Military Review

State and prospects of the fleet of armored personnel carriers

134

BTR-80 - the basis of the fleet of domestic armored personnel carriers


The main transport and means of fire support for the Russian infantry are wheeled armored personnel carriers. There are several types of such equipment in service with certain features, and new models are expected to arrive in the near future. The overall quantitative and qualitative composition has certain features that can affect the real combat capability.

Technology from the past


Now in service are several types of armored personnel carriers, not counting their modifications. At the same time, even outdated vehicles, such as the BTR-60 and BTR-70, are officially registered in the troops. According to The Military Balance reference books in recent years, there are about 800 units. BTR-60 and approx. 200 units BTR-70. In addition, up to 4 thousand machines of these types are on storage bases.

The main model of its class in the army is currently the newer BTR-80 (A). Such equipment in the amount of more than 1500-1700 units. is available from the ground forces, the marines and other structures. The overwhelming majority of such equipment belongs to the basic modification with machine gun armament. The number of cannon BTR-80A does not exceed 100-150 units.

The ground forces include several dozen motorized rifle regiments and brigades. Some of these formations are equipped with armored personnel carriers, others use infantry fighting vehicles. According to the state, the regimental (brigade) set includes more than a hundred armored personnel carriers. Thus, the drill equipment makes it possible to ensure the service and combat work of a significant number of units, and with the help of the reserve, new units can be deployed.


BTR-82A new construction

BTR-60 and BTR-70 are outdated in terms of their characteristics. The newer BTR-80 (A) is better in all respects, but it has also been criticized. By modern standards, this vehicle has insufficient booking and cannot receive additional protection, and the layout does not ensure the safety of the landing force when dismounting. The machine gun armament of the basic modification is insufficient for a number of combat missions.

Modernization project


Taking into account the shortcomings of the BTR-80 at the end of the two thousandth, an updated BTR-82 project was created. It provided for the upgrade of the power plant, the addition of standard armor with new components, the use of an improved set of weapons, etc. As noted at one time, as a result of such modernization, the effectiveness of the armored personnel carrier has doubled.

In 2011, at the Arzamas Machine-Building Plant (operated by the Military Industrial Company), the serial production of the BTR-82A armored personnel carriers began, these were new vehicles. Soon, they launched the modernization of the BTR-80 cash according to the BTR-82AM project. The first batches of equipment were sent to the troops and mastered at the beginning of the two thousandth years. In 2013, the BTR-82A (M) was officially put into service. It is curious that the army decided to purchase only cannon armored vehicles. However, the machine-gun version of the BTR-82 did not go unnoticed. Under the designation BTR-82V, it entered service with the Russian Guard.

The production of new BTR-82A has been carried out since the beginning of the last decade under several contracts, each of which provides for the supply of dozens of pieces of equipment. In 2014 and 2016. there were two orders for large-scale modernization of the cash BTR-80 to the state of "82AM". New and updated equipment was delivered to various units and formations of the ground forces.


BTR-82AM, rebuilt from the car of the previous model

The exact number of BTR-82A (M) has not been officially disclosed, but there are different estimates. So, The Military Balance indicates that at the beginning of 2020, the ground forces had 1 vehicles of two modifications. The Marine Corps counted 661 units. and 20 units. in the airborne troops. In the past, official reports have referred to the rearmament of several units and formations.

Thus, the total production of BTR-82A (M) in recent years has exceeded the number of available BTR-80. According to various sources, the production of such equipment continues, both from scratch and by rebuilding old machines. Consequently, the number of BTR-82 of all versions will increase in the future, and the number of BTR-80 should be gradually reduced. The proportion of vehicles of different types in the total fleet will change accordingly.

Measures are being taken to further develop the BTR-80/82 line. The original design of the BTR-82 provides additional protection against shrapnel and mines, but leaves the vehicle vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. Last year, a prototype of the BTR-82AT armored personnel carrier was presented without such problems. This project proposes to equip the body with overhead elements and lattice screens. In addition, it is possible to use both a standard cannon-machine gun turret and new combat modules.

New generation


It is well known that even the most modern BTR-82 in terms of some key decisions goes back to the long-obsolete BTR-60, and this leads to a number of serious problems. To get rid of them, fundamentally new models of armored vehicles for the infantry are being developed. The future replacement for modern wheeled armored personnel carriers should be the K-16 vehicle based on the Boomerang platform, which is being developed by the Military Industrial Company.


BTR-82AT with hinged protection and a new combat module

The development of a unified platform and an armored personnel carrier based on it started at the beginning of the tenth years. In 2013, the finished model was first shown to a narrow circle of leaders of the military department and the country, and in 2015 the first public demonstration took place. Development work continues to this day. As reported in recent years, it is now about optimizing design, manufacturing technology and cost.

According to recent reports, several experimental K-16 armored personnel carriers and K-17 infantry fighting vehicles have already been built on the Boomerang platform, but their exact numbers are unknown. Using this technique, preliminary tests were carried out. Last year, the assembly of a new batch of prototypes for state tests began, the start of which was scheduled for the summer of 2020. These events will end next year, and preparations for the series have already begun.

Despite the general atmosphere of secrecy, one can already imagine how the promising K-16 is better than the existing BTR-80/82. By increasing the size and permissible weight, it was possible to use more powerful bulletproof, projectile and anti-mine booking. A wider range of combat modules with machine gun, cannon and rocket armament is also offered. Increases the safety of the landing force when traveling and when dismounting.

The required number of "Boomerangs" in one design or another has not yet been named. At the same time, the development company speaks of its readiness to produce serial equipment in any quantities ordered by the military department. The Defense Ministry, in turn, is not yet ready to reveal its plans.

State and prospects of the fleet of armored personnel carriers
The official image of the BTR K-16 on the Boomerang platform

Apparently, in the early years, the production of K-16 will be carried out in an amount of no more than a few dozen per year. This will allow re-equipping some of the connections using the old-style technique. In the future, an increase in rates is possible, capable of accelerating the process of re-equipping troops.

However, the question of the capabilities of the Ministry of Defense and Industry remains open. It is not known whether it will be possible to replace all outdated vehicles with Boomerangs within a reasonable time frame, or even in the distant future, it will be necessary to keep a certain number of BTR-80/82 in service.

State and prospects


Currently, the ground, coastal and airborne troops have a fairly large number of armored personnel carriers of different models with different capabilities. There are at least 3-3,2 thousand modern types of vehicles of this class in service; several thousand more armored personnel carriers, mostly outdated, are in storage. All this makes it possible to maintain the required level of equipment of troops, and also creates a noticeable reserve for modernization.

