In the past, exhibitions have demonstrated various options for additional protection of the BMP-3. In particular, the dynamic protection "Cactus" and the active "Arena" were used. However, such modernization options were not without drawbacks. For example, DZ increased the size and weight of the car, and also did not allow swimming.

Experimental BMP-2 with dynamic protection "Cactus". Photo Oruzhie.info

The development of hinged booking modules and additional screens was carried out. Thus, Kurganmashzavod offers its customers a set of hinged armor screens for installation on BMP-3 sides. The shield provides protection against a 12,7mm bullet, but does not interfere with swimming and does not make maintenance difficult.

An interesting variant of additional protection was shown at the Army-2015 forum. This upgrade option provides for the installation of side armor hull screens. At the same time, lattice screens are installed on the wave-reflecting shield, on the screens and on the tower. Such equipment significantly increases the weight of the car, but almost does not impair the running characteristics and allows you to swim. At the same time, resistance to ballistic threats increases and protection against the most common cumulative ammunition appears.

In the future, a similar version of the BMP-3 was demonstrated several times at exhibitions. In addition, the upgraded machines became the subject of serial production contracts. So, in 2018, BMP-3 with armored screens and grilles were seen in the Iraqi army. At the Army-2019 forum, it was reported about the imminent signing of a contract for equipment for the Russian army - infantry fighting vehicles with screens. It soon became known that the Ministry of Defense had ordered 168 of these new vehicles. Also, the media reported on the beginning of equipping the existing equipment with screens in the units.

Modern version of modernization with the installation of screens of different types. Photo Wikimedia Commons

At the last "Army-2020" showed an interesting version of the deep modernization of the BMP-3 called "Manul". One of the innovations of this project is the armored side screens covering the entire side projection of the hull. In this case, the grates are not used.

Modernization on wheels

Domestic wheeled armored personnel carriers have long been justly criticized due to the relatively low level of protection. Rolled armor no more than 10 mm thick (for BTR-80) can only withstand bullets of normal calibers; large-caliber rifle weapon, as well as anti-tank grenades and missiles are guaranteed to penetrate such protection. In the last serial project of the BTR-82, measures were taken to increase durability in the form of additional armor plates and anti-splinter lining, but the hull was not radically altered.

Last year, the "Military Industrial Company" presented a new version of strengthening the protection of an armored personnel carrier, such a vehicle was called the BTR-82AT. Armor plates of various shapes and sizes are fixed on the inspection hatches of the frontal sheet, on the lower frontal part and cheekbones. There is an air gap between the standard armor and additional plates, which gives the effect of spaced protection. The upper part of the sides is supplemented with new box blocks, the lower part is covered with curly sheets. Grilles of various shapes and sizes are placed on top of the additional screens of the case.

BTR-82AT with additional screens. Photo "VPK"

The developer claims that the BTR-82AT is now protected from large-caliber small arms. In addition, lattice screens drastically reduce the effectiveness of any cumulative anti-tank weapons. As a result of the modernization, the combat weight exceeded 17,2 tons - the screens made the main contribution to this.

At the "Army-2020" showed a new version of the BTR-82AT, equipped with a different combat module. At the same time, additional protection has practically not changed and still includes armor plates and lattice screens.

The advantages of the BTR-82AT project or other similar developments are obvious. Domestic armored personnel carriers need to strengthen protection, and such projects allow increasing survivability by relatively simple methods. However, the AT project has not progressed beyond exhibitions so far. Perhaps in the near future it will be accepted for the modernization of existing equipment.

Prospective projects

To replace the light armored vehicles of the existing models, several new models are now being created. These projects are being developed according to modern tactical and technical requirements and must initially correspond to the actual challenges and threats. Among other things, this affects the protection in general and its individual components.

