Military Review

BTR-82A (M) production results

258

Advertising image of the BTR-82A


The serial production of new armored personnel carriers BTR-82A and the modernization of the existing BTR-80 to the state of the BTR-82AM continue. According to the latest news, this year the armed forces will receive several hundred more units of such equipment. It is curious that as a result of these processes, the BTR-82A (M) has already become the most massive vehicle of its class in the Russian army.

Past successes


The BTR-82A (M) armored personnel carrier was officially put into service in 2013, although supplies to the troops were carried out earlier. The production of new armored vehicles of the BTR-82A type was mastered by the Arzamas Machine-Building Plant. In addition, overhaul of the existing BTR-80 with modernization according to the BTR-82AM project is carried out at repair enterprises. The production and modernization of equipment quickly gained the required pace and continues to this day.

According to The Military Balance 2020, by the beginning of last year, the ground forces had 1 BTR-82A (M) armored personnel carriers. The authors of the reference book counted 661 more vehicles of these types in the coastal troops. The Airborne Forces had only 20 modern armored personnel carriers. At the same time, 1500 older BTR-80s were present in the army, and 100 such vehicles remained in the coastal troops. The core of the airborne armored personnel carrier fleet was made up of specialized BTR-D and BTR-MDM - more than 780 units in total.

Thus, in just a few years, the army and industry carried out a very large program of massive renewal of armored vehicles. The number of armored personnel carriers of new models and modifications gradually approached the number of old vehicles, which made it possible to more fully realize the qualitative advantages of modern models.


BTR-80 is no longer the most massive armored personnel carrier of the Russian army

It should be noted that the main contribution to such a renewal of the fleet of armored vehicles is made by the modernization of available vehicles. It is cheaper and easier to build the BTR-82A from scratch, but it allows you to get the same results. In different years, the modernized BTR-82AM accounted for at least 50-60 percent. from the total release of such equipment.

Last year's indicators


Production plans for 2020 were revealed last spring. Then the Ministry of Defense announced that at least 460 armored personnel carriers of two types would arrive in the unit by the end of the year. BTR-82A new construction was expected in the amount of 130 units.

Some messages about the delivery of the BTR-82A (M) in part have appeared since the beginning of last year. Recent deliveries of more than 100 units. took place already in December. From the available reports, it follows that the plans for the production of 460 armored vehicles were successfully completed. As a result of this, a number of units of different types of troops received improved equipment, while others began operating wheeled armored personnel carriers for the first time.

According to the results of last year's deliveries, the total number of BTR-82A (M) in the troops should have reached the level of 2140-2150 units. In 2020, it was planned to repair and rebuild at least 330 BTR-80 from combat units. This means that the number of such vehicles in the original configuration could be reduced to 1300 units. or less. However, in modern BTR-82AM armored vehicles can be rebuilt from storage, which will allow not to reduce the active fleet of BTR-80 and combine quantitative growth with a qualitative upgrade.


One of the BTR-82A armored personnel carriers of the airborne troops

Plans for the future


On February 22, the Ministry of Defense revealed plans for the rearmament of the ground forces for this year. Hundreds of armored combat vehicles of various classes will be purchased. The most widespread will be the armored personnel carriers of the latest models - about 300 units. A few days later, the news about the procurement of armored vehicles was repeated, but without much detail. In particular, the shares of completely new and updated equipment are not indicated.

The expected completion of orders for this year will lead to understandable results. The total number of modern BTR-82A (M) will exceed 2400 units, and the number of older BTR-80s may be reduced again. By the end of the year, the units may have less than 1 such armored personnel carriers.

Most likely, in the next 2022, the production and modernization of armored vehicles will continue. The volumes of future orders are unknown and, possibly, have not yet been determined, since they must be determined taking into account the result of previous work. At the same time, it is clear what consequences the continuation of the current rearmament program will lead to.

Save and grow


The BTR-82AM project proposes the restructuring of the existing BTR-80 armored vehicle according to a new project with a number of important capabilities. When using equipment from combat units, the BTR-80 is gradually replaced with new BTR-82AM while maintaining the total number - and improving the state of the park, as well as increasing combat capabilities.


The construction of the BTR-82A is carried out from scratch. Distinguished by greater complexity and cost, it allows you to increase the total number of armored personnel carriers in the army. Such capabilities are used to equip newly created formations or to re-equip existing ones.

For example, in November 2020, the newly formed motorized rifle regiment of the 127th motorized rifle division received three dozen new armored personnel carriers. Later, in December, the re-equipment of three battalions of the 205th separate motorized rifle brigade was completed. Previously, they used MT-LB vehicles, and now they are mastering modern BTR-82s. Without the production of the BTR-82A (M), such processes would at least be difficult and would have limited results.

Benefits obtained


The BTR-82A (M) project offers a deep modernization of the existing BTR-80 armored personnel carrier with the replacement of a number of key units. Due to this, significant advantages are achieved over the basic machine in all main characteristics. However, the BTR-82A (M) is noticeably inferior to promising models that are preparing for adoption.

In the course of modernization, measures were taken to increase the resource of the structure. The increase in weight is compensated by the installation of a new KAMAZ-740.14-300 engine with a power of 300 hp. The same measures allow you to increase mobility and patency.


BTR-82AM on patrol

Much attention is paid to the issues of protection. A new anti-splinter lining has appeared on the armor inside the habitable compartments, designed to complement the hull sheets. Enhanced mine protection is envisaged. In addition, the seats of the crew and the landing party with an energy-absorbing suspension are used. An air conditioner has been introduced to improve working conditions.

BTR-82A (M) receives a turret cannon and machine gun mount with a 30-mm 2A72 cannon and a PKTM machine gun. The installation has a two-plane stabilizer and a combined (day-night) sight TKN-4GA. Such a complex of weapons allows you to obtain high firepower, increased accuracy and the ability to effectively fire at any time of the day.

Quantity and quality of


Thus, the BTR-82A (M) project makes it possible to do without the production of fundamentally new equipment, saving time and resources, but at the same time getting a noticeable increase in the main characteristics and capabilities. In addition, the need for a lengthy and complex retraining of crews disappears, and the operation processes are simplified.

A similar approach has been implemented over the past few years and has already yielded noticeable results. The total number of BTR-82A (M) gradually approached the number of BTR-80, and then exceeded it. It is expected that the modernization of the fleet of armored vehicles will continue, incl. with the renewal of old armored personnel carriers according to a modern project. It is very likely that in a few years this will completely abandon the outdated BTR-80 and fully use the potential of the modern BTR-82A (M) project.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, "Rosoboronexport"
258 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 04: 57
    +5
    Thank you for the article!
    All is well, but the BTR-82A has not yet resolved the issue with the stern ramp (landing).
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 2 March 2021 05: 04
      +17
      So the engine is in the back, where to hide it, in the modern version of the armored personnel carrier they have an engine in the front like a Boomerang, and so I think the modernization is good, it will come in handy in the vastness of the homeland.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 05: 16
        +13
        Quote: Pessimist22
        I think the modernization is good, it will come in handy in the vastness of the homeland

        More advanced than "80", but pokatushki on armor is not good.
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 2 March 2021 08: 14
          +7
          Key phrase in the article:
          Thus, the BTR-82A (M) project makes it possible to dispense with the production of fundamentally new equipment,
          Which means that the "kurgans", yes "boomerangs" all sorts of still wait until mass introduction.
          1. Civil
            Civil 2 March 2021 09: 45
            0
            https://topwar.ru/160279-btr-i-bmp-bumerang-v-sravnenii-s-predshestvennikami.html
            Here is a comparison to Boomerang
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 2 March 2021 10: 16
            -5
            That's right, if both are cardboard, then why pay more.
          3. kytx
            kytx 3 March 2021 08: 57
            +1
            plant in Kurgan in full ass :(
    2. PROXOR
      PROXOR 3 March 2021 10: 41
      +11
      There is one more. Having an excellent 2A72 cannon and not having armor for the life of him, they do not want to equip a normal sight with a TV. Syria showed good results of the work of this armored personnel carrier, when the body is behind the parapet, and only the tower sticks out from above. NEEDS a normal scope.
    3. Anton 17
      Anton 17 15 March 2021 19: 27
      0
      What for? This corresponds to the original purpose of this combat vehicle.
      a delivery man to the starting line? Further - this is the theme of the BMP with the stern exit of the fighters.
  2. Free wind
    Free wind 2 March 2021 05: 12
    -8
    And what is the difference between the BTR80 and the BTR82, but only in the tower, and since there was a coffin on wheels, it remained. To put the designers and a couple of generals in it, and walk in line from the DShK. I wonder how their relatives will sing at the funeral. By the way, the engine is a Bosch injection pump, straight from the heart of NATO. I wonder why these movements were with Typhoons and all kinds of Boomerangs? They poured money in, and that's all.
    1. Pechkin
      Pechkin 2 March 2021 06: 15
      +17
      By the way, the engine is a Bosch injection pump, straight from the heart of NATO.
      Maybe on some new modifications of the BTR-82, as well as the usual KAMAZ injection pump.

      1. max702
        max702 5 March 2021 22: 45
        +2
        I wonder why the YaMZ-536 is not installed especially in the Euro-0 version, the one that is 451l \ s .. The engine is very quiet and economical, and it takes less space .. But apparently it's really the case in "Bosch" (although they write like we are already producing ) or the lobby Kamazovskoe works better with the Ministry of Defense .. Although YMZ has always been loved in the army ..
        1. Pechkin
          Pechkin 6 March 2021 06: 25
          0
          The 6-cylinder engine is certainly more compact, but the common rail fuel system. Who will repair and service it in the army. You have a fuel leak error and all the armored personnel carriers do not travel or the nozzle is shorted and it stalls.
          1. max702
            max702 6 March 2021 08: 31
            0
            This is a technical problem and it is solved quite simply by quality control and competent service, in the north this diesel engine works great in very harsh conditions, although they are not serviced by 18-year-old conscripts.
    2. Professor
      Professor 2 March 2021 07: 49
      -9
      Quote: Free Wind
      And what is the difference between the BTR80 and the BTR82, but only in the tower, and since there was a coffin on wheels, it remained. To put the designers and a couple of generals in it, and walk in line from the DShK. I wonder how their relatives will sing at the funeral. By the way, the engine is a Bosch injection pump, straight from the heart of NATO. I wonder why these movements were with Typhoons and all kinds of Boomerangs? They poured money in, and that's all.

      Don't need DShK. SVD remarkably penetrates the armor of this, if one may say "armored car".
      1. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 2 March 2021 11: 37
        +20
        Don't need DShK. SVD remarkably penetrates the armor of this, if one may say "armored car".