In recent years, equipment has been updated according to new projects and the construction of new machines. In addition, work is being completed on a fundamentally new family of armored vehicles. Thus, the development process of wheeled armored personnel carriers does not stop and regularly gives new results. More messages about these processes may appear in the very near future.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, "Military Industrial Company"
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 16 September 2020 06: 06 New
    0
    Do we still have so many armored personnel carriers in our troops? I thought they were all sent a long time ago either to storage bases, or to Cuba, for alterations.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 16 September 2020 07: 01 New
      14
      On the basis of the BTR-60, a bunch of special vehicles - radio stations, command post, KShM, telephone exchanges, CCD.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 September 2020 09: 31 New
        12
        Plus, we have such districts as the Central Military District and the Air Defense Forces, which are still in service with equipment that was outdated in Soviet times - the same Shilki, for example.
        Here are the exercises of the Central Military District in January 2020:
  2. apro
    apro 16 September 2020 06: 13 New
    -16
    Btr60 and vehicles based on them were outdated at the time of design. Without exiting through the stern. There is no sense in them today to provide fire support with armored personnel carriers. ... with the current development of means of pto. only on the basis of a tank. by the type of azarchite.
    1. MORDVIN13rus
      MORDVIN13rus 16 September 2020 19: 35 New
      +1
      Exit through the stern is not a panacea, it is relevant only when the enemy is firing from the front, but when firing from the flanks, the byad is full.
    2. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 16 September 2020 21: 28 New
      +1
      He can take the BTR-152 and put on it a remote module, of which there are many models today - choose ...
      btr-152
      The BTR-152 has an exit from the stern ...
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 16 September 2020 06: 46 New
    +3
    If "Tomorrow was a war" tady .... you have to use that sho is and do something new!
    On the other hand, too many are convinced that the WAR in which Russia can participate will be a very short war and most likely the final one.
  4. bairat
    bairat 16 September 2020 07: 01 New
    +8
    The Ministry of Defense cannot decide what is more important: the possibility of water swimming or anti-cannon armor. I certainly understand, this is not a desert, there are many rivers. But for me, the special forces should have floating equipment. And the rest why this skill, despite the sacrifice of protection.
    1. tatarin1972
      tatarin1972 16 September 2020 08: 15 New
      +3
      And for the Marine Corps? During my service, we had an BTR-80 in our brigade, there was one BTR-60 "Chaika", in a communications company.
      1. Blacksmith 55
        Blacksmith 55 16 September 2020 12: 41 New
        +8
        How many times I rode the BTR 60 "Seagull" in due time. I traveled all over the south of Primorsky Krai. There was a tension with the neighboring state. The exercises were carried out almost once a month, from several days, both KSHU, and up to 2-3 weeks.
        The permeability was good, but the trouble with the engines, there would be a diesel, and one.
        The author did not say a word about the engines for the armored personnel carrier.
    2. Sander113
      Sander113 16 September 2020 10: 33 New
      +8
      Sometimes the ability to seize a beachhead outright can save lives much more than booking. Which on a linear mass armored personnel carrier is unlikely to be a tank one.
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 16 September 2020 12: 27 New
        +4
        Therefore, they developed an OShS with two companies on non-floating heavily armored TBMPs and one on floating LBMPs for the MCBN in the BMP in the second half of the 80s.
    3. Glory1974
      Glory1974 16 September 2020 14: 16 New
      +3
      what is more important: the possibility of water swimming or cannon-proof booking.

      unfortunately in the infantry any armored personnel carrier cannot immediately sail across the river without preparation. In any case, you need to cook it. So I think armor is preferable.
    4. Doliva63
      Doliva63 16 September 2020 21: 01 New
      0
      Quote: bairat
      The Ministry of Defense cannot decide what is more important: the possibility of water swimming or anti-cannon armor. I certainly understand, this is not a desert, there are many rivers. But for me, the special forces should have floating equipment. And the rest why this skill, despite the sacrifice of protection.

      That is, for each MSR on an armored personnel carrier - its own engineering battalion to cross the river? laughing And the special forces, in fact, have no special equipment at all. But if you write for VV, then I do not know there, of course - a foreign country for me.
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 16 September 2020 09: 32 New
    +4
    The author cheerfully began with the BTR-60 and ended with the BTR-82 ... Moreover, having pleased the people with the Boomerang, he did not forget to promise to leave the BTR-82 as well ... But the catch is that the "line" of well-known armored personnel carriers does not end with the BTR-82 ! Something is not mentioned BTR-87 and BTR-88 ... If we are to leave in service "some" number of "old" BTR, then upgraded to the level of BTR-87 or BTR-88 ... Moreover, BTR-87 (if memory serves ...) has a stern exit for landing!
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 16 September 2020 10: 26 New
      +6
      88 does not differ much from 82. But 87 is an interesting piece. It's only late. Now the most logical thing is to saturate the troops with new equipment. Boomerangs. Transfer 82x to storage. Launching 87 is like a distraction from much more advanced technology.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 16 September 2020 22: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: garri-lin
        Now the most logical thing is to saturate the troops with new equipment. Boomerangs. Transfer 82x to storage. Launching 87 is like a distraction from much more advanced technology.

        Oho-ho ... "dreams, dreams ... where is your sweetness? Dreams have passed ... the muck remains ..." Tovarisch Ryabov Kirill said clearly and clearly: "Boomerangs" will not get to everyone! Penyonzov is not May! Those who do not have enough "boomerangs" will be given seamers! How do the upgraded BMP-3/3 get along with the BMP-1 / 2M now? It may be that way ...: "Boomerangs" are for the "first line", and for the rest of the BTR-82 ... or the BTR-87/88 ... Since, the BTR-82 is "converted" to the BTR-87 / 88 is faster and cheaper than making up for the lack of Boomerangs! And does it need to be replenished? "Boomerang" is a complicated machine in production and operation ... and expensive! Yes, and, suddenly, with KAZ! And such a "diamond colossus" to plug all sorts of "cracks"?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 16 September 2020 23: 03 New
          0
          If the armored personnel carrier is used as an armored personnel carrier, then there is no big difference between 80, 82, 87 and 88. If only to carry. They are all lightly armored. 80 due to antiquity is the worst. And how they dismount is not a big difference. The armored personnel carrier must hurry the infantry not in front of the enemy. And on the march, in columns, during ambushes, the side exit is better. The fact that there will not be enough Boomerangs for everyone is clear. But if you start riveting the BTR 87, there will be even fewer of them.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 17 September 2020 08: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: garri-lin
            how they dismount is not a big difference.

            Here you are wrong! For the military of some countries, this is of particular importance! It is not for nothing that armored vehicles are being altered in the Russian Federation for these requests (BTR-87, BMP "Manul", BMP "Dragoon"!) ...
            Quote: garri-lin
            There won't be enough boomerangs for everyone. But if you start riveting the BTR 87, there will be even fewer of them.

            Why not "rivet"? They "rivet" (and for a long time ...) the upgraded BMP-1/2 in the presence of the BMP-3! If you think only about "Boomerangs", how many years will the troops go on foot? What if to fight? Isn't it better to have a "tit in hand" than a woodpecker in ......?
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 17 September 2020 08: 56 New
              +2
              The military wants side exits. The aft hatch is a trend. But not everyone wants it. Everything has its pros and cons. When ambushing in a column, side exits are better. And in the field, under fire, you need to dismount not from armored personnel carriers but from infantry fighting vehicles.
              BMP 1 and 2 have not been riveted for a long time. Modernize what is. It's cheaper. BMP 82 is mostly converted from the 80s. And 87 will have to be done from scratch. The bodies are very different. You can do 87s instead of 82 that are made from scratch. But there are few of them and then there will be a ragtag in the troops. What for? If in 87 the main minus is not removed. Lack of armor.
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 18 September 2020 19: 11 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                The military wants side exits.

                The military is generally not opposed to both side and stern bully
                Instead, they were given BMP-3, without either of them at all ...
                Quote: garri-lin
                When ambushing in a column, side exits are better

                During an ambush, a set of measures is spelled out in the charter, which begins with the fact that the mechanic must turn on the gas and leave the area under fire, and not land the infantry under bullets and mines on the sidelines. In case of impossibility, turn the car with its nose (and with the thickest armor) in the direction of enemy fire.
                This is where the stern exit is needed ...
                in the field, under fire, dismounts need not from armored personnel carriers but from BMP

                It is necessary that it is necessary ... only the staff of the armored personnel carriers did not go anywhere, and they will participate in the battle on an equal basis with everyone.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 18 September 2020 19: 28 New
                  0
                  BMP is not an armored personnel carrier. With a proper ambush, no one will go anywhere. And when turning the board will substitute. If there is the required number of infantry fighting vehicles, the armored personnel carriers will only roll on the rear.
                  1. psiho117
                    psiho117 18 September 2020 19: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    BMP is not an armored personnel carrier.

                    to be honest, there is no difference in security between our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, consider that there is no. Lobeshnik on the BMP is perhaps thicker.
                    And both will participate in the battle. And they will get into an ambush / mine in the same way (the mine resistance of a wheeled armored personnel carrier will be even higher).
                    With a proper ambush, no one will go anywhere. And when turning the board will substitute.