Armored vehicle "Boomerang". The outer surface of the body is formed by overhead armor modules. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com

According to the available data, promising armored vehicles "Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25" receive hulls with combined protection in priority areas. Additional modular-type panels or other attachments are also provided. This is about integrating parts into an overall structure. Thus, the outer parts of the armor on the wheeled Boomerang look like a natural part of the vehicle. On "Kurganets" other large-size hinged blocks are used - they provide increased protection and increase buoyancy.

Curiously, both machines, unlike other designs, do not have lattice screens. An additional increase in survivability and stability is provided by a complex of active protection. There are reports on the possibility of using compatible types of remote sensing data.

Thus, promising armored vehicles for infantry of the "light" class receive advanced ballistic, anti-cumulative and mine protection, but in its architecture it differs markedly from that used in other projects. Kurganets-25 and Boomerang are being developed from scratch, and their creators are able to initially incorporate the necessary technologies into the design, rather than supplementing the finished product with new components. The advantages of this approach are obvious.

BMP "Kurganets-25" - the vehicle initially carries mounted blocks. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Old and new

The Russian army and a number of foreign armed forces continue to operate the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles of a number of modifications and various armored personnel carriers of the BTR-80/82 family. The production of such equipment also does not stop, and as it continues, new solutions and components are introduced. In addition, development work is being completed on two new platforms, which will then go into series.

All these circumstances suggest how the protection of combat armored vehicles, their crews and landing forces will be ensured in the foreseeable future. BMP-3 and BTR-80/82 will remain in service for a long time. Since they no longer fully meet modern requirements, one should expect the widespread introduction of new protection components - armor and lattice screens. Also, the long-awaited appearance of a massive KAZ cannot be ruled out.

The newer "Kurganets-25" and "Boomerang" initially receive a fairly powerful standard protection, supplemented by attachments, and can also carry other means. Thus, they already in the original configuration compare favorably with their predecessors, and further upgrades will only increase this gap.

Additional means of protection that increase the overall level of resistance to various threats are gradually being consolidated in the field of light armored vehicles for motorized riflemen. They are introduced when modernizing old samples, and are also used when developing new ones. Such processes are gaining momentum and obviously affect the survivability and combat effectiveness of equipment.

Comments

[Same lech]

The influence on the developers of the war in Syria and Iraq is felt ... it would be nice to connect the experience of comrades from Israel ... to supplement with KAZ ... Windbreakers or Raincoats.

[Zaurbek]

those. after Afghanistan, Chechnya was not felt .... and then it was combed?

[Aleksandr1971]

I agree with the question.
Why the hell did they not think of this in the 60-70s, when our armored vehicles were in the Middle East? In the 80s, when our soldiers were killed in Afghanistan?

And the answer is that the fact is that Soviet technology went to the Middle East for free. And in Afghanistan, the USSR Ministry of Defense did not care about the dying conscripts. But now it's about money! Armored vehicles must be sold. And buyers won't want to pay for collective coffins. So I had to dodge cheaply - put screens and boxes. Maybe so it will be possible to sell.

[alexmach]

And in Afghanistan, the USSR Ministry of Defense did not care about the dying conscripts

Come on? But what about the "Avgan" BMP-2D? A striking indicator of how it was all the same?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zaurbek

those. after Afghanistan, Chechnya was not felt .... and then it was combed?

Ага.
Neither Afghanistan nor Chechnya have used ATGMs so actively.

And reconnaissance and infantry protect much more effectively from grenade launchers.

[Zaurbek]

And here and there the main losses were from mines and explosive devices .... and RPGs. And here and there the fighters drove in cars, not cars. And here and there, the Urals and Kamaz were not armored .... For good, in the Chechen, all this had to be fixed.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zaurbek

And here and there, the main losses were from mines and weapons ... and RPGs

Once again, in our division, I do not remember a single case of BMP / BTR / MT-LB losses from RPG fire

Quote: Zaurbek

And here and there the fighters drove in cars, not cars.

Another reason. Lattice screens make it difficult to ride on armor. So I'm afraid they would just be filmed in Afghanistan.