        Armor-piercing cartridges only. By the way, the M113 is the same.
        1. Professor
          Professor 2 March 2021 13: 13
          -7
          Quote: Okolotochny
          Don't need DShK. SVD remarkably penetrates the armor of this, if one may say "armored car".

          Armor-piercing cartridges only. By the way, the M113 is the same.

          What does the M-113 have to do with it? It has not been produced for a long time and is being removed from service. The BTR-82 is still rolling off the assembly line.
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 2 March 2021 13: 31
            +17
            Moreover. There is always a threaded bolt for something tricky. That's right, they are coming down, including modernized ones. By the way, they are used for patrolling in NGOs. Is the M113 currently in use? Yes. Does it perform the functions? Yes. What is the problem? All at once to the scrap and give 3 thousand Boomerangs?
            1. Professor
              Professor 2 March 2021 17: 14
              .
              Quote: Okolotochny
              Moreover.

              Will we consider the cavalry?

              Quote: Okolotochny
              There is always a threaded bolt for something tricky. That's right, they are coming down, including modernized ones. By the way, they are used for patrolling in NGOs. Is the M113 currently in use? Yes.

              Not. Sometimes as an all-terrain vehicle and only where they don't shoot.

              Quote: Okolotochny
              Does it perform the functions? Yes.

              Not. Infantry is not transported to the battlefield.

              Quote: Okolotochny
              What is the problem? All at once to the scrap and give 3 thousand Boomerangs?

              What is already in the ranks can not be scrapped, but continue to release junk ...


              Quote: alexmach
              What does the M-113 have to do with it? It has not been produced for a long time and is being removed from service. The BTR-82 is still rolling off the assembly line.


              6000 in service with the Israeli army? This is almost more than the armored personnel carrier in the Russian.

              You are probably talking about some other "Israeli army". In the one about which I have information, there is not so much M113. A very small number are used as an all-terrain vehicle (not armored) and most importantly: they are no longer produced or supplied to the troops.
              1. PROXOR
                PROXOR 3 March 2021 10: 43
                0
                When will you be banned from this site.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 3 March 2021 21: 01
                  -3
                  Quote: PROXOR
                  When will you be banned from this site.

                  So don't read me, buddy. Pass by in formation. wassat
                2. max702
                  max702 5 March 2021 22: 42
                  +2
                  Quote: PROXOR
                  When will you be banned from this site.

                  Never, the owners of the site are from the same country as the "professor", and Moses forbade them to paraffin each other ... And he is here at work too ..
                3. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 3 March 2021 11: 34
                +5
                Professor, you are all over .... "Professor"? Do you know how the BTR-82 will be used ???? Has the General Staff already reported to you? You brought Boxter above. Is this ideal? Well, in your opinion, yes. It burns the same way as the 82nd. It's all about the tactics of use. You probably know the ideas of the General Staff? With a fool, you can and .... break your finger. And your Merkavas burned well in 2006. Will you write off? And during the assault on Grozny in 1994, militants burned all equipment, including tanks. To write off too?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 3 March 2021 21: 07
                  -3
                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  Professor, you are all over .... "Professor"?

                  No, not in everything.

                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  Do you know how the BTR-82 will be used ????

                  Is it really not on purpose? Armored personnel carrier (armored transporter, armored personnel carrier) - an armored transport and combat vehicle (conveyor) for transporting personnel (shooters and the like) motorized rifle (motorized infantry, airborne, etc.) units and their materiel to the place of the combat mission and evacuation of the wounded and injured from the battlefield.

                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  Has the General Staff already reported to you? You brought Boxter above. Is this ideal? Well, in your opinion, yes. It burns the same way as the 82nd. It's all about the tactics of use. You probably know the ideas of the General Staff? With a fool, you can ... break your finger.

                  I'm all in conjecture. How are they going to apply Armored personnel carrier? Enlighten pliz.

                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  And your Merkavas burned well in 2006. Will you write off?

                  Hmm. 5 (five) tanks were irretrievably lost, this "burned badly", KEP. Nevertheless, the number of tanks in Tsakhal is constantly decreasing.

                  Quote: Okolotochny
                  And during the assault on Grozny in 1994, militants burned all equipment, including tanks. To write off too?

                  Yes. A lot of scrap metal must be written off.

                  I don’t understand why continue releasing junk?
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 2 March 2021 13: 44
            +13
            What does the M-113 have to do with it? It has not been produced for a long time and is being removed from service. The BTR-82 is still rolling off the assembly line.

            6000 in service with the Israeli army? This is almost more than the armored personnel carrier in the Russian.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 2 March 2021 17: 33
              +1
              Quote: alexmach
              6000 in service with the Israeli army?

              Not. 500 М113 in service, 5000 in storage, some more in engineering services and anti-tank for Spike NLOS.
              But at the same time 830 armored personnel carriers made on the basis of reinforced T-55, Merkava, Centurion.
        2. ironic
          ironic 2 March 2021 23: 16
          -1
          Place M113, carry mortars, and then perhaps for the sake of economy, while others have not been replaced.
      2. GKA72
        GKA72 12 March 2021 21: 51
        0
        Have you tried from SVD to armored personnel carriers? I’m on board, he doesn’t take it.
        1. Professor
          Professor 13 March 2021 12: 21
          -1
          Quote: GKA72
          Have you tried from SVD to armored personnel carriers? I’m on board, he doesn’t take it.

          So it was necessary to have armor-piercing and or armor-piercing incendiary. The latter (7.62-B32) penetrates 20 mm of rolled homogeneous armor at a distance of 500 m.
          1. Professor
            Professor 13 March 2021 12: 47
            -1
            Typo. Correctly The last (7.62-B32) breaks 10 mm of rolled homogeneous armor at a distance of 200 m.
    3. 1976AG
      1976AG 2 March 2021 10: 12
      +14
      It seems that you have just learned about the BTR-82A and the Boomerang, otherwise you would be aware that the Boomerang will go into series after the end of state tests, and until that time there is little choice, either to upgrade the old ones to the level of the BTR-82A or do nothing at all, let the old ones continue to wear out.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 2 March 2021 12: 16
        +13
        Don't you get the impression that at least 5 years of state tests is definitely a lot?

        In my opinion, the Boomerang was ready for serial production long ago, but it turned out to be unambiguously too expensive, and this is the only reason for the modernization of the old paper BTR-80 with the tragic deployment of the landing force, to the level of the BTR-82.

        Of course, the BTR-82 has some improvements compared to the 80, but the cardinal flaws of this design cannot be eliminated, so talking about a new modern armored personnel carrier is an exaggeration. Their modernization and production support the Arzamas industry more than the army.

        The same is the case with the BMP - BMP-1AM "Basurmanin" versus "Kurganets".

        The same is with tanks, although the T-72B3M is a successful upgrade there, and the T-90M "Breakthrough" is one of the greatest tanks in the world.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 2 March 2021 13: 18
          +3
          More recently, there was information that according to the results of preliminary tests, changes will be made to the design of the Boomerang, and after that it will go to state tests. This means that work on it continued until recently. As for the high cost, this is all very relative. We heard the same about the Su-57, Mi-28NM and other samples, but the prices were adjusted and good contracts were concluded. And the Boomerang will not go at the price of the Su-57, so do not worry, they will bring it to mind and start deliveries to the Armed Forces.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 March 2021 13: 27
            0
            What serious design errors would the Boomerang take so long to fix?
            Indeed, no one admits to such an inconsistency of the image as lack of money, so everything can be justified. With change, eternal fixes are a great excuse.

            And the timing of the completion of tests and the start of production is constantly changing and changing.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 2 March 2021 13: 46
              +2
              What serious design errors would the Boomerang take so long to fix?

              Import substitution ... There was no production of the units it needed ...
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 2 March 2021 13: 52
                -1
                Which ones? After all, the Russian engine, similar weapons and thermal imagers from Belarus under a French license.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 2 March 2021 14: 11
                  +3
                  Which ones?

                  I do not know, but everything stalled strongly in '14 and it was reported that the sanctions specifically on Boomerang hit hard.
                  After all, the Russian engine

                  Is it serial? And the checkpoint for it? I think most likely it is the power plant.
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: alexmach
                    reported that the sanctions specifically on Boomerang hit hard.

                    According to the media, claims to the corps also hit him. According to the latest reports from the military-industrial complex, the Boomerang that rides at the May 9 parade is already seriously different from the car, the cat. tests are passing.
                    1. alexmach
                      alexmach 2 March 2021 21: 30
                      +4
                      In general, after thinking a little over the comments about light armored vehicles, I must say that I rather disagree with the critics of the BTR-82a. With all its real shortcomings, in the conditions when, first of all, modern technology is still not in the series, and it is not clear when it will actually be, and besides, even when it goes into series and will be purchased, it is not clear how massive these purchases will be. and how many years to stretch. In general, in these conditions, buying a conditionally modernized one, the same for everyone, and at the same time an inexpensive armored personnel carrier does not at all look like a bad decision.
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 22: 23
                        +4
                        The very same position: it is better to have here and now in your squad, albeit not the most protected, but well-armed armored vehicle, than not to have it, but to know that there are as many as 2 Star Destroyers in the neighboring regiment.
                      2. psiho117
                        psiho117 2 March 2021 23: 28
                        +1
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        better to have here and now

                        I support. But all the same, the practice of using armored personnel carriers instead of infantry fighting vehicles - I consider vicious and stupid.
                      3. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 17: 37
                        +2
                        Quote: psiho117
                        An armored personnel carrier instead of an infantry fighting vehicle - I consider it vicious and stupid.

                        Here, as they say, without options: on the one hand, tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles (and just BMPs), so that they can carry infantry, and swim, and support it with fire, and protect the rear, and so that no army can pull a lot and cheaply ...
                        On the other hand, no matter how much an armored personnel carrier is, it is the "long arm" of a squad with a firing distance of 1500 - 3000 m.
                        In addition, in terms of armor, it is necessary to find fault with the Ministry of Defense: that during the years of development it was possible to think about strengthening the armor, that now nothing prevents the screens from being installed in large quantities.
                      4. Constanty
                        Constanty 3 March 2021 18: 59
                        0
                        An armored personnel carrier with a 30-mm cannon is a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle under contracts.
                      5. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 6 March 2021 17: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Constanty
                        An armored personnel carrier with a 30-mm cannon is a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle under contracts.