                    The places for the "correct" ambushes are always known - and the order of measures when passing such places is also known - preliminary dismounting, sending out patrol groups, checking suspicious places by helicopter / unmanned aerial vehicle, and similar measures, which suffered with blood in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
                    The most probable is just an ambush "on a fool", when they swooped down, shot, ran away
                    And when turning the board will substitute.

                    Um ...
                    And before the board was not under fire, or what? He's at the car one? belay
                    If there is the required number of infantry fighting vehicles, the armored personnel carriers will only roll on the rear

                    Ooh ... if, yes, if only ... Stubborn facts and our cruel reality indicate that there were, are and will be infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. There will also be a small number of TBMPs. And on the rear, in general, MRAPs should ride hi
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 18 September 2020 20: 11 New
                      0
                      The best MRAP is an APC with adequate mine resistance.
                      By the side, I meant that the maneuver is predictable and the area after the turn will also be under fire. The most correct is an instant stop, dismount and dispersal.
                      Correct ambushes are effective. These are mnogohodovki in which sometimes even antipersonnel mines the most obvious shelters for dismounted. It is a rarity. And against shooting, you won't do anything to run away. It just might be a private trader who takes out anger from the window of his home.
                      Baznitsa in infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is toothiness. Those who survive after the first blow will be given a turnover. And from the BMP will arrive stronger.
                      Dismounting under fire is an extremely bad job. And through the stern and through the sides. Knowing what technique the ambush organizer will be, he will correctly distribute the shooters. Have you heard of the crossfire? This is when the columns at the head shoot at the tail and vice versa. And the large interval between machines in this case only helps the attackers.
                      1. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 20: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The best MRAP is an APC with adequate mine resistance

                        MRAP is still a patrol car.
                        And an "armored personnel carrier with adequate resistance to mines" but without all the other attributes of a modern armored personnel carrier (such as firepower, armor protection, a complex of observation devices) is rubbish. Nobody will keep trash in the troops just for the sake of patrolling (this is what MRAPs are needed for), armored personnel carriers are needed to maintain a database. A modern armored personnel carrier (Boomerang, for example) is a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. It is expensive. Its motor resource is expensive. His parts are expensive. Crew training is significantly more expensive. Even the number of crew (3 people) is excessive for patrol purposes.
                        No one will use (and no one in the world uses) them instead of MRAPs, if the troops have these same MRAPs.
                        ... The most correct thing is an instant stop, dismounting and dispersal ...
                        ... mine with anti-personnel the most obvious cover for dismounted ...
                        ... Dismounting under fire is an extremely shitty occupation ...
                        ... Knowing what technique the ambush organizer will be, he will simply correctly distribute the shooters ...
                        Correct ambushes ... It's rare.
                        Does it seem to me, or are you contradicting yourself?
                        But, in any case, only the Charter can judge us.
                        The Charter says - increase speed and leave the firing zone.
                        The charter also spelled out a number of measures that must be taken when passing ambush sites, I have cited them earlier.
                        And against shooting, you can't do anything to run away

                        increase speed and leave the firing area
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 20: 47 New
                        0
                        MRAP is a very expensive piece. Sometimes the APC will be more expensive. The same Typhoon Airborne Forces stands as an armored personnel carrier. weighs like an armored personnel carrier. And sewn up like an armored personnel carrier with him. Why then change the awl for soap?
                        Charter is a good thing. He says what to do. And he tells the opponents what you will do. And I don't contradict myself. Just leash I say that it makes no difference where the exits from the armored personnel carrier. Everything can be foreseen to cause maximum damage. In Russia, traditionally sideways. Why change something by spending huge amounts? For the pursuit of trends. It is better to save that money and spend it on what you really need. On a new armored personnel carrier with a much higher level of protection. On Boomerang. It will not be necessary to jump out of it so urgently. Hopefully.
                        And if the column is long? Did the shelling start in the middle? It is always necessary to act according to the situation, using reasonable initiative. And most importantly, with your actions, do not expose your comrade to the blow.
                      3. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 21: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Typhoon VDV stands like an armored personnel carrier.

                        The issue of pricing for our MO is an extremely sensitive issue ...
                        But in general, a mine-protected armored personnel carrier will cost even more than an MRAP. Why then change the awl for soap, if there is a cheaper and equally resistant to undermining MRAP?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        In Russia, traditionally sideways. Why change something by spending huge amounts? For the pursuit of trends.

                        The legislator of this trend was the USSR, and earlier - Nazi Germany. The gunmage had back doors. The BTR-152 had rear doors. The BTR-40 had rear doors. BTR-60 and BTR-70 - roof hatches. BMP and BMD - also exit from the back or from above.
                        Side doors appeared only on the 80, which is the last in the line. Everything designed after him - BTR-90, BTR-87, Boomerang - are located aft. Where is the "tradition"?
                        And also our fighters have a different "tradition" - to ride with stubbornness on the car, not in it. Here, in general, on the door - on a drum.
                        I just say that it makes no difference where the exits from the armored personnel carrier

                        Even as it is - the simplest and most spacious cabin will turn out if you put 2 benches along the walls, and make a back door - all other options reduce the capacity of the troop compartment and create obstacles to boarding and disembarking.
                        And if the column is long? Did the shelling start in the middle?

                        The head and rear guard are advanced to the flank by the attacker.

                        If the terrain does not allow (mountains, for example) - to provide cover with fire until the part that is under fire leaves the area under fire, then either leave the ambush site, or, if forces allow, organize an oncoming attack or pursuit of a retreating enemy.
                        Charter soldier Everything is there.
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 21: 43 New
                        0
                        You can still discuss what counts as a mine. What is the weight of cc. How is it located. Sheathless sheathless. It can be mined in such a way that no MRAP can be used without using a lot of explosives. So the ministry in kilograms is a convention. Typhoon and armored personnel carriers 82 by the way hold approximately the same charge. I don't know if this is plus or minus the other
                        The question of price is the saddest thing. But this is for everyone. Good technology is expensive.
                        Exits to the side were on the 70th. And the outputs are terrible. The engine in the stern is the unloaded bow. And balance. And they went on the armor for a simple reason. So calmer. Sidish. The head is cool. Situational awareness is the highest. Give some slack and on Boomerangs and on T 15 will also ride from above. Calm down the soldier.
                        Exit from behind through the ramp? On the run? What kind of surprise a soldier can expect? Or swing doors and a step? Do you consider that modern cars have become higher? You are completely right about the salon.
                        The charter is written in blood. But initiative is also a good thing. In such situations, you need to act on the basis of experience. Take into account the specifics of the area and residents.
                      5. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 22: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Typhoon and BTR 82 by the way hold approximately the same charge.

                        just a BTR-82 8x8 and can easily lose any 2 wheels, plus it is 2 times longer than the Typhoon - so the durability is about the same.
                        But in one case it is sufficient resistance for a 4x4 jeep, and in the other - insufficient for an armored personnel carrier with 10 fighters on board.
                        The exits to the side were at 70ke. And the outputs are terrible

                        These are not standard outputs. This is for emergency leaving. Even a wounded person cannot be pulled out through it.
                        And they went on the armor for a simple reason. So calmer
                        It started with Afgan ... It's banal - it's impossible to be inside. It's hot (cold in winter), stuffy, noisy, everything vibrates, and you put your head on the ceiling a little.
                        It was only later that they began to tie in mine resistance and situational awareness. The mine resistance of the vehicle in the middle of the column is already close to 100%. laughing
                        And light equipment should not go first.
                        Exit from behind through the ramp? On the run? ... Or swing doors

                        On the go - equally uncomfortable wassat
                        If normally, by dropping the speed - the ramp makes it much easier to land and disembark, I'm not talking about loading and unloading the wounded, or oversized cargo (the same ATGM, MANPADS, RPG, walkie-talkie, etc.)
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 22: 46 New
                        0
                        Mine resistance is determined by one parameter. The safety of those inside. So what a jeep is an armored personnel carrier. the same.
                        Established. I remember the old cadres from the exercises from the transfer to Serving the Soviet Union. How did they get out and climb through these skins. The acrobats are crying.
                        An anti-mine in the middle of the column can also come in handy against a land mine or RPG. Calm down from above. Busy with business. Sesches atmosphere. Inside, claustraphobia even develops in stone. From idleness.
                        A ramp on a technique with a heavier nose on the pits turns into an excellent springboard. Leverage law. And nothing can be done about it. And the fact that it is convenient to carry any dimensional into a large opening, so I do not argue.
                      7. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 22: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And the fact that in a large opening it is convenient to drag any dimensional so I do not argue.