[Zaurbek]

from mines and VU .... and RPG

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zaurbek

from mines and VU.

... the bars won't protect you.

They also protect from RPGs with an effectiveness of only 0.5 - 0.6

[Zaurbek]

But protection against VU and Ming also requires design changes.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zaurbek

But protection against VU and Ming also requires design changes.

It requires the normal work of sappers

Protection from mines and IEDs of the available light BT technology of those times could not be provided.
There were no "changes in design" needed, but completely new machines to imitate the South African.

[garri-lin]

In 98, I saw how the boys were taught to make mines from powdered RDX with a primitive funnel. Or with several multidirectional ones. No South African technology will protect against such a mine. It was in Abkhazia.

[Lopatov]

We are discussing Afghanistan. And there the bearded did not experience problems with supply thanks to the West and China. And they had nothing to rivet homemade products.

[garri-lin]

I'm just talking about mines. Mine resistance is often indicated in kilograms to describe the technique. But there is a huge difference in how the mine is laid. A primitive wide-focus funnel made of several layers of sheet metal / galvanized / car body sheets will break almost any bottom. Even though it's not too much.

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

A primitive wide-focus funnel made of several layers of sheet metal / galvanized / car body sheets will break almost any bottom.

Yugoslavian anti-bottom TMRP-6 penetrates 40 cm of armor. And the South Africans came up with protection from it back in the 90s

[garri-lin]

She's kind of ordinary. And not 40 cm but 40-60 mm at a height of up to 1 meter from the mine. Due to the lever, it could be installed as an anti-board against light vehicles. Directional blast rather than cumulative blast.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: garri-lin

Directional blast rather than cumulative blast.

Now anti-tank mines are made on the basis of the "shock core". And his penetration is about half the caliber, and the range is up to hundreds of meters. Nothing prevents you from burying a mine with a caliber of a bucket once there is 8 kg of explosives ..

[garri-lin]

I was talking about the mid-90s and handicraft production in almost field conditions.

[Zementbomber]

"Armored sets" for KAMAZ - in the OKSV in the DRA were massively based on the experience of the first years of the war.

[Zementbomber]

In the First Chechen National Army, the CRI used several hundred different ATGMs with an arsenal of several. thousand ATGM. Quite a decent amount in terms of the scale of the battles.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zementbomber

In the First Chechen National Army, the CRI used several hundred different ATGMs with an arsenal of several. thousand ATGM. Quite a decent amount in terms of the scale of the battles.

During the entire second war, he witnessed the launch of two ATGMs. Both times to nowhere

[Zementbomber]

I cannot comment in any way. The man of one of my good friends was deputy in 1994-1995. com. PT companies of the Presidential Guard of the Republic. From his words (koi I check not I can) - had a platoon of "Competitions" and two platoons of "Malyutka-P" with a standard ATGM kit. And burned not alone tank feds. Although some enchanting successes in the fight against federal armored vehicles - in his own words - the National Army can not boast not could.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zementbomber

had a platoon of "Competitions" and two platoons of "Malyutka-P"

"Baby-P"?
I'm afraid I did ...
In the North Caucasus Military District under the late USSR, they began to slowly replace "Contests" with "Storms"

[Zementbomber]

Kalle mUmkum (untranslatable Arabic-Egyptian; one of the approximate meanings - "everything is possible"). "Nowhere do they lie so much as in the War, on the Zone, on Hunting and Fishing!" (C) But in any case, the presence of "Competitions" in the CRI is confirmed by official Russian sources since the beginning of the First Chechen War, but nothing is said about the "Storms" among the guys.

[Lopatov]

The question is not about the absence of 9P133 in the troops.
I don’t argue about 148.

Quote: Zementbomber

but the guys don't say anything about "Storms".