                        The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) is no longer in effect, so it doesn't matter.
                      6. Constanty
                        Constanty 6 March 2021 17: 45
                        0
                        I confess that I do not know the current legal status. However, an armored personnel carrier with a 30-mm cannon differs from an infantry fighting vehicle only in the type of traction - wheeled, not tracked - so that the meaning of such a classification in the treatise is, as far as I understand.
      2. Grognag
        Grognag 3 March 2021 18: 47
        0
        Do you have it now? There is a complex problem here, which is that in our country, unfortunately, all microelectronics are fucked up, that's why thermal imagers and sights are Belarusian
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 3 March 2021 19: 39
          +2
          And what about the Belarusians, is it better with microelectronics or what?
          But microelectronics are still flowers. In addition to it, there are also gearbox engines and other chassis. It's one thing when there is a problem with microelectronics and everything else is in order and ready - it can be solved through some channels. And it is completely different when the problem is with everything at the same time. And as far as I know, Belarusian sights were bought not because of microelectronics, but because of French optics in Russia.
    4. 1976AG
      1976AG 2 March 2021 13: 48
      0
      What is the lack of money? Who told you that? The sums there are quite small. This is our lack of money, but the state has enough, believe me. Remember how things were with the Su-57 and Mi-28 NM. There, too, at first they shouted that it was expensive, then the manufacturer dropped the price a little and immediately the contracts went. But this is when the technique is already ready, but when it has not yet been brought to mind, then there is nothing to agree on. but the fact that it is 5 years old, so in our times it is normal for new technology. Where have you seen shorter time frames?
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 2 March 2021 13: 56
        +2
        In 2 months, it will be 6 years since the famous parade, at which this car was proudly presented.
        To do this, its development and testing had to take place much earlier in order to avoid possible camouflage on Red Square.
        So the rehearsal cycle is much longer. Surprisingly long.
        At this time, mighty ships, not armored personnel carriers, are being built and put into service.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 2 March 2021 13: 59
          +2
          Ships? Take the nuclear submarine pr. 885 as it is being built or frigates pr. 22350. as soon as some modernization is so a few years. Or take the Polyment Redoubt challenges. So, alas, right now, everything new is being tested for a long time.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 March 2021 14: 00
            0
            Oh yes - I forgot to add, not in Russia (and not in Poland - after all, the corvette was built there for 17 years and is still not completed)
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 2 March 2021 14: 01
              0
              Quote: Constanty
              Oh yes - I forgot to add, not in Russia

              I agree here.
          2. max702
            max702 6 March 2021 08: 38
            0
            Well, of course, it should be like the "partners" built in a series and here the surprise nothing works. Zumwalt and Gerald Ford will not lie, and if you think about the F-35 and missile defense, then in general, they did everything right .. We had an experience with a rake in t-64 and mig-29, thanks no more ..
  • venik
    venik 2 March 2021 19: 28
    +1
    Quote: Constanty
    Don't you get the impression that at least 5 years of state tests is definitely a lot?

    =========
    And you don't know what's on public Test, "Boomerang" will only be released this spring (and should it be completed by the end of the year?
    Or do you not know that such a thing exists, as a development test, including fine-tuning and revision of the design, as well as its individual units and components?
    So these (experimental design tests) "Boomerang" completed only at the end of last year! It was planned earlier, but there was a lot of work on import substitution, and a lot of work had to be done ... request
  • K-612-O
    K-612-O 3 March 2021 15: 58
    0
    He was not ready for the series, the amount of improvements, according to the remarks of the GABTU, took only 1,5-2 years, and then sorry again tests
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 2 March 2021 10: 19
    +4
    Read the article, it says what is different. Whining in the style of "armored personnel carrier - not a tank" is meaningless. Want a tank, pay for a tank, on tracks, weighing 40 tons. In practice, we get an army of the level of the 45th year, when 80% of all formations were ordinary infantry divisions, since it is impossible to produce so many tanks.
    1. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 2 March 2021 11: 56
      -3
      Well, what is the point in an expensive apparatus that does not even protect against shooters of ordinary caliber? It is not for nothing that the infantry rides it exclusively on horseback in the combat zone ...
      Then it's better to have a Ural with armored sides, much more sense, and just more convenient.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 35
        0
        Quote: Sahalinets
        Well, what is the point in an expensive apparatus that does not even protect against shooters of ordinary caliber? It is not for nothing that the infantry rides it exclusively on horseback in the combat zone ...

        It just protects from the shooter. And the infantry rides it not because of weak armor, but because of the fear of being blown up by a mine (which does not protect against land mines) and in order to be able to dismount faster.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 2 March 2021 15: 14
    -3
    But the BTR80 can be used as a donor of spare parts, when a very good piece is attached from the point of view of unification
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 34
    0
    Quote: Free Wind
    And what is the difference between the BTR80 and the BTR82, but only in the tower, and since there was a coffin on wheels, it remained.

    A turret with cannon armament is no longer sickly enough to increase the efficiency and survivability of a combat vehicle. Plus an anti-splinter lining (which is also extremely useful for the crew and troops). Condo and an improved chassis, it seems, are already on new-built cars.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 2 March 2021 20: 58
      -2
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      A turret with cannon armament is no longer sickly so it increases the efficiency and survivability of a combat vehicle

      On the contrary, the use as an infantry fighting vehicle is not sickly so lowers the survivability of the armored personnel carrier, which, in fact, breaks through from the DShK, from any range - and pickups with machine guns are now like mud.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 21: 02
        +2
        Quote: psiho117
        On the contrary, using it as an infantry fighting vehicle reduces the survivability of an armored personnel carrier, which, in fact, breaks through from the DShK from any range - and pickups with machine guns are now like mud.

        1. In the forehead from the DShK does not break through. On board - it can already. With screens, cat. promise to start betting - most likely not.
        2. As the experience of using the BTR-2A in 80ChV has shown, these vehicles more than effectively covered their columns when ambushed.
        3. The combat regulations prescribe the use of armored personnel carriers in combined arms combat. And so they were used during the Second World War. Not just like a taxi.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 2 March 2021 21: 27
          +1
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          The combat regulations prescribe the use of armored personnel carriers in combined arms combat. And so they were used during the Second World War. Not just like a taxi.

          Remind me of the hundred points of the German Charter during the Second World War, which confirm the above.

          As the experience of using the BTR-2A in 80ChV has shown, these vehicles more than effectively covered their columns when ambushed.
          Well Duc there was nothing else to cover, only 30mm on the BMP and 14,5mm on the armored personnel carrier.
          And just as effectively they were destroyed by enemy fire - fortunately, the dushmans did not have such a quantity and range of anti-tank equipment then, and there were no thousands of pickups with DShK either.
          Unfortunately, modern opponents have it all.
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          In the forehead from the DShK does not break through.


          BTR-80:
          Armor type rolled steel
          Forehead, mm / city. Xnumx
          Hull board, mm / deg. 7..9
          Feed housing, mm / city. fifteen
          Front of the tower, mm / deg. Xnumx
          Board towers, mm / city. Xnumx
          The feed of the tower, mm / city. Xnumx


          Cartridge with armor-piercing incendiary bullet B-32 (armor-piercing incendiary bullet with a steel core, GRAU index - 57-BZ-542) was adopted in 1936.
          When firing from the DShKM machine gun against steel armor of medium hardness, the armor penetration of the B-32 bullet is 20 mm at 500 m at 0 deg. from the normal.
          Cartridge with BS armor-piercing incendiary bullet (BS - armor-piercing core) was put into service in 1974.
          The BS bullet has a significantly better armor-piercing effect than the B-32 bullet. Armor penetration 20mm at a distance of 750m at an angle of 20 degrees from the normal

          There is no need to even talk about cartridges with a tungsten carbide core and sub-caliber cartridges that are in service with our "partners" - they are many times superior to the B-32.

          So yes, DShK sews it right through - which there were many examples.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 2 March 2021 22: 00
            0
            Forehead, mm / city. sixteen

            So at what degree is that?
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 2 March 2021 22: 51
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              So at what degree is that?

              This is not armor penetration, but armor protection.
              This designation implies that at any degree of inclination of the armor, its thickness is 10mm.
              It will be less normal, of course - but since there are rational angles, it turns out like this.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 22: 07
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            Remind me of the hundred points of the German Charter during the Second World War, which confirm the above.

            I will not give the German charter, but there are articles analyzing the use of armored personnel carriers by the Germans, there are requirements for the use of our armored personnel carriers (40/152/60/70/80) without haste.

            Here are some recent articles about the Krauts: https://pikabu.ru/story/motopekhota_na_btr_i_boy_bez_speshivaniya_7483705

            Quote: psiho117
            Well Duc there was nothing else to cover, only 30mm on the BMP and 14,5mm on the armored personnel carrier.
            And just as effectively they were destroyed by enemy fire - fortunately, the spooks did not then have such a number and range of anti-tank equipment

            There is no information about the losses of the BTR-80A at all. There are not even rumors.
            Quote: psiho117
            DShK sews it right through - there were many examples.

            Do not consider it arrogance, but do you have any examples - the fact is that I have never found confirmation that 80 in the forehead over 500 meters made its way with the usual 12,7.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 2 March 2021 23: 20
              +2
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              There is no information about the losses of the BTR-80A at all. There are not even rumors.

              Completely. We open any article or report on the topic "Armored vehicles in the Afghan conflict", "BTR in combat", etc.
              Even this site has:
              https://topwar.ru/31540-semeystvo-btr-60-70-80-v-boevyh-deystviyah.html
              I recommend to get acquainted.
              And if you are specifically talking about 80-A, then they were not in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya there was a scanty number.
              Do you have any examples - the fact is that I have never found confirmation that 80 in the forehead over 500 meters made its way with the usual 12,7

              Not usual, but B-32 (armor-piercing incendiary). The usual one sews from 100-200m, depending on the angle of impact.
              There is only 7mm of armor, albeit at an angle.
              I will not cite the German charter, but there are articles analyzing the use of armored personnel carriers by the Germans, there are requirements for the use of our armored personnel carriers (40/152/60/70/80) without haste
              And it was from the wishes for their combat use that the BMP project appeared - which just allowed both an attack on the move and support with fire.
              When approaching the enemy in infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) ... Platoon personnel board the vehicles and are made to fire through the loopholes.
              Unfortunately, practice has clearly shown that the concept of fire through the loopholes has no practical application, due to the extremely limited view from the loophole itself, and the low situational awareness of the landing force inside the armored personnel carrier as a whole.
              However, just in case, let them be - even though the whole world (and we, too, on the latest models) have abandoned them.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 17: 31
                -1
                Quote: psiho117
                And if you are specifically talking about 80-A, then they were not in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya there was a scanty number.