                        So the soldiers are bigger every year ... and they pull more and more junk.
                        As a result, there are no alternatives to the rear exit on armored vehicles. Side hatches, or roof hatches, can be as spare, no more.
                      8. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 22: 56 New
                        0
                        But for the sake of this, you do not need to invest in the alteration of the equipment that is. We need to focus on releasing new technology. Meeting the realities of tomorrow.
                      9. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 22: 58 New
                        0
                        To the point bully
                        We are waiting for "Boomerang", "Kurganets" and "Barberry".
                      10. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 23: 01 New
                        0
                        And do not forget to support the combat effectiveness of the existing technology, but without fanaticism and unnecessary spending.
                      11. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 23: 03 New
                        0
                        They support it to the best of their ability - here's something fresh:
                        https://topwar.ru/175189-rossijskaja-bronetehnika-poluchit-dopolnitelnuju-zaschitu.html#comment-id-10790995
                      12. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 23: 21 New
                        0
                        It is difficult to tell the grates from the cumuli. A Kumul APC is not needed. Land mine or thermobar breaks the board. And much more effective against the landing. And such gratings will not protect from the shooter. And the thickness of the screens is not mentioned. And in order for them to be effective, the thickness should not be 3 mm. And this is the weight. And the weight is considerable.
                      13. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 23: 31 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        gratings from cumuli. A Kumul APC is not needed. Land mine or thermobar breaks the board.

                        80% of which is shot around the world, including armored personnel carriers, are RPG-7 and SPG-9. These grilles are designed to withstand very specific threats - PG-7 and PG-9 grenades.
                        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.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And this is the weight. And the weight is considerable

                        Yes, the screens are clearly over 10mm thick.
                        But the lives of the fighters are more valuable.
                      14. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 23: 44 New
                        0
                        A clumsy barn instead of a nimble armored personnel carrier will not add life to soldiers. Factory grids for equipment were in Chechen. Not used. Why dont know. I would like to see the mobility of armored personnel carriers in such a body kit on wet ground.
                      15. psiho117
                        psiho117 18 September 2020 23: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Factory bars for equipment were in Chechen.

                        Earlier. Back in Afghanistan. Recognized by the res-there are quite effective.
                        Not used. Why dont know

                        There, the whole war was through an ass. So why not yes?
                        I would like to see the mobility of armored personnel carriers

                        There are two positions - marching and combat.
                        In the field, nothing interferes, in combat - they go down in 5 minutes.
                        And not to say that they should particularly interfere
                      16. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 19 September 2020 00: 13 New
                        0
                        The war there was through this place from the head. It was quite normal in the troops, on the front line. When svesha was not disturbed. And the bars, according to those who were there, were in place. Take it and place it. But for some reason they did not put it.
                        I meant not to interfere. Weight. This is more than a ton of weight to love. Grilles and screens. And the chassis of light equipment is already at its limit. Throwing since Afgan. Overweight or underbook.
                      17. psiho117
                        psiho117 19 September 2020 00: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Weight. It's over a ton of weight anyway

                        Research Institute of Steel reports:
                        A set of combined (armored + lattice) screens for the BTR-80
                        Area of ​​protected projections:
                        body: forehead - 90%, tower: forehead - 60%,
                        board - 80% board - 80%
                        feed - 90%, feed - 100%.
                        Set weight -1000 kg.
                        Protection against RPG grenades of the PG-9C type at any course angles of fire with a probability of at least 0,5.
                        The probability of a break in armor when hit by RPG grenades is not more than 0,2.
                        Increased protection from bullets caliber 7,62 and 12,7 mm.


                        For BMP-2:
                        Protection against PG-9S grenades in any course angles of fire with a probability of 0,6
                        Breaks in armor when hit by grenades - excluded
                        Protection against armor-piercing bullets B-32
                        caliber 12,7 mm - distances 100 ... 150 m
                        caliber 14,5 mm - from a distance of 500 ... 700 m
                        Protection against a 23 mm BZT projectile - not provided
                        Set weight, kg - 1400
                      18. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 19 September 2020 00: 35 New
                        0
                        A ton of weight for an APC is a lot. And I can't believe the ton. The screens look thick. 12,7 to keep the armor needed. And according to the statements they keep. How much is the heading angles? 20 degrees? 40? Or the screens are thin, light. Like case hardened steel of high hardness. It breaks itself but also holds a bullet. Secondary shards are not important for screens.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 16 September 2020 16: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Something not mentioned BTR-87 and BTR-88.

    And in what units are they in service?
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 16 September 2020 21: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Bad_gr
      in which parts are they in service?

      BTR-87/88 have been demonstrated more than once at military-technical exhibitions ... the main thing is that they exist!
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 16 September 2020 23: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        BTR-87/88 have been demonstrated more than once at military-technical exhibitions ... the main thing is that they exist!

        So the BTR-90 is the same, and unlike the BTR-87/88, it was even put into service - there is 7 tons more armor (but with good seaworthiness), the forehead holds a 30mm projectile. Why not buy it?

        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 17 September 2020 07: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          So the BTR-90 is the same

          Quote: Bad_gr
          Why not buy it?

          BTR-90 is a more expensive and complex vehicle! It must be produced from scratch! Whereas, the BTR-87/88 are "alterations" of the BTR-82 ... of what is already there!
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 18 September 2020 19: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Whereas, BTR-87/88 - "alterations" of BTR-82

            Not certainly in that way:
            BTR-88 is the body of the 82nd, with a 30mm cannon, a new engine, suspension and transmission. Previously, it was designated as BTR-82A1.
            The BTR-87 is generally an exhibition model, which has been shown to us since 2010, and every year something changes in it, either the engine or the combat module.
            But in general, this is a new hull with a front-engine layout, landing and disembarkation of troops is carried out through the aft doors, mine protection is enhanced. In short, the BTR-90 is for the poor.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 18 September 2020 22: 57 New
              +1
              Well, maybe ! I have not "refreshed" my memory about the BTR-87 for a long time ... But I still remember from what I read that the BTR-87 was made on the basis of the BTR-82. Maybe it was supposed to make new hulls, but I remember that the article was "saturated" with information that the BTR-87 represents a deep modernization of the BTR-82! As I have already said, I have not read about the BTR-87 for a long time, but mentioned it; since it became "offensive" that the author declared the BTR-82 as the last in the "series!"
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 18 September 2020 23: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                I remember then from what I read that they made the BTR-87 based on the BTR-82

                the first sample was like that - they just rearranged the engine and sawed through the aft door. Since then, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge ...
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 16 September 2020 09: 35 New
    +2
    With the weapons that the author showed in the photo, the Russian army BTR Boomerang is not needed, since almost all western armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles have sufficiently reliable protection against the 14,5 mm KPVT machine gun, and even more so against weapons of a smaller caliber. As a weapon, you need at least a 30 mm, or 57 mm gun. Without this, this is not an armored personnel carrier, but a mass grave of the infantry.
    1. prodi
      prodi 16 September 2020 10: 52 New
      +1
      30mm in an armored personnel carrier will take a lot of space from the infantry, but for an infantry fighting vehicle it already seems insufficient; her place is only in universal modules such as Bakhchi
      1. Zementbomber
        Zementbomber 16 September 2020 12: 36 New
        +2
        Put the 23 mm AM-23 or NR-23 from the warehouse into the tower instead of the KPVT.
        1. prodi
          prodi 16 September 2020 13: 30 New
          +2
          it is worth considering, maybe they will find a balance
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 16 September 2020 17: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: Zementbomber
          Put the 23 mm AM-23 or NR-23 from the warehouse into the tower instead of the KPVT.