Do you know how much these "guys" have Slavic blood on their hands? I have encountered many genocide survivors who managed to escape. Fortunately, he served in Vladik ...
And I’ll give you a hint: under the USSR, a significant part of the local oil industry was provided with personnel from Ivano-Frankivsk. That is, they cut and raped not only Russians.

[Zementbomber]

I know. Major of the CRI National Army, whose shoulder straps were personally attached to the shoulders of the now deceased Aslan, Sij dolu Qonaxa cavalier, who later became a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, Tanya Chornovol, is a good friend of mine since we were in the Komsomol age. And about the dark side of this War - she also told me more than enough and colorfully. And something decently jarred even me - with my well, very "specific" Congo experience. But we are not here like ethics and "moral character", but discussing tactics and weapons ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zementbomber

And about the dark side of this War

Do not confuse, the genocide of the Slavs took place there before the war.

Quote: Zementbomber

But we are not here like ethics and "moral character", but discussing tactics and weapons ...

I don't call them "guys". At first, bestial cruelty to the defenseless, then hysterical screams "we were attacked"

[Zementbomber]

Do not confuse, the genocide of the Slavs took place there before the war.

To be precise, ethnic cleansing.

I don't call them "guys".

Well, who are they? Non-binary? Or transgenic?

At first, bestial cruelty to the defenseless, then hysterical screams "we were attacked"

Welcome to the World of the East! For the type of societies in which such "cute" stories as the "Nanking Massacre" regularly happened in the order of things, and the execution of the "red tulip" was applied to the prisoners - nothing really surprising.
And on the second subparagraph ... It is no coincidence that the now deceased Dzhokhar spoke with admiration about the still alive one (which, by the way, am surprised very much - your people could have hurried in advance, however, a "status" figure) Movladi Udugova: "You - our Dr. Goebbels! "

[Lopatov]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

The influence on the developers of the war in Syria and Iraq is felt

These lattice screens have been around for a long time. Back in 98-99, I remember, they were lying in parks. Factory made with high quality welded seams. Apparently, the remains of the "luxury" of the first Chechen. They were simply not needed by and large.
Here in our division, I do not remember a single case of the loss of BMP / BTR / MT-LB from fire from a grenade launcher or ATGM
Tanks, yes, they "caught" regularly.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Spade

These lattice screens have been around for a long time.

Even earlier, if you recall the bed nets dating back to 1944-45. They didn't help at all.
And from these, such as factory welding, was it? Have you had reliable cases when the screen definitely helped?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Saxahorse

Have you had reliable cases when the screen definitely helped?

Did not come across.
But theoretically it should work.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Spade

But theoretically it should work.

In theory, just "shouldn't." The rocket fires on these gratings, and of course it penetrates along with the gratings. I dug up a bunch of videos, looked for examples, and did not find anything reliable. And from the practice of friends, no one ever remembered confirmed.

It looks like all these "nerves" lattices only help. But dynamic protection, that yes, really beats off the godfather.

[psiho117]

Quote: Saxahorse

In theory, just "shouldn't." The rocket fires on these gratings, and of course it penetrates along with the gratings.

Must-must. Old rockets (of which at least eat booty around the world) simply break on the bars, in half of the cases without even firing. Newer ones are really 50/50 here, lucky or not.
If you're lucky - godfather. the funnel of the grenade deforms or cuts, the jet will not form or will not form well.
In general, protection from babays with the RPG-7, modern means of destruction do not give a damn about the bars.

Quote: Saxahorse

Even earlier, if you remember the bed nets from 1944-45

There were no bed nets, that's a myth. It was factory protection, it just looked similar.
And yes, they didn't really help.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: psiho117

Must-must. Old rockets (of which at least eat booty in the world) simply break on the bars, in half of the cases without even firing.

Have you seen this? I haven't found

And why should they break? The grate is not a jidai sword, thick. The cone of the fairing on the grille is deformed and braked. The piezoelectric element also works. And once it worked, then the jet went. I even saw how the rocket flew sideways into the lattice (it went somersault) and still worked. Once I saw how the rocket silently scattered, from two or three dozen shots .. But the operators honestly admitted that they were shooting from the warehouses with delay.