                Yes. I was talking about them. Nevertheless, they did not suffer losses in ambushes. 82s were used in Donbass - but there were losses of 1-2 cars, judging by the Lostarmor. In Karabakh, the losses of the car are higher (although they are small for such a conflict), but they were also used en masse.

                Quote: psiho117
                bull sews from 100-200m, depending on the angle of impact.
                There is only 7mm of armor, albeit at an angle.

                I don’t argue about the board.

                Quote: psiho117
                even though the whole world (and we, too, on the latest models) have abandoned them.

                Now the loopholes have a Renaissance - on light armored vehicles (all sorts of armored vehicles and mrap, etc.), on the contrary, they put it en masse. Although the review is not a match for them. But no matter how, and the ability to shoot somewhere in the direction of the enemy from under the armor gives a chance that the latter will not be able to shoot exactly in response.
          3. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 22: 37
            0
            And here are the provisions of our old combat manual of 2005:
            When approaching the enemy on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers), the platoon commander, with their exit to the starting position, gives the commands "Platoon, TO MACHINES", "TO PLACES". The platoon personnel board the vehicles and are made to fire through the loopholes. A platoon in infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) at maximum speed moves to the dismounting line, firing on the move. At the dismount line, the platoon acts in the same way as when advancing from the depths.

            Or this:
            An attack without dismounting the personnel (by landing on tanks) is possible on an ice crust or ice space.

            In principle, if you read it, you can find a lot.
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 2 March 2021 21: 58
          0
          With screens, cat. promise to start betting - most likely not.

          With anti-cumulative gratings or what?
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 22: 09
            0
            Screens and grilles. Research Institute of Steel has been promoting them for a long time and has always stated that they give a total chance of protection from 12,7. True, without specifying what chance and from what distance and with what cartridge.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 2 March 2021 23: 23
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              True, without specifying what chance and from what distance and with what cartridge.

              indicate, but they are very tricky - like "when implementing these measures, the increase in the mathematical expectation of the number of unaffected motorized riflemen after firing from a large-caliber machine gun from a distance of 200 m can reach 37% with an insignificant (about 3%) increase in the mass of a combat vehicle."
      2. PROXOR
        PROXOR 3 March 2021 10: 52
        0
        From a pancake, the guys from the MTR in Syria are not shrewd. Find you a video of how the BIR-82A stands behind the parapet with one tower protruding and works with an autocannon. Now imagine how to do it on BMP2 or BMP3. Given that the BTR82A is semi-inhabited, and 2 and 3ki are inhabited. Okay, 3ka will be able to hydraulically raise the body and lower it, and 2ka.
  • Graz
    Graz 2 March 2021 05: 20
    +1
    make full use of the potential of the modern BTR-82A (M) project.

    Well, it is not modern, if in terms of mobility and weapons it is still here and there, then in terms of protection from small arms and mines. very loses, I suspect by fire control and detection too. this armored personnel carrier solves the problem less for the next 5 years, then it will lose to almost everyone in x-kam
    a controversial strategy for the MO, it is better to produce new samples of Boomerang, otherwise it will last and it will become obsolete
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 06: 09
      +9
      The BTR-82A was developed on the basis of the BTR-80A (BTR-80S), which is essentially perceived as a temporary upgrade until the BTR-90 appears in the troops. The latter, for all its design flaws, had good body protection, but did not grow together. Today, new BTR-82A are being made and old BTR-80 (BTR-82AM index) are being modernized to their level. The expediency of the first is questioned, the second has a rational grain. Here you have to look, if they change 60s, 70s and MTLB, then in essence everything is correct - a tit in the hands is better than a pie in the sky. However, if they change, as in our Central Federal District - BMP-1 and BMP-2, then it causes a misunderstanding.
      For the rest, I wildly doubt that our designers could not repeat the Ukrainian BTR-3 and BTR-4. Although in terms of armor and they are rather weak.
      The withdrawal of the Russian Army as air is necessary for an armored personnel carrier with armor protection in a circle of at least 12,7 mm of ammunition, with a decent mine protective, floating and stern ramp.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 2 March 2021 06: 14
        +3
        Photo:

        BTR-90 "Rostok"

        BTR-80A.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 2 March 2021 10: 21
          -2
          Is it okay that the BTR-90 weighs 20 tons, and the cost of the combat module from the BMP-3 go and exceed the cost of the entire chassis? And the cardboard is about the same.
          1. Twodi
            Twodi 2 March 2021 14: 26
            -1
            That is why the BMP-3 is never in demand in our army. Too expensive combat module for a weakly protected platform.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 18: 50
              +1
              Quote: Twodi
              That is why the BMP-3 is never in demand in our army. Too expensive combat module for a weakly protected platform.

              You are joking? Troika holds 30mm to the forehead and 12,7mm to the side. And its purchases are massive. In addition, for BMP-2 and 3, MO, judging by government purchases, ordered additional booking kits. The BMD-4M is another matter: an expensive (apparently in the media) and weakly protected combat vehicle.
            2. Konnick
              Konnick 3 March 2021 21: 04
              -1
              The module is even weaker protected, or rather practically unprotected.
          2. PROXOR
            PROXOR 3 March 2021 10: 56
            +1
            Here you are wrong. BTR-90 is an order of magnitude of 80k armor. Plus the bottom in the form of the letter V. He then exceeded 20 tons. He still has the same problem as the 80s. There is no aparel. Disembarkation is made through the side doors.
      2. Old tanker
        Old tanker 2 March 2021 06: 52
        +4
        BTR-82A is released to keep production. And this is reasonable. As soon as the Boomerang is put into service, they will start producing it instead of the T-82A. And the BTRZ will continue to upgrade the BTR-80 to the level of the BTR-82AM.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 2 March 2021 10: 07
          +2
          Quote: Old Tankman
          BTR-82A is released to keep production. And this is reasonable.

          This is not reasonable, this is a crime. They produce obviously outdated armored personnel carriers, spend people's money on it, endanger the lives of the best sons of the same people, for their own money.
          If they cannot arrange the production of a modern armored personnel carrier, let them leave and give the opportunity to work to those who can.
          1. 1976AG
            1976AG 2 March 2021 10: 22
            -1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Quote: Old Tankman
            BTR-82A is released to keep production. And this is reasonable.

            This is not reasonable, this is a crime. They produce obviously outdated armored personnel carriers, spend people's money on it, endanger the lives of the best sons of the same people, for their own money.
            If they cannot arrange the production of a modern armored personnel carrier, let them leave and give the opportunity to work to those who can.

            Well, you can work, but you don’t want to, and no one else can and cannot work, so it’s your fault that everything is so bad.
          2. lucul
            lucul 2 March 2021 10: 51
            +1
            This is not reasonable, this is a crime. They produce obviously outdated armored personnel carriers, spend people's money on it, endanger the lives of the best sons of the same people, for their own money.
            If they cannot arrange the production of a modern armored personnel carrier, let them leave and give the opportunity to work to those who can.

            Again you do not understand what you are writing about. Russia does not fight with a couple of hundred armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles / tanks / aircraft, battalions / regiments. We will talk about armies, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of armored vehicles. Have you seen the mobilization reserve of the Russian Federation? Do you know how much money is needed for a 10 million army, taking into account all units of equipment?
            If you are completely on your toes - here you have a knight chained from head to toe in armor, and you have your metallurgy in a country that can provide no more than 100 knights with metal in a year (well, you don’t have deposits of iron ore in the country, which to do). And your task is to equip the 50 thousandth army for an imminent war.
            Will you be using available iron, recruiting knights in full armor, or will you at least try to provide all 50 troops with swords?
          3. Twodi
            Twodi 2 March 2021 14: 27
            +4
            Seriously? What car do you think should be produced instead of 82 ???
        2. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 2 March 2021 11: 32
          +4
          Not only production, but more importantly combat readiness. And then reading here I sometimes see with horror that most of this does not want to understand. Replacing cars is a long process and you cannot throw away thousands of old ones and buy thousands of new ones at once.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 2 March 2021 12: 10
            -3
            Quote: carstorm 11
            Replacing cars is a long process and you cannot throw away thousands of old ones and buy thousands of new ones at once.

            This is natural, no one is talking about the replacement right away. Moreover, it is simply necessary to upgrade and maintain the massive 80/82.
            But new Boomerangs and Kurgantsy, full-fledged MRAPs, light airborne SUVs should already be produced. Not in thousands a year, at least in tens or hundreds.
            The new equipment should go to our expeditionary forces in the Transcaucasus, Central Asia, and Syria. To a war zone or wherever there is a risk of them.
            Again, export to our allies and partners. The same Turks have 2 serially produced armored personnel carriers 8 * 8, Arma and Pars. Kazakhstan is completing tests of Arma.

            In the meantime, we have only such atmospheric photos.
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 2 March 2021 12: 12
              0
              So our state passes))) and in principle, everything moves on armored vehicles once the tiger has already been prepared for replacement. He did his job. Now, having adopted the new Typhoon and Tornado platforms, in principle, the issue is closed. For three years now, the Ministry of Defense has been gradually replacing all the Urals and Kamaz with them.
    2. 1976AG
      1976AG 2 March 2021 10: 20
      +1
      Quote: Graz
      make full use of the potential of the modern BTR-82A (M) project.

      Well, it is not modern, if in terms of mobility and weapons it is still here and there, then in terms of protection from small arms and mines. very loses, I suspect by fire control and detection too. this armored personnel carrier solves the problem less for the next 5 years, then it will lose to almost everyone in x-kam
      a controversial strategy for the MO, it is better to produce new samples of Boomerang, otherwise it will last and it will become obsolete

      Is Boomerang ready? Can I be serialized?
  • jonht
    jonht 2 March 2021 05: 34
    +12
    Cyril, you obviously did not read your article, you have a repetition of the material through the paragraph. Correct, otherwise it is impossible to read, the same thing, the same thing and again the same thing ... hi
    1. Tritebemalo
      Tritebemalo 2 March 2021 08: 51
      +10
      You are clearly not a regular in VO. Chewing a minimum of information, repetition and transfusion from empty to empty - the corporate style of this "author" Kirill Ryabov. I recognize him from the first sentence of the article. Almost always I immediately rewind to the comments - they are always more interesting and informative than an article. In this case, I went to Viki on the BTR 82 A (M) - so there is more information, and it is more digestible.
      1. jonht
        jonht 2 March 2021 08: 59
        +7
        I am often here and it is difficult to recognize Cyril, but in this article it is just a paragraph repeating, not twice or even three times ...
        His last articles were more verified, and this is just a brain removal ...
  • Hermann
    Hermann 2 March 2021 06: 00
    +4
    I have already said something and will also say that the BTR-82A (M) needs a thermal imaging sight, the TKN-4GA-03 with a thermal imaging channel was presented, in my opinion, back in 2012.
    1. lucul
      lucul 2 March 2021 10: 54
      +1
      I have already said something and will also say that the BTR-82A (M) needs a thermal imaging sight, the TKN-4GA-03 with a thermal imaging channel was presented, in my opinion, back in 2012.