          in fact, the 23x115mm projectile was created on the basis of the 14,5mm machine gun sleeve, and it is naive to think that it has greater armor penetration.
          More powerful is the 23x152mm projectile from Shilka and ZU-23-2.
          True, the weapon is hoo there, and it cannot act as a replacement for the KPVT.
          1. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 17 September 2020 07: 36 New
            0
            Armor penetration - and no. But big the power of action on purpose (which is characterized not only by armor penetration) - and yes.
        3. Doliva63
          Doliva63 16 September 2020 21: 07 New
          +3
          Quote: Zementbomber
          Put the 23 mm AM-23 or NR-23 from the warehouse into the tower instead of the KPVT.

          Oh, tse - dilo! good True, I did not serve in the infantry, but on an armored personnel carrier. KPVT was enough to smash the house of some thread, from where they shoot, easily. And against someone else's "fancy" armored personnel carrier in the state there were grenade launchers, if that. But with a gun it would be cooler! drinks
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 16 September 2020 16: 17 New
        +4
        Quote: prodi
        30mm in an armored personnel carrier will take a lot of space from the infantry,

        In the BTR-82, the 30mm weapon is taken out and takes up space from the infantry no more than from the KPVT.
        And sometimes all the weapons are outside, not at all occupying the internal space of the armored personnel carrier.

        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 September 2020 16: 51 New
          +4
          Quote: Bad_gr
          And sometimes all the weapons are outside, not at all occupying the internal space of the armored personnel carrier.


          The nuclear reactor is conventionally not shown in the diagram.. ©
          This is me in the sense that it is a lightweight version of Baikal, without automatic and mechanized ammunition stowage modules.
          Here is the complete set of "Baikal":
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 16 September 2020 17: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This is me in the sense that it is a lightweight version of Baikal, without automatic and mechanized ammunition stowage modules.
            Here is the complete set of "Baikal":

            And what's that ? (only it is not covered with a jacket)
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 September 2020 17: 21 New
              +3
              Quote: Bad_gr
              And what's that ?

              And this is not at all the same as the exhibition model of "Baikal" in sandy camouflage.

              See for yourself:

              The module for armored personnel carriers and BMP-2 under the shoulder strap in the fighting compartment has an automatic ammo rack sticking out - a black spot under the breech.
              And the BMP-3 module has a much wider base with the BC than the model - the recoil mechanism cover only slightly protrudes beyond the dimensions of the carousel. And the BC carousel is located under the module shoulder - that is, again in the BO.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 16 September 2020 17: 31 New
                +2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The module for armored personnel carriers and BMP-2 under the shoulder strap in the fighting compartment has an automatic ammo rack sticking out - a black spot under the breech.
                I won't insist, but in my opinion, the light outline around the cannon is the outline of the tower,
                and if in the 2,5 ton version the ammo rack goes beyond the contours of the turret, in the 3,2 ton version everything is inscribed in it. And this option is most similar to the exhibition sample
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 16 September 2020 17: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  and if the 2,5-ton version of the package goes beyond the contours of the tower, then in the 3,2-ton version everything is inscribed in it.

                  Look at the recoil pad shroud.
                  On the exhibition model, the casing protrudes far beyond the outer dimensions of the "ring" of the tower - the tower ends almost at its very beginning.
                  But on the poster for the option "weight 3,2 tons" the recoil mechanism cover only slightly protrudes beyond the outer dimensions of the BC carousel. And this carousel itself is located outside the shoulder strap in diameter and below the shoulder strap in height.
                  That is, in order to correspond to the "poster" version of the "mass of 3,2 tons", the exhibition tower would have to have a "BK washer" hanging under the shoulder strap with an outer diameter slightly smaller than the cut of the recoil mechanism casing.
                  With a shot length of 53,6 cm, the washer should protrude 80-90 centimeters in diameter outside the shoulder strap.
        2. prodi
          prodi 16 September 2020 17: 01 New
          -1
          KPTV - 500 rounds, 2A72 - 300, despite the fact that the fragmentation is still "symbolic" and it should be at least 40-45mm
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 16 September 2020 21: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: prodi
            KPTV - 500 rounds, 2A72 - 300, despite the fact that the fragmentation is still "symbolic" and it should be at least 40-45mm

            How do you like MDZ?
            1. prodi
              prodi 17 September 2020 07: 19 New
              0
              I do not presume to argue, but there was a statement of eyewitnesses that after the burst of a bullet in the hands of a man remained not only alive, but not even too crippled
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 17 September 2020 07: 23 New
                +1
                In MVVKU, a 4th-year cadet disassembled MDZ, in the explosion he lost 4 fingers on one hand. EMNIP 2006.
                1. Doliva63
                  Doliva63 17 September 2020 19: 48 New
                  +1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  In MVVKU, a 4th-year cadet disassembled MDZ, in the explosion he lost 4 fingers on one hand. EMNIP 2006.

                  In 89, one ram also dismantled it - a corpse. How lucky, apparently.
              2. Doliva63
                Doliva63 17 September 2020 19: 52 New
                0
                Quote: prodi
                I do not presume to argue, but there was a statement of eyewitnesses that after the burst of a bullet in the hands of a man remained not only alive, but not even too crippled

                And if the queue? Once they shot at the hut, from where 2 or 3 (I don't remember already) stupid people tried to shoot at us, so after a couple of bursts they decided to surrender.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 September 2020 09: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Doliva63
              How do you like MDZ?

              1. prodi
                prodi 17 September 2020 11: 54 New
                0
                this is probably because the "explosiveness" was added to the kinetic
          2. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 16 September 2020 21: 14 New
            +3
            For "shrapnel" against "manpower without armor" you need AGS (AGS-30 or AGS-40), against enemy infantry fighting vehicles, 30mm armor-piercing shells, against MBT you need an ATGM. Why didn't the author remember the BTR-90? - manufactured back in 1994, 30mm 2A42, PKT, AGS-30, there is an ATGM Konkurs-M. True, in 2011, the Ministry of Defense abandoned the BTR-90 Rostok ... But you can put Bakhchu-U on the BTR-90.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 16 September 2020 23: 31 New
              +2
              Why bring the shock capabilities of the armored personnel carrier to such unrealistic velechin. And for a wheeled BMP, the armor is too small. BTR 82 turret is enough.
              1. prodi
                prodi 17 September 2020 07: 48 New
                +2
                but the fact of the matter is that only the BTR-60 was similar to the armored personnel carrier, the rest turned out - don't get it, but with the 2A72 - and all the BMP, which this machine also does not pull. Since the armor is thin, it should be possible to quickly jump out: well, they would lengthen at least the car by half a meter, make the same exits to the sides normal in width and more convenient and put two benches across them for 6 people, all the same, you can't squeeze out more of this layout.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 17 September 2020 08: 47 New
                  0
                  80th quite armored personnel carrier. Minimum armament. Carries quite normally. Mine resistance is slightly higher.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 17 September 2020 09: 16 New
                    +1
                    Well, how can you consider an armored personnel carrier car for 7 people? landing with 3 people. a crew of this size? Rather, it is a BMP
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 17 September 2020 09: 47 New
                      0
                      The crew of 3 is clearly redundant. Mekhvod plus noduchi / car senior. Subordinate to the squad leader, landing party. 8 troops.
                2. cat Rusich
                  cat Rusich 17 September 2020 20: 38 New
                  +1
                  The first BTR was ... BTR-152. For a quick exit, you need to put "seats" along the sides, if necessary, remove them to make a "truck body", the rear doors are swing double-leaf gates, without a central post (like in a garage). It was necessary to get out from the side in Afghanistan, but in the same place they began to ride "on armor", from above, and not inside. Who wants an armored personnel carrier on tracks - MTLB, just carry the infantry behind the tanks. About BMP - or weapons and armor - or landing. As an example of the correct line-up of armored personnel carriers ...
                  OT-64 SKOT
                  Czech BTR OT-64 SKOT
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 18 September 2020 07: 39 New
                    +1
                    BTR-87 looks most correct