[psiho117]

Quote: Saxahorse

Have you seen this? I haven't found

It seems like the bars work exactly against old PG-7 and PG-9, in which a piezoelectric element is placed in the head part - when meeting with an obstacle, there is a chance of deformation of the head part, and rupture of the electrical contact of the piezo crystal with a conductive cone and a grenade fuse, we get the destruction of the warhead of the grenade without undermining its head, when the lattices must be strictly defined ...
And it seems like it is still ineffective, without a second screen BEYOND the grill - in case the warhead is still undermining.
And it seems like the APC will still pierce - especially ours, tin It is best to put the grates on the tanks, it makes sense there.
Xs is shorter I, too, have not seen specific video evidence.
I came to the conclusion that the opinion about the effectiveness of lattice screens on armored personnel carriers is based on a very specific case, with very specific grilles against which ammunition of a strictly defined type was used. Possibly even with defects / improper storage conditions.

[psiho117]

Still, the people at war say that the bars work. Against a very specific range of ammunition, but they work.
For example, our interviewees said that "There are anti-tank weapons, but they are effective against old models of armored vehicles, modernized armored personnel carriers with grilles pose a very serious problem, fighters complain about the lack of tandem ammunition"(colonelcassad had).

The website of the Research Institute of Steel states:
The RE installation provides protection against anti-tank grenades of the PG-9 type in any course angles of fire with a probability of 0,5-0,6.
The mass of the RE with attachment points:
for the T-55 tank - 550 kg
for the T-72 tank - 570 kg
Time of installation of screens by crews - 3 hours.

The efficiency of the cutting grates is also discussed by experts from large companies such as Nexter and BAE Systems.

Think about it after this ... Can't they all lie?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: psiho117

Think about it after this ... Can't they all lie?

Alas, they can. You can't sell it. I even saw an advertisement for soft nets, with weights of some sort, very convenient according to the manufacturer, and even a cartoon is attached to the advertisement, how these nylon strings wonderfully cut the steel fairing of a grenade .. :(

The American marines somehow even swore that on the contrary, grenades that flew past were clinging to the bars, or they had to jerk on a tangent. Well, this 0.5-0.6 is very similar to the probability of meeting a dinosaur in the kitchen. 50% of the same! Either you will meet or not!

In general, at first, from the words of the developers of the grenade launchers, I doubted. They laughed loudly at such a question .. So since then, I have not found any confirmation of the benefits of gratings.

[psiho117]

Quote: Saxahorse

So since then, I have not found any confirmation of the benefits of gratings.

I asked around here the other day
In short, this is the case - lattices, it turns out, have several functions.
The first function: really - to break the warhead, interrupting or hindering the formation of godfathers. jets.
Second function:
Cause the premature operation of the warhead, and the early formation of kum. jets
But at the same time - just gratings, without armor screen - bullshit. An armor screen is needed, just then we will observe what is shown in the picture

deformed godfather. the funnel prematurely emits an unstable jet, which, passing the path of air-armor screen-air-side armor, finally destabilizes, and this is what turns out:

Research Institute of Steel persistently writes:

The installation of combined (armored + lattice) screens provides increased protection against melee weapons.
Protection against grenades like PG-9S in any course angles of fire (important!) with a probability of 0,6 for the BMP-2 and 0,5 for the BTR-80

That is, not "into the side", not into the roof - namely, at the course angles of fire - in this case, there will be enough space between the grate and the armor to destabilize the godfather. jets.
And the last, no less important function, which we ALL forgot about:

Based on the experience of the fighting of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, the installation of combined screens eliminated armor breaks hulls and turrets of the BMP and significantly reduced the size of the breaks in the armor of the armored personnel carrier when hit by cumulative grenades

Research Institute of Steel indicates:
for the BTR-80 equipped with combined screens, the probability of breaking armor when hit by RPG grenades is not more than 0,2
Breaks in the BMP armor when hit by grenades are excluded.
Agree, there is still a difference - a hole from the kuma, or a hole in the board from the high-explosive effect, with all the attendant ones - the flow of a shock wave, the formation of secondary fragments, etc.
That's something like ...