      Of course it is needed - who can argue, only its production needs to be expanded, what is produced is not enough for everyone.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. jonht
      jonht 2 March 2021 10: 10
      +2
      In 2018, at least 15 units of the Marine Corps came to Kamchatka, personally saw on the road, walked on their own. Perhaps there were still supplies, I was not interested in this issue.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 2 March 2021 07: 03
    +7
    The very concept of the BTR80 has long been outdated. It is clear that it is necessary to modernize the existing armored personnel carriers in any case, but the production of new (from scratch) BTR-82A makes sense only in order to load the Kurgan plant before the release of new models, really modern ones, into a series.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 2 March 2021 08: 03
      -1
      The 82ki BM is modern. Crews gain experience. And after the start of mass deliveries of Boomerang 82 will be preserved in MobReserve. Even in 20 years they will look quite relevant. And the most important thing. Judging by the article, it takes a lot of time to re-equip all parts of the army. Boomerand will go to the troops for much more than 10 years. And because of the price as well.
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 2 March 2021 08: 14
    +9
    Briefly about the combat effectiveness of this upgrade:
    here even criticism is not needed, everything is clear.
    If the RF Ministry of Defense cares so much about finances that it continues to save on the lives of fighters, then it would be better to buy pickups with DShK instead of such "modernization", even they look preferable than that.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 2 March 2021 09: 43
      +17
      Well, Toyota is better than an armored personnel carrier - there is no dispute.
      - Range and resource. Incommensurable.
      - Multifunctionality. Toyota can be completely reconfigured overnight.
      - Mine resistance, at the level, because everything in the body is ejectionable.
      - Armament, due to the variability at the level.
      - Spaciousness. Much bigger. Both in terms of people and in terms of cargo volume.
      - The silhouette, which is so loved here, is incommensurable.



      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 2 March 2021 10: 00
        -5
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, Toyota is better than an armored personnel carrier - there is no dispute.

        No sarcasm, I agree. The pickup is better than the current BTR-80/82. Releasing new ones is just a crime. I also understand the modernization of 80 to 82A, at least there is some sense, but the release of new ones ...
        And the US Armed Forces also agree that a pickup has many advantages, Airmobility is another important positive point.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 2 March 2021 10: 34
          +7
          One bottle of gasoline in the back, and everyone is fried. The armored vehicle should at least be closed. Well, in terms of firepower, the BTR-82A has a cannon stabilized.

          The US Armed Forces lost a lot of people from the banal shooting in the Magadish battle of 1993, simply because the Humvee does not have a full-fledged tower and the soldiers of the "high-tech" American army were forced to stand at the machine gun, leaning out to the waist, waiting for a bullet in the head. which inevitably came.
        2. lucul
          lucul 2 March 2021 10: 57
          +3
          Well, Toyota is better than an armored personnel carrier - there is no dispute.

          Do not make me laugh.
          and resource. Incommensurable.
          - Multifunctionality. Toyota can be completely reconfigured overnight.
          - Mine resistance, at the level, because everything in the body is ejectionable.
          - Armament, due to the variability at the level.
          - Spaciousness. Much bigger. Both in terms of people and in terms of cargo volume.
          - The silhouette, which is so loved here, is incommensurable.

          Everything written is a rare tpolling designed for schoolchildren.
        3. lucul
          lucul 2 March 2021 10: 58
          +3
          No sarcasm, I agree. The pickup is better than the current BTR-80/82.

          What's better?
          Can you write reasonably without a manual?
      2. Flashpoint
        Flashpoint 2 March 2021 21: 57
        +1
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, Toyota is better than an armored personnel carrier - there is no dispute.
        - Range and resource. Incommensurable.
        - Multifunctionality. Toyota can be completely reconfigured overnight.
        - Mine resistance, at the level, because everything in the body is ejectionable.
        - Armament, due to the variability at the level.
        - Spaciousness. Much bigger. Both in terms of people and in terms of cargo volume.
        - The silhouette, which is so loved here, is incommensurable.





        Everything, offset! The best comment! 2 minutes of laughter :) Even my daughter came running from the next room :)
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 2 March 2021 10: 28
      -6
      Do you generally understand that you can't see anything from the piece of iron, and when an anti-tank grenade flies out of your window, it might be too late to jump out of the vehicle? It is quite difficult to hit people on vehicles moving at a speed of 30-50 km / h from the shooter.
      1. lucul
        lucul 2 March 2021 11: 02
        0
        You generally understand that nothing can be seen from the piece of iron,

        This is the main drawback of armored vehicles - all modernization should go not for armor, but for detection equipment.
        Moreover, if the UAV transmits the detection of enemy manpower to the APC in real time, then the enemy infantry will not be envied, especially the grenade launchers.
        In this case, the lack of visibility of the armored personnel carrier is leveled.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 2 March 2021 13: 01
          0
          Then you will decide what you really need, whether you are afraid of a bullet and sit under a meter equivalent, or your maximum eye is observing the surroundings.

          I don't even want to comment on the "omnipotent UAVs". In the best case, a miniature UAV can be sent behind a hillock, or behind a house, that is, to do what a soldier would have done in the old fashioned way.
      2. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 2 March 2021 13: 45
        +2
        nothing is visible from the piece of iron
        from what iron that is not visible?
        when an anti-tank grenade flies out of your window, might it be too late to jump out of the vehicle?
        an anti-tank grenade is a capricious thing, it often ricochets, the cumulative jet is effectively extinguished by the screens, and the armored action often does not ensure the destruction of the vehicle. But 2 kg of explosives in a grenade will tightly knock the entire tank marines sitting ON the armor.
        To hit a moving target with small arms has never been difficult for me personally.
    3. Grits
      Grits 2 March 2021 13: 53
      +5


      It seems to me that the BTR-152 is even more convenient ...
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 2 March 2021 14: 12
        +4
        The BTR-152 was created by those who experienced the necessity and importance of the Bronya-Transporter in the army in their own skin. The more combat experience was lost, the more often the military-industrial complex began to produce freaks.
        We got to the point that the armored personnel carriers did not have any armor, nor could they be a transporter ... but they put a huge cannon on an Exarts wedge.
        A 30mm 82A combat module weighs 2,5 tons, with the same weight it was possible to completely put the machine in a circle in a steel screen 10mm thick and 2 meters high.
        If you give up on buoyancy (which has never come in handy in combat conditions for all 40 years of operation of the BTR80), you can also screw a two-ton 30mm armor plate under the entire troop compartment.
        BTR-80, although it is already frankly outdated machine, but with modernizations it is quite possible to pull up to an acceptable level.
        1. Grits
          Grits 2 March 2021 14: 31
          +2
          Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
          The BTR-152 was created by those who experienced the necessity and importance of the Bronya-Transporter in the army in their own skin.

          I totally agree with you. Those who went through that war were well aware that the main thing for such a technique was to carry tired soldiers, and not stomp them in the cold mud. At the same time, if necessary, during shelling, bend overboard from bullets, and also, if necessary, quickly jump out of the car and at the same time so that nothing interferes. Yes, and observation can be carried out at all 360. And there is absolutely no need for a super gun - a machine gun is quite enough. Considering that all soldiers also have their own small arms. Grandfathers knew a lot about battles ...
          1. Konnick
            Konnick 2 March 2021 15: 30
            +4
            The grandfathers knew a lot about battles ..

            BTR 60 and further were developed for combat conditions when using weapons of mass destruction. And this type of transport remains the main one in the army. Mine protection is required when conducting counter-guerrilla operations with single armored vehicles, and a column of a motorized rifle battalion must travel along a previously checked and cleared road and deliver infantry to the place of hostilities. All these anti-mine armored personnel carriers do not have the passability of the 80-82 BTR. And the new Boomerangs and Terminators are an ersatz tank, and their cost is no less than a tank one.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 45
            +1
            Quote: Gritsa
            At the same time, if necessary, during shelling, bend overboard from bullets, and also, if necessary, quickly jump out of the car and at the same time so that nothing interferes. And observation can be carried out at 360

            Only after the first use in hostilities came the understanding that an armored personnel carrier without a roof easily turns into a trap. In addition, the task of the armored personnel carrier is not only the transportation of l / s, but also the conduct of combat without dismounting. But, it is important to understand that the armored personnel carrier does not go in the same line with the tanks, but acts behind them.
            1. Grits
              Grits 3 March 2021 14: 46
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Only after the first use in hostilities came the understanding that an armored personnel carrier without a roof easily turns into a trap.

              The iron box is itself a trap. A box without a lid is less like a trap.
              True, it is contraindicated to enter the city on this - you never know what will be thrown off the balcony ...
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 17: 39
                0
                And not only in the city - fragments of mines, grenades from AGS and grenade launchers and in the field can fly. Yes, and closed armored personnel carriers are equipped with protection against omp. Yes, and just a landing with a roof is more comfortable: no mud, no wind, no heat loss + condo.
        2. panzerfaust
          panzerfaust 3 March 2021 13: 30
          0
          You can also install lattice screens, for some reason we do not practice this yet.
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 3 March 2021 14: 18
            0
            Lattice screens are still more of an emergency measure, when it is necessary to fight now, and the available equipment does not meet current needs. They only provide protection against RPGs, which is now completely insufficient, and are also a source of constant technical problems.
            Screens made of combined "sandwich" materials with an inert filler are lighter, more versatile, and more practical, therefore they are usually installed "from the factory" on modern armored vehicles.
            I brought the steel screen to illustrate the significant reserves available to increase the armor protection without any significant cost. But for some reason the Ministry of Defense stuffed a cannon into the armored personnel carrier ...
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 2 March 2021 08: 24
    +2
    and in the coastal troops

    Is this a new type of troops in our army? Or google translation?
    1. Tritebemalo
      Tritebemalo 2 March 2021 08: 56
      +2
      This is Kirill Ryabov from Vicky who smears and chews on the old: Operators:
      Abkhazia: 100 units as of 2020
      Azerbaijan: about 240 units as of 2020 [20]
      Kazakhstan: 74 BTR-82A, as of 2020 [21]
      Russia, for 2020:
      Ground Forces: 1000 BTR-82A / AM [22]
      Coastal troops: 661 BTR-82A [23]
      Airborne troops: 20 BTR-82AM [24]
      National Guard troops: unknown number of BTR-82A / BTR-82AM [25]
      Syria: unknown number of BTR-82A as of 2020 [26].
      1. Tritebemalo
        Tritebemalo 2 March 2021 08: 58
        +3
        Only there "Coastal Troops" is an active reference if you go to, then we learn that the Coastal Troops of the Navy (BV Navy) is a branch of the Navy of the Russian Federation. Formed in October 1989 on the basis of independent branches of forces that existed in the Navy: coastal missile and artillery troops and marines, as well as the transfer of formations and units from the USSR Ground Forces stationed on the coast to the Navy.