                    with the clarification that the sides should be straight, the step between the landing and technical compartments is more pronounced (the landing part is raised, and the technical part is lowered), and the remote module stands above the technical compartment to reduce the overall height and the ramp instead of doors; a lifting screen (in sections) to the wheel hubs is desirable
            2. Thomas N.
              Thomas N. 17 September 2020 04: 30 New
              0
              Quote: cat Rusich
              But on the BTR-90 you can put Bakhchu-U.

              On the BTR-90 as a wheeled chassis, you can put a lot of things, including the "Bakhchu", but for its intended purpose it will no longer be an armored personnel carrier.
          3. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 17 September 2020 05: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: prodi
            KPTV - 500 rounds, 2A72 - 300, despite the fact that the fragmentation is still "symbolic" and it should be at least 40-45mm

            30-mm fragmentation "symbolic" if you miss, and if you hit, then it's fine! laughing And 40-45 mm OFS must also be hit at least close to the target, otherwise the fragments cannot compensate for the miss.
            1. prodi
              prodi 17 September 2020 07: 04 New
              0
              Quote: Thomas N.
              30-mm fragmentation "symbolic" if you miss, and if you hit, then it's fine!

              more or less "practically" we can only talk about shrapnel from 6mm, and if you think about air blasting, it is difficult to keep within a caliber less than 40mm
              1. Thomas N.
                Thomas N. 19 September 2020 05: 40 New
                0
                Quote: prodi
                Quote: Thomas N.
                30-mm fragmentation "symbolic" if you miss, and if you hit, then it's fine!

                more or less "practically" we can only talk about shrapnel from 6mm, and if you think about air blasting, it is difficult to keep within a caliber less than 40mm

                Not so "difficult" - they were able to place 30 cylindrical striking elements (weight 30 g) made of tungsten alloy in a 173-mm projectile of a 308x162 mm PMC1,24 ABM cartridge (RWM Schweiz AG, Switzerland) and a bottom remote fuse for air blasting (http : //www.angelopodesta.com/documenti/2015-01-07--14-34-38--30mm_x_173_KETF.pdf). This cartridge is included in the ammunition load of the German BMP Puma.
                Two more 30-mm OFS with air blasting: 30x173 mm Mk310 PABM-T (Orbital ATK, USA) with a bottom fuse and even with a tracer (https://topwar.ru/152281-snarjad-s-programmiruemym-vzryvatelem-orbital- atk-northrop-grumman-mk-310-pabm-t-ssha.html) and Russian 30x165 mm 3UOF23 ("Steel rain": an intelligent sight will tell the projectile when to explode - https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content /201503291027-casm.htm?utm_source=tvzvezda&utm_medium=longpage&utm_campaign=longpage&utm_term=v1).
                Of course, in the caliber of 40 mm and above, the balls fit more, but the increase in the affected area by one projectile cannot compensate for the decrease in ammunition. Especially in situations where it is impossible to shoot accurately at the target, but it is necessary to fire to suppress, like this one - https://topwar.ru/174606-ilja-muromec-uvz-nachal-razrabotku-novoj-bmpt-na-baze-armaty .html # comment-id-10740252
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 September 2020 16: 35 New
      +5
      Quote: Shadow041
      With the weapons that the author showed in the photo, the Russian army's BTR Boomerang is not needed,

      The author showed one of the first photos of "Boomerang". The appearance (body) has changed slightly over time.
      Old and new:

      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 September 2020 00: 56 New
        -1
        Modern NATO guns of 40 mm caliber at a distance of 2000 meters pierce 150 - 160 mm of armor, the armor of the Boomerang as well as Kurganets is no longer an obstacle for them.
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 17 September 2020 04: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          Modern NATO guns of 40 mm caliber at a distance of 2000 meters pierce 150 - 160 mm of armor, the armor of the Boomerang as well as Kurganets is no longer an obstacle for them.

          Where did you get 150-160 mm on 2000 m for modern NATO 40mm cannons? Is 140/0 ° mm at 1500 m (https://www.cta-international.com/the-40-ctas/40-mm-ammunition/apfsds-t/)
      2. Grits
        Grits 17 September 2020 16: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The appearance (body) has changed slightly over time.
        Old and new:

        I would even say that I have changed a lot. to be honest, I did not pay attention to the fact that the appearance was different. Thanks to your photos, I made a discovery for myself
  • Ervin
    Ervin 16 September 2020 09: 35 New
    -10
    Are there any plans to produce the K-16 armored personnel carrier on the Boomerang platform for arming the Russian Guard? The BTR-82V may already turn out to be frankly weak for the tasks facing the Rosgvardia, or to modernize the BTR-82V by strengthening it with missile and cannon armament.
    1. moreman78
      moreman78 16 September 2020 11: 24 New
      +3
      There are no such plans and will not be. "Boomerang" is redundant and expensive for the National Guard. Rosgvardia has long planned to equip armored vehicles (MRAPs) - Tigers, Bears, Patrols, Ural-4320VV, etc. They will leave a certain number of BTR-82s in operational units, and armored cars for the rest.
      1. Ervin
        Ervin 16 September 2020 11: 28 New
        -14
        "Tigers", "Bears", "Patrols" - will be rather weak in front of a bottle of gasoline. What is needed is a well-armored vehicle with a full range of suppression and destruction. Again, the front part of the K-16 armored personnel carrier on the Boomerang platform is ideal for the Rosgvardia tasks of blocking and blocking, for example, streets. And powerful armor and a powerful engine will contribute to the successful destruction of street barricades, houses where protesters have settled.
        1. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 16 September 2020 12: 32 New
          +4
          Resistance to a bottle with KS or its surrogate - not depends on the level of body armor. Well - practically does not depend. If there is a 3 mm luminaire sheet - then of course yes, it will depend.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Zementbomber
              Zementbomber 16 September 2020 13: 01 New
              -2
              For reference:
              the boy is of course a pity - but this is excl. crooked constructors, for which the death penalty must be introduced according to the Laws of Hammurabi, the Great King of the Kings of Babylon.
              Good bulletproof glass in three or more layers up to 60 mm or more thick (in the Old Times, called "transparent armor") - can withstand not only a bottle with KS, but also F-1 directly on it. And even a 20-mm armor-piercing projectile (though it will crack).
        2. Glory1974
          Glory1974 16 September 2020 14: 21 New
          +2
          persons. And powerful armor and a powerful engine will contribute to the successful destruction of street barricades, houses where protesters have settled

          Do not worry. The BTR-80 copes well with these tasks. And the protesters from ISIS and other armed squabbles from bandit formations are perfectly destroyed from repeat KPVT
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 September 2020 09: 43 New
    0
    Why is the BTR-87 not going to replace the BTR-82? All other things being equal, the layout is more progressive! Or is the 82s made from the old 80s?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 September 2020 16: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why is the BTR-87 not going to replace the BTR-82? All other things being equal, the layout is more progressive!