[Saxahorse]

Quote: psiho117

Research Institute of Steel indicates:

Judging by the first picture, they are counting on hitting a tick in a tick, such damage to the funnel as in the picture is possible if the cone almost entirely passes between the gratings and the deformation begins right at the edge of the funnel. This is possible, but it is extremely difficult to believe in 0.5-0.6 .. On the other hand, such a grid will work strictly for one rocket with one specific diameter, the rocket will be thicker or thinner, this effect will not be.

But about the reminder of the high-explosive effect, you are definitely right! Many people underestimate it, but for light armored vehicles, this is serious destruction with guaranteed death of the entire crew.

Here the grill with the screen can definitely help!

[psiho117]

Quote: Saxahorse

On the other hand, such a grating will work strictly for one rocket with one specific diameter, the rocket will be thicker or thinner, this effect will not be.

Just about, as I wrote - strictly defined PG-7 and PG-9.
In other cases - guaranteed reduction of the high-explosive effect, and probabilistic - destabilization of the cumulative. jets.
The probability will vary greatly from case to case.

[The leader of the Redskins]

The first photo, after all, is a variant of strengthening the BMP 3, not 2 ...
So where is "cactus".

[GREG68]

Eh, we have everything. And the heads are bright and the designs are good and necessary. The only question is when will all this go to the troops en masse. It's a shame for the state

[Kot_Kuzya]

There is no need to engage in nonsense, light armored vehicles are light for that reason, that their armor, in principle, cannot protect against anti-tank weapons. Even modern tanks are vulnerable to ATGMs, grenade launchers and OBPS, what can we say about armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles! All this fuss with strengthening the protection of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles reminds of the adventures of the times of Tukhach with his crazy ideas about universal divisional guns, teletanks, the release of one hundred thousand tankettes, DRP, polygonal shells, etc. Here you can see a lot of money in these ravings with the strengthening of armor, so this topic arises regularly. If the military wants an BMP with protection like a tank, then this BMP must have a tank platform and a corresponding weight of 50-60 tons, it is fundamentally impossible to create vehicles with protection like a tank on the BMP-3 and BTR-82 platform, the laws of physics and mechanics must be canceled it is impossible.

[prodi]

the most logical is to increase the thickness of the armor back at the landing seats located along the side, but this is also not suitable for the BTR-80 and BMP-3

[Lopatov]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

It is fundamentally impossible to create vehicles with protection like a tank on the BMP-3 and BTR-82 platforms, the laws of physics and mechanics cannot be canceled.

"Protection" from what?
If we are talking about protection against cumulative ammunition, including guided munitions, it is quite possible
If we are talking about protection from "kinetics" - it is limitedly possible. Only promising KAZ, and only "large" ammunition. At this stage, it will not be possible to cope with BOPS of automatic small-caliber guns

However, kinetics must be protected by distance, high situational awareness, and ammunition that can be used out of line of sight.

[Zementbomber]

In this case, the problem and the task is that light combat armored vehicles must reliably protect in any realistically conceivable situation from small arms of infantry and small arms of light armored vehicles of the enemy, + from his light infantry direct-fire weapons and hand anti-personnel grenades, as well as sabotage, anti-personnel, anti-vehicle and anti-tank (in the latter case: at the cost of disabling the vehicle itself - but with good chances of full survival for the crew and the landing party). + from fragments and shock waves of so-called ammunition. "medium armament".