        The coastal troops of the Navy include 2 types of troops:

        coastal missile and artillery troops;
        Marines.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 2 March 2021 20: 42
          +1
          Thank you, did not know about this 1989 innovation.
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 2 March 2021 09: 10
    -1
    Those who criticize armored personnel carriers for weak armor should be taught materiel and understand the difference between armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. An armored personnel carrier is simply a means of transportation for motorized infantry, which is protected from shrapnel and from machine gun fire at a distance of 200-300 meters. The armored personnel carrier is not intended to support the infantry during an attack, and even more so it is not designed to attack with motorized infantry inside its fighting compartment. The infantry in the attack should be accompanied by tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and the armored personnel carrier and self-propelled guns must follow them, the self-propelled guns as fire support, and the armored personnel carrier as a quick transformation of the infantry into motorized infantry when breaking through the enemy's defenses and for quickly advancing behind enemy lines.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 2 March 2021 09: 46
      +13
      But suddenly the best armored personnel carrier in the world for this concept - holds 23-30 in the forehead.

      And why then did they attach a cannon to the armored personnel carrier with a stabilizer? To carry weight? If he should not go into battle. For example, Boxer has a machine gun for self-defense against DRG.
      1. lucul
        lucul 2 March 2021 11: 07
        -6
        And why then did they attach a cannon to the armored personnel carrier with a stabilizer? To carry weight? If he should not go into battle. For example, Boxer has a machine gun for self-defense against DRG.

        Yeah, and he can only ride on asphalt or in the desert. With us, he will sit on his belly so that you can't even pull it out with a tank - you can, of course, pull it out - and Leo or Abrash will sit next to you.
        And then historians will talk about the bad climate in Russia, and not about idiots designers.
        1. ironic
          ironic 9 March 2021 22: 21
          +1
          He generally only travels to VO and back. Then he will be doused with mud, and the houses will be washed. The Germans.
      2. Grits
        Grits 2 March 2021 13: 59
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        And why then did they attach a cannon to the armored personnel carrier with a stabilizer?

        In order to consider himself a tough fighter, he was tempted to get into a mess in the thick of the battle. And at the same time get a projectile in the forehead.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 18: 25
          0
          Yes, yes, of course. Better to be like a tsakhal. A pitiful machine gun on a heffalump intent. This is bullshit to imply that the average fighter is as dumb as a cork. But if he is like that, it is better not to give him any weapons at all?
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 2 March 2021 21: 00
            -1
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            bullshit implying that the average fighter is dumb as a cork

            No, you need to stick a cannon on a cardboard armored personnel carrier, with a shooter and a commander (where can you go without a commander, the fighters are stupid), and force them to perform the functions of an infantry fighting vehicle.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 21: 34
              +2
              Quote: psiho117
              No, you need to stick a cannon on a cardboard armored personnel carrier, with a shooter and a commander (where can you go without a commander, the fighters are stupid), and force them to perform the functions of an infantry fighting vehicle.

              I am far from enthusiastic about booking the BTR-82. Actually, the presence or absence of a gun is a discourse question. And that's not what I was talking about. And about this strange idea of ​​the Israel Defense Forces to arm the mastodons with machine gunners under a very far-fetched pretext.
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 2 March 2021 21: 43
                -1
                Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                about this bizarre idea of ​​the Israel Defense Forces to arm the mastodons with machine gunners

                Yes, the "heavy" could and what is more important to deliver.
                However, more weapons = more operators = less troop capacity, perhaps that was the logic.
                And the landing party will cope with the machine gun.
              2. alexmach
                alexmach 2 March 2021 22: 07
                0
                And about this strange idea of ​​the Israel Defense Forces to arm the mastodons with machine gunners under a very far-fetched pretext.

                So this is a police operations vehicle. They fight in specific conditions in their desert, with their adversary. And their equipment is tailored for this war. What should Russia sharpen its technique for is an undeniably interesting question.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 9 March 2021 22: 27
                  0
                  And for non-police like there is another on the ZIP?
              3. ironic
                ironic 9 March 2021 22: 31
                +1
                Shozh in it is far-fetched, it is necessary to squander the loot for the benefit of state employees. In the army, this is an unapplicable rule. wink laughing
          2. ironic
            ironic 9 March 2021 22: 26
            +1
            Well, there will soon be a tower with a 30-ka on the command vehicle, and there will also be a tower with Eitan. And the rest will be with ratchets 0.5, but there is plenty of ammunition, because 30mm will not take them in the forehead anyway, and Namer will not take them on board, and on such boxes as this 82nd in a collision at a short distance more than 0.5 and not it is necessary.
      3. ironic
        ironic 9 March 2021 21: 52
        +1
        This is because it does not weigh 15 tons. And he has no supergun. A worthless car. To junk her!
    2. lucul
      lucul 2 March 2021 11: 04
      -5
      Those who criticize armored personnel carriers for weak armor, those should learn materiel and understand the difference

      Yes, they work out their salaries - you would know how many people are fed from VO.))))
      1. ironic
        ironic 9 March 2021 22: 28
        0
        And sho for this feeding can you buy? Who can tell the thread? Enough for an evening pizza?
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 9 March 2021 23: 16
        0
        What, does the money pay? Who should I contact?
        And so far only for entertainment purposes and a whole free time ... smile
    3. Hagen
      Hagen 2 March 2021 12: 21
      +3
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      An armored personnel carrier is simply a means of transportation for motorized infantry, which is protected from shrapnel and from machine gun fire at a distance of 200-300 meters. The armored personnel carrier is not intended to support infantry in an attack, and even more so it is not designed to attack with motorized infantry inside its fighting compartment. The infantry in the attack should be accompanied by tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and the armored personnel carrier and self-propelled guns must follow them, the self-propelled guns as fire support, and the armored personnel carrier as a quick transformation of the infantry into motorized infantry when breaking through the enemy's defenses and for quickly advancing behind enemy lines.

      Can you demonstrate what has been said with an article from BUSV Part 3 or Part 2? laughing I will say more. If the armored personnel carrier did not have weapons, it would have been used as a simple armored vehicle. And, having put a 30-mm machine gun on the armored personnel carrier, try to force the commander not to use this weapon in the front line of defense in battle!
      1. Garm
        Garm 2 March 2021 13: 19
        +1
        Well, it was necessary to somehow designate the modernization ... And since it was 80, so it remained, only now 80 with a cannon. And yes, you're right, having a 30mm assault rifle and not using it for support is fantastic ...
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 10 March 2021 00: 06
          0
          The thought does not leave that this "modernization" can slow down the refinement of the Boomerangs and the saturation of the troops with them. "And what, there are new BTR-82a with guns." Cardboard a little, as before.
    4. ironic
      ironic 9 March 2021 22: 35
      +1
      It would be nice if someone was watching, but the trouble is, it is unlikely that this cardboard armored armored personnel carrier will be attacking any village, along with its platoon, and behind the outskirts of a couple of well-disguised 0.5 and allayavbar for a kitten.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 9 March 2021 23: 18
        0
        allayavbar

        By the way, I want to ask (a hackneyed anecdote): if you loudly declare something like that to your friend at an Israeli airport, can it really end up tragically? And how likely? smile
        1. ironic
          ironic 9 March 2021 23: 57
          +1
          I don't think that if you try to retell this anecdote to your friend in the queue for a flight, it will bother someone, but if you bark Allahu-Akbar to the whole hall in Ben-Gurion, you will get a bullet out of nowhere, even silently.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 10 March 2021 08: 16
            0
            Advise friends with suicidal tendencies request
            1. ironic
              ironic 10 March 2021 20: 55
              0
              That God forbid ... Better to our psychologists, so the boss will be confused, agree to live in order to escape. smile
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 2 March 2021 09: 14
    -5
    The fact that the armored personnel carrier began to be armed with a 30-mm cannon is very good. But this also means that the KPVT will soon disappear from the army. Sorry for KPVT and cartridge 14,5 * 114. It was a good weapon and a good cartridge. It is a pity that they will disappear, as 23 * 152 disappeared. Still, the legendary cartridge that burned Nazi tanks, and the KPVT has been serving in our army for almost 70 years, and thanks to its use on armored personnel carriers, it has become a legendary weapon.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 2 March 2021 09: 30
      0
      KPVT will soon disappear from the army. Sorry for KPVT and cartridge 14,5 * 114.
      Anything will remain in storage. And with the cartridge it can be even more fun - this is it

      only in high-quality modern design. And with the right sighting system. Snipers still work in pairs
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 2 March 2021 12: 05
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      The fact that the armored personnel carrier began to be armed with a 30-mm cannon is very good.

      I don't see anything good in this.
      BTR is first of all conveyor, albeit slightly armored. Do not confuse it with an infantry fighting vehicle, and entrust it with the task of providing fire support to the infantry.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 2 March 2021 20: 42
        -1
        With your logic, let the armored personnel carrier arm only the PKT, so the commander will not be tempted to use it as an infantry support vehicle. 30mm is better than 14,5mm. I saw how a 30-mm BMP-2 cannon smashed reinforced concrete piles, KPVT is not capable of that.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 2 March 2021 20: 53
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          With your logic, so let the armored personnel carrier arm only the PKT

          The Jews do just that - even on the TBTR.
          30mm is better than 14,5mm

          This does not negate the fact that the level of armor protection of the armored personnel carrier is completely inadequate, and getting involved in a firefight even with a pickup truck with a DShK in the back is fraught with danger.
          And plus, 2 extra people - 2 potential corpses, in any serious mess.
          In addition, the module costs almost as much as the armored personnel carrier itself.