      Apparently, not everyone thinks that the door in the ass, instead of the side ones, is progress.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 16 September 2020 16: 28 New
        +1
        If they did not think so ..... then the new cars would be without a rear hatch. I generally keep quiet about foreigners.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 16 September 2020 16: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          If they did not think so ..... then the new cars would be without a rear hatch. I generally keep quiet about foreigners.
          The BTR-82 is an evolutionary vehicle, according to the requirements of the military. And new ones were already ordered by managers, and they have parrotting in their blood.
          In nete you can find a lot of countries that operate thousands of armored personnel carriers with side exits and this technique is still in demand. And our main purchases, with them. Do not think that the military does not understand the best.
          It's not just about the exit point. The door to the stern - the engine is forward, the balance of the machine is disturbed. Reduces frontal armor. The landing force is shifted to the stern, where there are large vertical vibrations, which are used for the landing on the march, and so on and so on.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 16 September 2020 17: 17 New
            +1
            I think everything is simpler ..... minimally modernized the vehicle in service. Taking into account the simple modernization of the BTR80
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 16 September 2020 17: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why is the BTR-87 not going to replace the BTR-82? All other things being equal, the layout is more progressive! Or is the 82s made from the old 80s?

      Naturally from the old ones.
      The BTR-87 has a completely new body.
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 16 September 2020 09: 50 New
    +1
    I hope that the VPK LLC knows what they are doing. I am alarmed by the huge overhangs with a large blind zone - so you can not even notice the person in front (it is unlikely that we take into account the likelihood of accidents), and the inconvenience is probably considerable. It's like driving a bus looking through a hatch from above. The Bundesky Boxer in this regard is more humanly made IMHO.
    1. Ervin
      Ervin 16 September 2020 10: 32 New
      -2
      For an armored personnel carrier in combat conditions - there is no person in front, there is only an enemy.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 September 2020 17: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Ervin
        For an armored personnel carrier in combat conditions - there is no person in front, there is only an enemy.

        Will we also write down our sappers as opponents during engineering reconnaissance? wink
  • Engineer
    Engineer 16 September 2020 11: 15 New
    +1
    I wonder what is the general niche of the armored personnel carrier now?
    Doesn't the combination of MRAP + BMP cover almost all aspects of the combat use of combat vehicles carrying soldiers?
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 12: 34 New
      0
      Well, it is no coincidence that according to the promising OSHS of 1989 - in the mechanized infantry division of the groups of forces, the mechanized infantry division in the European part of the USSR and the ZakVO - it was planned to have only one MSBN per armored personnel carrier ...
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 16 September 2020 21: 46 New
        +1
        The time is still different. There were no MRAPs then. And the then army was sharpened for a combined arms battle with a stuffed enemy
        I'm talking about modernity. Old dispute between BMP and APC.
        Do the armored personnel carriers have any trump cards? What does the concept of the development of modern armored personnel carriers look like? Is the K-16 rather a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle? And all this in the context of a leap in the field of MRAPs
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 17 September 2020 00: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          Do the armored personnel carriers have any trump cards? What does the concept of the development of modern armored personnel carriers look like?

          From my point of view, before
          The armored personnel carrier had a lot of space for the landing, but the weak armament of the vehicle itself.
          The BMP has more powerful weapons, but at the expense of the landing site, so there is less space for the landing.
          The current tendency is to have weapons carried out. That is, there is already an opportunity and place for the paratroopers not to cut back (like in the armored personnel carrier), and to install powerful weapons (like in the BMP) - it is outside the vehicle, the dimensions are not critical.
        2. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 17 September 2020 05: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          Is the K-16 rather a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle?

          Is not. Wheeled BMP is K-17.
        3. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 17 September 2020 12: 06 New
          +2
          The trump cards of the APC?
          - higher combat survivability and a higher level of survival of the landing force and crew (in the case of comparable security and firepower, of course).
          - significantly better operational, and in some cases (when the speed of the march and / or movement in the attack and the fuel range are of great importance) - and tactical mobility.
          - Greater technical reliability and ease of use and repair (other things being approximately equal)
          - lower cost of both production and the life cycle as a whole (also, of course, all other things being approximately equal).
          - Greater ease of production (all other things being equal) and greater technological capabilities to mobilize an initially non-specialized industrial base for the production of wheeled armored vehicles rather than tracked ones.
          But in general, yes - if we talk specifically about wheeled БBM - the future belongs to wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, not armored personnel carriers in the classic sense of the term.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 16 September 2020 14: 22 New
      -1
      the bundle of MRAP + BMP does not cover almost all aspects of the combat use of combat vehicles carrying soldiers?

      Combat experience has shown that the survival rate in an armored personnel carrier is 3 times higher than in an infantry fighting vehicle.
      1. Thomas N.
        Thomas N. 17 September 2020 05: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: glory1974
        Combat experience has shown that the survival rate in an armored personnel carrier is 3 times higher than in an infantry fighting vehicle.

        If combat experience (in which country and at what time?) Showed the survival rate in an armored personnel carrier 3 times higher than in an infantry fighting vehicle, it is only because units on an infantry fighting vehicle mainly fight (i.e., participate in high-intensity combat operations), and on the armored personnel carrier they mainly accompany the columns and fight the partisans.
        1. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 17 September 2020 12: 11 New
          +1
          Well, I have girlfriends and friends who fought in our Southeast. Moreover, on both sides. There is a unanimous opinion: from the materiel that is (an important disclaimer!) - "wheels" are unambiguously chosen. Unless it is a motorized rifle company of a tank battalion, of course, or a mechanized battalion of a tank brigade. Then yes - then the BMP "asks".
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 17 September 2020 14: 56 New
            +1
            from the materiel that is (an important disclaimer!) - unambiguously choose "wheels".

            What the statistics deduced, the fighters deduced in practice. The APC is inferior to the APC only in firepower. The installation of a 30 mm cannon in this regard eliminates the armored personnel carrier with infantry fighting vehicles and has no more advantages. No wonder her name is "mass grave of the infantry."
        2. Glory1974
          Glory1974 17 September 2020 14: 54 New
          0
          but only because the units on the BMP are mainly at war (that is, they participate in high-intensity hostilities), and on the armored personnel carrier they mainly accompany the columns and fight the partisans.

          Where have you seen high intensity combat on BMPs?

          the survival rate was revealed statistically and does not depend on the type of hostilities. Roughly speaking, it does not matter "high intensity" you are fighting on armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. Accompany the convoy on the armored personnel carrier or BMP.
          In the event of combat damage to equipment, the APC survives 3 times more.
          1. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 19 September 2020 07: 50 New
            0
            Quote: glory1974
            the survival rate was revealed statistically and does not depend on the type of hostilities. Roughly speaking, it does not matter "high intensity" you are fighting on armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. Accompany the convoy on the armored personnel carrier or BMP.
            In the event of combat damage to equipment, the APC survives 3 times more.

            I can assume that this is the statistics of the explosions of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on mines, landmines and IEDs in modern wars after 1990, when irregular armed formations became the main enemy. Then yes, of course, the survival rate on an armored personnel carrier is higher than on an infantry fighting vehicle, because modern wheeled armored personnel carriers (starting with armored personnel carriers like Buffel made in South Africa in the 1970s) have been created taking into account such explosions: a body with a V-shaped bottom, suspension of the landing seats from the ceiling, the ability to leave after two wheels out of eight are detached, etc. But in case of combat damage to equipment in a combined arms battle, when everything else is used in addition to mines (BPS, ATGM, RPG, etc.), then what are the statistics on the survival rate in armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? For example, in the Arab-Israeli and Iranian-Iraqi wars, in which the BMP-1 was used.
    3. Doliva63
      Doliva63 16 September 2020 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      I wonder what is the general niche of the armored personnel carrier now?
      Doesn't the combination of MRAP + BMP cover almost all aspects of the combat use of combat vehicles carrying soldiers?