[Kot_Kuzya]

... light combat armored vehicles must reliably protect in any realistically conceivable situation from small arms of infantry and small arms of light armored vehicles of the enemy, + from his light infantry direct-fire weapons and anti-personnel hand grenades, as well as sabotage, anti-personnel, anti-vehicle and anti-tank grenades (in the latter case: at the cost the destruction of the vehicle itself - but with good chances of full survival for the crew and the landing party). + from fragments and shock waves of so-called ammunition. "medium weapons

Yea Yea. And she must also fly, dive, swim, and be invisible.

[Zementbomber]

Well - if you are ready to get into the BMD-2, go on the attack on it and turn with it into a lattice-leaky sieve in the form of a leaky lattice - I congratulate you on the successful choice of the way to get the Darwin Prize!

[Servisinzhener]

I remember the words of Admiral John Fisher about battlecruisers: - "Speed ​​is your armor." And for light armored vehicles, this is only its correct use. And if you have a body kit as described in the article, you may be tempted to poke into a more dangerous place with guaranteed fatal consequences.

[Zementbomber]

What is characteristic - the concept of battle cruisers (as well as all other "linear-light" and "Elsvik" cruisers, "armored combat ship" Admiral Makarov, etc., etc.) in general, and especially its "Fisher variant" - turned out to be completely untenable. And precisely because of their weak body armor.

[Servisinzhener]

In my opinion, this happened due to the fact that battle cruisers were used as classic dreadnoughts, which negated all their advantages (stronger than any cruiser, faster than any battleship). The same situation with light armored vehicles acquired additional armor.

[Zementbomber]

If you would have explained: How in a squadron battle, in which the main force of the squadrons on both sides are dreadnought battleships, or when a LinCR (single or squadron) attacking a convoy guarded by dreadnought battleships - a dreadnought battleship can avoid a combat clash with dreadnought battleships ?? - it would have been just really good ...

[Servisinzhener]

In no way, and therefore it was better for them not to participate in this.

[Zementbomber]

That's just - precisely for these tasks - they were created ...

[Servisinzhener]

Returning to the topic of the article. I looked at the video from the NKR here and I want to say that there will be no sense without KAZ.

[Zaurbek]

Why is the BTR-87 theme not being developed? With a front MTO? The technologies are the same, the benefits are obvious ... The manufacturer is the same. Or the BTR-82 only from the BTR-80 repair cap?

[Zementbomber]

Rolled armor no more than 10 mm thick (for BTR-80)

Before 12 mm actually. Although the essence of the matter does not change much, yes.

[Zementbomber]

The developer claims that the BTR-82AT is now protected from large-caliber small arms.

Exactly exactly? A single BT-bullet KPVT penetrates 300-mm rolled armor plate of standard Soviet steel and technology recipes at a right angle to 45 m. And KPVT hits armored targets in practice with a long line ...

[psiho117]

Quote: Zementbomber

Exactly?

means that the forehead holds a 12,7mm non-armor-piercing bullet, from a distance of more than 500m.
Yes, a dubious consolation, but it never happened before.

[Zementbomber]

Well, if you judge so - then yes, of course. Everything is at least a little better than it was.

[Victor Tsenin]

> Experimental BMP-2 with dynamic protection "Cactus".
In the picture BMP-3, correct.

[Ge2an]

In Russia, as it has recently been established, only at the exhibition, everything is new ... And in the army, only dachas for the bosses, new ones are being introduced ..

[Ge2an]

How many different versions were there, so what? Not one did not go into the series, the guys in Karabakh went to canned cans, as they went to Avgan on such and now ... It is necessary to put the rulers, in this old city, but the BTR 82 ... And send them to war. not a forum only show-off, new technology, but how to war, young guys are sent to slaughter, in these old banks .. And where is this new technology, ??? Here I am about this, nafig our ruler is not interested in spending money on the new, you can bury everyone in the old one.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Woke up after 30 years. All these additional armor screens and anti-cumulative lattice screens had to be installed on our armored vehicles even after the war in Afghanistan.