          My opinion is that in the conditions of modern combat, with its oversaturation with anti-tank equipment, large-caliber machine guns and small-caliber cannons, all this lightly armored equipment to participate in shootouts absolutely shouldn't.
          For this there is an infantry fighting vehicle, and the niche of armored personnel carriers is the transportation of infantry.
      2. ironic
        ironic 9 March 2021 22: 37
        +1
        ... and put a 30mm uninhabited module on it.
    3. Hagen
      Hagen 2 March 2021 12: 27
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      It's a pity that they disappear, as 23 * 152 disappeared

      30x210 wouldn't be bad either. Anyway, better than 30x165, I think.
    4. Grits
      Grits 2 March 2021 14: 03
      +1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      But this also means that the KPVT will soon disappear from the army.

      Yes, something is not audible, that it is screwed somewhere. They are in a hurry to supply any armored car with a 30-mm cannon. Although, on the same "Tiger" or "Typhoonenka" KPVT would have looked more prudent ...
    5. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 48
      0
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      But this also means that the KPVT will soon disappear from the army. Sorry for KPVT and cartridge 14,5 * 114. It was a good weapon and a good cartridge. It is a pity that they will disappear, as 23 * 152 disappeared. Still, the legendary cartridge that burned Nazi tanks, and the KPVT has been serving in our army for almost 70 years, and thanks to its use on armored personnel carriers, it has become a legendary weapon.

      It is a pity that now they do not put it as a weapon for any armored vehicles - at best, our few armed armored cars cost 12,7.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 2 March 2021 09: 30
    0
    But what about the BTR-90?
    At one time I watched "Impact Force" - just a supercar.
    And the change of generations is more logical: 60 - 70 - 80 - 90.
    Nowadays, it is already a little outdated, tk. there is "Boomerang", but still.
    I thought from the mid-XNUMXs already in the series.
    1. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 2 March 2021 12: 00
      0
      Yes, his dviglo was still in the back. Those. the exit is inconvenient, and just cramped in it.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 2 March 2021 18: 32
        +1
        All this admiration for front-engine armored vehicles is stupid from a misunderstanding of their shortcomings. Ideally, the engine should be generally roughly distributed and duplicated across the machine. For normal balancing, booking and reducing the likelihood of immobilization in the event of a breakdown or hit by shells and fragments.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 2 March 2021 19: 23
          0
          That is, a flat type of a Man's engine in the middle of the car, a gearbox duplicated on the right and left sides, in front and behind the engine is generally not bad.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 2 March 2021 21: 02
            0
            Yeah, and ideally - a reactor, and 8 motor-wheels.
            Dream, dream ...
        2. ironic
          ironic 2 March 2021 23: 13
          +1
          So you need to protect the engine first?
          1. IS-80_RVGK2
            IS-80_RVGK2 4 March 2021 19: 52
            0
            Any technique is a trade-off. And it all depends on what in the end you are going to achieve with this technique. Therefore, the priorities may be different.
            1. ironic
              ironic 4 March 2021 20: 31
              0
              Priority is a person, everything else is a pseudo-priority.
              1. IS-80_RVGK2
                IS-80_RVGK2 4 March 2021 20: 49
                0
                I actually talked about the priority of booking.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 4 March 2021 21: 09
                  0
                  Not only the booking, but the entire line-up. First of all, you need to protect a person. Drive forward.
                  1. IS-80_RVGK2
                    IS-80_RVGK2 4 March 2021 22: 10
                    0
                    Quote: ironic
                    Not only the booking, but the entire line-up. First of all, you need to protect a person. Drive forward.

                    Bullshit. What do you think will protect better, the engine or armor of the same weight as the engine?
                    1. ironic
                      ironic 6 March 2021 01: 59
                      0
                      Better protect armor plus engine. And bullshit is an armored personnel carrier weighing 15T with landing hatches on the sides.
                      1. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 6 March 2021 11: 16
                        0
                        No, not better. And you yourself already figured it out. But you cannot admit that you were stupid. Self-esteem does not allow. laughing
                      2. ironic
                        ironic 9 March 2021 18: 00
                        0
                        Don't decide for me what I understood and what didn't. I myself rattled off in two armies as required by law, plus then 11 years as a reservist, 3 weeks a year. I have two boys by the way of draft age. And although not one of them is a motorized infantryman, I will tell you directly that if someone told me that I should give my son, that in the M113, that in your armored personnel carrier, I would have committed a criminal attack on this person. angry
                      3. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 9 March 2021 18: 27
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Don't decide for me what I understood and what didn't. I myself rattled off in two armies as required by law, plus then 11 years as a reservist, 3 weeks a year. I have two boys by the way of draft age.

                        Should I be impressed? I don't want to upset you, but no. These are all attempts to put pressure on authority and, accordingly, are extremely biased.
                        Quote: ironic
                        but I will tell you frankly that if someone told me that I should give my son, that in the M113, that in your armored personnel carrier, I would have committed a criminal attack on this person.

                        Did I say somewhere that someone must certainly be stuffed into the BTR-82 or M113? Let me remind you that initially it was about the fact that armored vehicles with a front engine have their drawbacks. And the Merkava is in fact the only serial tank with such an arrangement. That kind of hints.
                      4. ironic
                        ironic 9 March 2021 21: 46
                        +1
                        You must understand that I cannot rub in the rotten chaff. And whether it is impressive or not, this is generally the third thing. The subject cannot be objective by definition, and by the way you are no exception.

                        And sho themselves in this climb? If so, what a fool. The front-mounted engine has one drawback, if he pokes a blank, he will die first, the rest can be solved either by brains or by money, but all this is cheaper than any human life. And Namer is the only BMP ... and Eitan will be the only armored personnel carrier ..., which seems to hint ... that our women are not giving birth for this. Here's what it hints at.
                      5. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 10 March 2021 00: 25
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        You must understand that I cannot rub in the rotten chaff.

                        Is that why you decided to sell it to me? And again I don’t want to upset you, but apparently I have to. You will have a lot of rotten chaff and no money at all.
                        Quote: ironic
                        The subject cannot be objective by definition, and by the way you are no exception.

                        As old man Ockham said - you don't need to multiply subjectivity
                        Quote: ironic
                        The front engine has one drawback.

                        This is if you think very little. And if you think too much?
                        Quote: ironic
                        And Namer is the only BMP ... and Eitan will be the only armored personnel carrier ..., which seems to hint ... that our women are not giving birth for this. Here's what it hints at.

                        Intrigued me. And why were you born?
                      6. ironic
                        ironic 10 March 2021 02: 18
                        +1
                        It’s not me going to justify stuffing a living person into an iron box for a guaranteed burial, this is not my rotten chaff. I definitely won't buy it. And do not count other people's money, yours from this will no longer be. In any case, I pay my own at least for the construction of multilayer armor, and not this collective grave of an unnamed soldier. I've had enough. I have already paid enough for such graves and am extremely satisfied that they will never be used in this capacity anymore.

                        And where is Old Man Occam's subject now? Shaw in a personal pit? How biased from the side of the pit.

                        If you think a lot, then you can remain a lot of thought, while others are busy doing a lot.

                        Well, so that they try to explain this to you is also not the last thing. It's all about life, not about death. wink
                      7. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 10 March 2021 09: 28
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Well, so that they try to explain this to you, is also not the last thing. It's all about life, not about death

                        So I would immediately say that you are talking with cockroaches in your head, and not with me. I would not waste so much of my precious time on empty correspondence. For the sim I complete it.
                      8. ironic
                        ironic 10 March 2021 20: 52
                        0
                        And I didn’t know that you associate yourself with cockroaches in my head. You warn me, I will change them, for a change, with your devils. They stand for death to death, and my cockroaches love to live for life, they have such an essence. From this is the ending came out.
            2. Alexey Pantyukhin
              Alexey Pantyukhin 12 March 2021 13: 56
              0
              It is better then probably to use TBMP T-15
  • Sarboz
    Sarboz 3 March 2021 19: 47
    0
    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
    Ideally, the engine should be generally roughly distributed and duplicated across the machine.

    This is how the BTR-60 was implemented? Two paired synchronized engines? This really increased the survivability of the vehicle in combat conditions. I remember, indeed, an armored personnel carrier with one damaged engine was able to escape from the shelling. With that level of technology, with the level of service that we had in the 80s in Afghanistan, the consumption of gasoline was prohibitive. In practice, worn out, poorly adjusted engines in a pair ate up to 100 liters of 76 gasoline per hundred kilometers of mountain roads.
  • psiho117
    psiho117 2 March 2021 12: 01
    +4
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    But what about the BTR-90?

    In short, "There is no money, but you are holding on."
    "Rostok" did not go into the series, due to the difficult financial situation in the country at that time. Then, when the price of oil went up, they decided to boo - and sawed down "Boomerang".
    Then oil fell again, plus sanctions, and as a result - neither one nor that.
  • Esaul
    Esaul 2 March 2021 10: 40
    -2
    How really the BTR-82A (M) is better than the BTR-80 war can show. If the infantry will not ride in it on top of the armor, then apparently the modernization was a success.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 2 March 2021 12: 01
      +2
      Quote: Esaul
      If the infantry will not ride in it on top of the armor, then apparently the modernization was a success.

      the way I went, and will continue to go - this is already our national trait.
      1. Esaul
        Esaul 3 March 2021 14: 10
        0
        This is called disregard, carelessness and negligence. And this must be fought.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 10 March 2021 08: 20
      +1
      The security remains the same, which means they will continue to drive.
      Found:
      Booking: forehead 10 mm, side 7-9 mm, feed 7 mm, bottom 7 mm, roof 7 mm, tower 7 mm

      14,5 BZT penetrates 20mm from 300m, subcaliber .50 - from 1,5 km.
      With the aforementioned cartridges, this machine will be "sewn" either in the forehead or in the side from any distance.
  • Vaўkalak
    Vaўkalak 2 March 2021 11: 02
    +2
    This year, 2 battalion sets of BTR-82A are to be delivered to us in the Republic of Belarus. This is the first such large batch of armored vehicles, but I would like to see in this batch such an option, with ATGMs installed, so that the tanks could be driven in case of need.

    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 57
      0
      Quote: Vaўkalak
      But I would like to see such an option in this batch, with ATGMs installed, so that the tanks could be driven in case of something.