      I suspect that at least 30% of the infantry on the armored personnel carrier today is a niche or what? "A bundle of MRAP + BMP" is nonsense. If you are an engineer, then you are clearly not a military man. The army does not have combat vehicles "carrying soldiers."
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 16 September 2020 21: 22 New
        0
        I suspect it would be nice to learn to read
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 16 September 2020 21: 24 New
          -1
          Quote: Engineer
          I suspect it would be nice to learn to read

          Can you just read? And think? Lack of education or life experience?
    4. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 17 September 2020 05: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      I wonder what is the general niche of the armored personnel carrier now?
      Doesn't the combination of MRAP + BMP cover almost all aspects of the combat use of combat vehicles carrying soldiers?

      It covers, but the complete abandonment of the APC will require the replacement of the APC by the BMP to equip all motorized rifle (not Rosgvardia!) Units that are now on the APC. It is too expensive, even taking into account the BMP-1AM Basurmanin. And in strategic mobility, motorized rifle units, having moved from armored personnel carriers to infantry fighting vehicles, will greatly lose.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 16 September 2020 13: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Ervin
    "Tigers", "Bears", "Patrols" - will be rather weak in front of a bottle of gasoline. What is needed is a well-armored vehicle with a full range of suppression and destruction. Again, the front part of the K-16 armored personnel carrier on the Boomerang platform is ideal for the Rosgvardia tasks of blocking and blocking, for example, streets. And powerful armor and a powerful engine will contribute to the successful destruction of street barricades, houses where protesters have settled.

    For blocking and blocking streets - everything has long been invented-
    special vehicle Shield - https://news.drom.ru/54849.html
    https://topwar.ru/123257-kalashnikov-predstavil-specmashinu-schit.html
    https://www.yandex.ru/search/?text=%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%20%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%20%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B9&lr=2&src=suggest_In
  • Megatron
    Megatron 16 September 2020 13: 24 New
    -1
    60 and 70 - send to Donbass.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 16 September 2020 18: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: Megatron
      60 and 70 - send to Donbass

      And why are they here? There is enough of my old stuff here.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 16 September 2020 21: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: prodi
    30mm in an armored personnel carrier will take a lot of space from the infantry,

    In the BTR-82, the 30mm weapon is taken out and takes up space from the infantry no more than from the KPVT.
    And sometimes all the weapons are outside, not at all occupying the internal space of the armored personnel carrier.


    Did any of the manufacturers carry out comparative shelling, at least from small arms of these modules and old towers where KPVT with PKT installed on equipment stand? What was left intact from the optics, and did not detonate from the c / c and ATGM? Something suggests that - no. And then all this is suitable only for these exhibitions, which is in the photo. sad
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 17 September 2020 00: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      Did any of the manufacturers carry out comparative shelling, at least from small arms of these modules and old towers where KPVT with PKT installed on equipment stand?

      Of the manufacturers - I don't know, but in life, such experience heaps. For example, Afghanistan:





      Can you see the wheels on the towers? What do you think they are there for?
      But the removed module does not have such a problem: if it is pierced by a bullet. then it will not hit the gunner.
    2. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 17 September 2020 05: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      Did any of the manufacturers carry out comparative shelling, at least from small arms of these modules and old towers where KPVT with PKT installed on equipment stand? What was left intact from the optics, and did not detonate from the c / c and ATGM?

      Yes, there is always such a problem with optics. The rest of the armor protection of combat modules must match the protection of the chassis.
  • SaLaR
    SaLaR 16 September 2020 21: 10 New
    +1
    BTR-82AT with hinged protection and a new combat module - a cool fence was hung))) .. and they also laughed at the Belarusians when they showed the same at the parade))))
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 September 2020 00: 58 New
      +1
      This is a modernization for the poor there, even instead of Cornet - the competition is worth it.
      1. SaLaR
        SaLaR 17 September 2020 21: 03 New
        0
        I agree with that ...)
  • Radikal
    Radikal 17 September 2020 01: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    Did any of the manufacturers carry out comparative shelling, at least from small arms of these modules and old towers where KPVT with PKT installed on equipment stand?

    Of the manufacturers - I don't know, but in life, such experience heaps. For example, Afghanistan:





    Can you see the wheels on the towers? What do you think they are there for? ...

    Well, what are they there for? lol I know what you have reported here, you may not have understood what I meant by talking about modern tower modules. Did you read carefully, or did you prefer to answer incompletely? winked And further. Did you yourself sit on the seat of the senior shooter, that is, the gunner of turret machine guns in the BTR-60,70,80 were sitting? At what level is the shooter's head relative to the roof of the APC, and the turret ring? sad
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 17 September 2020 12: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      At what level is the shooter's head relative to the roof of the APC, and the turret ring?

      A bullet from a "drill" (an English rifle, such as our three-line) pierced our BRDM through and through at a good angle (the bullet shell remained outside, and the steel core pierced both sides). One side of the APC made its way. The tower armor is the same. The wheel on the roof is from a shot from above (mountains).
      Quote: Radikal
      you may not have understood what I mean by talking about modern tower modules.

      From accurate shooting at the tower, the optics will fail, so this is a problem for any tower. And the ammunition rack, I think (I have not seen the data), should be covered, at least, with bulletproof armor. But even if the ammunition is detonated, the crew and the landing force are protected by the armored personnel carrier's armor.
  • iouris
    iouris 17 September 2020 11: 09 New
    0
    It makes no sense to talk about prospects. Now only "condition" is a factor.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 17 September 2020 13: 26 New
    +2
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    At what level is the shooter's head relative to the roof of the APC, and the turret ring?

    A bullet from a "drill" (an English rifle, such as our three-line) pierced our BRDM through and through at a good angle (the bullet shell remained outside, and the steel core pierced both sides). One side of the APC made its way. The tower armor is the same. The wheel on the roof is from a shot from above (mountains).
    Quote: Radikal
    you may not have understood what I mean by talking about modern tower modules.

    From accurate shooting at the tower, the optics will fail, so this is a problem for any tower. And the ammunition rack, I think (I have not seen the data), should be covered, at least, with bulletproof armor. But even if the ammunition is detonated, the crew and the landing force are protected by the armored personnel carrier's armor.

    I don’t need to tell you about the armor of the turret, and in general the armored personnel carriers, as for the spare wheel on the roof of the turret, this is the only relatively safe place on the car, where the wheel will remain intact, in the event of a slight explosion, in order to replace the damaged one. And following your logic, it was necessary to add a cartridge box with sand instead of a wheel, or to soldiers on armor on the same wheel on the head. As for the turret itself, almost all of the interior space is occupied by the breech of the KPVT, and the PKT, and the periscope sight - try to hit the turret shooter's head in the gap between these weapons, if the armored personnel carrier is moving at speed, or even if it is firing from the spot. sad
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 17 September 2020 15: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      And following your logic ........
      This is not my logic. So said the fighters who rode this technique. During this period, I had other means of transportation: the cabin or body of the car, the cargo compartment of a helicopter or an airplane. From the means of protection, perhaps, to rely on God.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 17 September 2020 15: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    And following your logic ........
    This is not my logic. So said the fighters who rode this technique. During this period, I had other means of transportation: the cabin or body of the car, the cargo compartment of a helicopter or an airplane. From the means of protection, perhaps, to rely on God.

    I understood that I myself did not go, but ... heard .... bully
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 17 September 2020 15: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      I understood that I myself did not go, but ... I heard ...

      That is, if I were sitting in the tower, and having twisted the tips, would I immediately understand that the spare wheel was?
  • Radikal
    Radikal 17 September 2020 16: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    I understood that I myself did not go, but ... I heard ...

    That is, if I were sitting in the tower, and having twisted the tips, would I immediately understand that the spare wheel was?

    Let's finish - I consider it senseless to discuss this issue with you for a number of reasons. Why? I hope you can figure it out for yourself. soldier