      So far, only the improvement of 82A and 82AM with the screens installed on the photo is promised. Although ATGMs, sooner or later, most likely, will also begin to be installed.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 4 March 2021 12: 36
        0
        It is a pity that the option with the rear entrance and exit was not launched into the series instead of this project.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 18: 22
          0
          So instead of him they want Boomerang ... Although for me it is better when the car has both side and rear hatches, as on the first Typhoon-K (6x6) and Ratel.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 4 March 2021 19: 02
            0
            They want ... but they churn out the BTR82 ...
        2. ironic
          ironic 4 March 2021 21: 13
          0
          This is probably because the engine is more valuable than the landing ...
    2. ironic
      ironic 2 March 2021 23: 12
      0
      And why screens?
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 17: 43
        0
        The ones in the photo are solid - they end up giving protection against armor-piercing rifles. This means that everything below the paw magnum (and in practice below 12,7 mm) is not to be afraid of.
        And the grilles are already from the main enemy of the btra - from the RPG.
        1. ironic
          ironic 4 March 2021 11: 35
          0
          Those. 12.7mm you need to be afraid, but does it make sense to protect yourself from RPGs with screens? Well, I don’t even know ... I don’t understand why this should be done at all.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 18: 19
            0
            In order to survive. They have been put on a massive scale for the last 20 years on armored personnel carriers, MRAPs and tanks by everything - from irregulars to the armies of great powers. Just search for information on "Anti-cumulative grid" and all questions will disappear.
            For example: https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/416456.html
            In addition, the material is on VO and was on Courage.
            1. ironic
              ironic 4 March 2021 18: 47
              0
              You do not understand, I know from what and why they put the bars. True, the great powers are not particularly zealous, I even know why, but that's not the point.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 20: 21
                0
                I disagree about the diligence - the same M-ATVs and strikers, the "new" T-72B3 (model 16), etc. in the bars to the fig. Although perception without numbers is subjective.
                I agree with one thing - the grille will not save against an ATGM with a tandem b / h.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 4 March 2021 20: 30
                  0
                  Even strikers do not hurt, they wear them in lattices, because for a long time everyone has been looking at KAZ. It doesn’t go well against the RPG-29, and it’s ridiculous to escape from the RPG-7 when you can be knocked out by a sniper rifle.
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 20: 51
                    0
                    They did it in Iraq.
                    You judge too radically - cases when snipers hit the crew or the landing force are rare (at the level of rumors) and are more often associated with situations when the crew was hit through open windows (I don’t remember what they are called there) - in a combat situation they are closed with armored doors, and so they are unarmored. But getting an RPG in the side / forehead is much more real and dangerous for everyone in the car.
                    By the way, the main antagonist of the btr-82a, the striker, is not much better protected in the basic version. But the Yankees were working on it - they installed sets of additional armor made of ceramics, they tried to attach KAZ, and now, after us, they began to arm them normally. And we have just started to think about all this.
                    1. ironic
                      ironic 4 March 2021 21: 05
                      0
                      Why shouldn't snipers do this if the car can be knocked out with special ammunition even 0.3 caliber. I'm not talking about 0.5, which can be installed on a jeep. You can't break a striker like that - 14.5 mm resistant. And even the striker's protection is so-so. Today there are already 20mm caliber snipers, not to mention the compact reckless modules. And weapons to the detriment of protection is nonsense. In general, as it was a mass grave, it remained.
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 5 March 2021 18: 02
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        I'm not talking about 0.5, which can be installed on a jeep. You can't break a striker like that - 14.5 mm resistant. And even the striker's protection is so-so. Today there are already 20mm caliber snipers, not to mention the compact reckless modules. And weapons to the detriment of protection is nonsense

                        And from which you can't get into the movement and the cat has a shorter firing distance than the 2A42.
                        Snipers for 20 - are, in the pictures, and not in the armed forces. At best, there are 12,7 mm. And how many are there for a battalion? By the way, is it okay that most of the Yankee infantry rides on armored cars, cat for 82A as food?
                        Quote: ironic
                        And weapons to the detriment of protection is nonsense

                        Surprisingly, almost all countries in the world think differently ...
                      2. ironic
                        ironic 6 March 2021 01: 43
                        0
                        Damn, and the combat modules of patrol boats do not even know that they will not be able to get anywhere ... Well, I don’t know, they are in the pictures, then he is in the corpses ... And about 5 snipers are just not enough in the Western troops. And the cannon shoots far away, but go and find these snipers and machine gunners. They are for armored personnel carriers as food if in an open area, and if villages and intersections, then the armored personnel carrier becomes food even for Polaris with such a piece of equipment on the roof.

                        It is almost in what universe countries think differently?
                      3. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 6 March 2021 13: 49
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        It is almost in what universe countries think differently?

                        We are watching the serial and most massive armored personnel carriers in Europe, Asia, the USA.

                        Quote: ironic
                        They are for armored personnel carriers as food if in an open area, and if villages and intersections,

                        And if the village and the intersection, then a lightly armored jeep is an even worse means of fire support, a cat. turn into a drushlag faster than it has time to collide with an armored personnel carrier.
                        Quote: ironic
                        And about 5 snipers are just not enough in the Western troops.

                        I repeat the question: how many of them are there at least in the strecker battalion?

                        Quote: ironic
                        Damn, and the combat modules of patrol boats don't even know that they won't be able to get anywhere ... Well, I don't know, they are in the pictures, then he is in the corpses ...

                        And now we are looking for information about the infantry of the US Armed Forces and NG and see what and how their vehicles are armed. And we find that although there are a lot of BMs on hummers, mids and strikers, BUT not even on most cars. And on the bulk for the time being - an open machine-gun mount. And once again - M2 loses 2A72 in targeting range and efficiency. Therefore, far from stupid Yankees began to bet the bushmaster on the strikers.
                      4. ironic
                        ironic 9 March 2021 17: 54
                        0
                        The most massive BMP was also the M113. Another coffin, but on tracks. Looking at the most massive coffin?

                        A jeep with a good powerful dizilak or bugs based on Kan-Am or Polaris are many times faster and more maneuverable. This is already enough to be dangerous and its task is not to protect the crew by means of armor from the armored personnel carrier. As a maximum from AKM, and then not point-blank at the door. And it does not matter how many of them manage to make colorants in battle, but how many of the armored personnel carriers are important.

                        I don't know exactly how much and for which battalion, but I know the approximate size of the order for M107s in 2018. And this is not all that is available.

                        There is even a 105mm anti-tank version. There is a version with Bushmaster. But no difference. They, too, are looking for a solution with more effective protection. Therefore, when the Israeli army needed an armored personnel carrier, none of the American models passed for protection. Even Bocher did not pass, and this is not yours and not an American tin box. And when it goes into the JLTV series with a whole set of remote body modules, what then? Avoid approaching rugged terrain and buildings closer than 1.5 km?
  • shtatsov
    shtatsov 2 March 2021 11: 05
    +3
    One thing because. Chew ten times! Now it looks like articles are paid by the number of characters. It is not possible to read. What is the semantic load of the text?
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 2 March 2021 18: 19
    0
    since the side loopholes have been preserved, then these are vehicles for the CTO, but not for the front
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 2 March 2021 20: 58
      0
      You will be surprised, but the loopholes are located on the BMP-1/2/3, BTR-60/70/80 precisely because these vehicles were created for war and because the armored personnel carrier can be used to conduct combat without dismounting.
      1. ironic
        ironic 2 March 2021 23: 10
        +1
        Those. like this, together with the armored personnel carrier and ... saved? Not surprised.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 3 March 2021 17: 22
          0
          Did not understand you. The loopholes are intended for firing from the vehicle during combat without dismounting, when the landing force remains under the cover of armor. The accuracy is low, but those on whom they beat will also not be able to aim normally.
          1. ironic
            ironic 4 March 2021 11: 37
            0
            Those. Have you just described a guaranteed collective coffin for 7 airborne soldiers? Well, I don't even know ...
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 18: 15
              0
              Perhaps it will surprise you, but loopholes and the possibility of firing from personal weapons were installed on almost all armored vehicles (Soviet, Western) until the end of the twentieth years. And this was done not because of economy (the loophole complicates production), but in order to increase the survival rate of both the landing force and the vehicle itself.
              1. ironic
                ironic 4 March 2021 18: 48
                0
                Well, yes, there is a collective coffin, which can be shot through, and you are talking about survival due to shooting in a hole ...
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 20: 39
                  0
                  So I'm not saying that he is well protected, but not a coffin either. Even the latest events in Syria confirmed this, when, during a Russian-Turkish patrol near 82m, a land mine exploded - we have lightly wounded, and the Turks, whose Kirpi was farther from the explosion site and to whom the wave came in the forehead, had at least one dead. Yes, and 12,7 per side in a combined arms battle is a rarity. In addition, the lining for 82 new buildings is also a plus. Not to mention the distance the 2A72 can handle.

                  And so - on this machine you can (and should) work with a file for a long time: hinged armor (fortunately, with the stool, they suggested mounting mounted ceramics (from 14,5 mm to the side) and even carried out tests), thermal imagers, weapons, laser warning sensors ...
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 20: 53
                    0
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Even the latest events in Syria confirmed this, when, during a Russian-Turkish patrol near 82m, a land mine exploded - we have lightly wounded, and the Turks, whose Kirpi was farther from the explosion site and to whom the wave came in the forehead, had at least one dead.

                    You're lying. The explosion was at the Turkish MRAP (Kirpi 2), there were no dead, we had 3 wounded, the Turks had several shell-shocked.

                    If there was an explosion at 82ki there would be at least seriously wounded.

                    1. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 21: 10
                      0
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      You're lying. The explosion was at the Turkish MRAP (not Kirpi)

                      Do you at least check before throwing accusations.
                      Not only do they even say in YOUR video that this is another subversion, but even by dates it can be determined.
                      Later:
                      1. Here is a photo of the detonation:

                      2. You brought the photo after the explosion.
                      https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/5039582.html
                      Data on the wounded (with video), etc., then look for it on the Internet - there is it on YouTube.
                      +

                      https://pikabu.ru/story/utrom_v_ponedelnik_v_sirii_terroristyi_s_pomoshchyu_svu_podorvali_sovmestnyiy_voennyiy_patrul_armiy_rossii_i_turtsii_7586860
                      In what I was mistaken - the Turks had no victims. Only the wounded.
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 21: 31
                        -1
                        The explosion on July 14: the explosion of a car filled with explosives at the BTR-82 3 wounded here, Turks in Kirpi 2 are possibly wounded / shell-shocked.
                        Explosion on August 17: Land mine near Kirpi 2 Turks are possibly wounded / shell-shocked, BTR-82 is not wounded.
                      2. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 21: 39
                        0
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        The explosion on July 14: the explosion of a car filled with explosives at the BTR-82 3 wounded here, Turks in Kirpi 2 are possibly wounded / shell-shocked.

                        So where and in what place do you think I "lied"?
                      3. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 4 March 2021 21: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        when, during a Russian-Turkish patrol near 82m, a land mine exploded - we have lightly wounded, and the Turks, whose Kirpi was farther from the explosion site and to whom the wave came in the forehead - at least one is dead.

                        The landmine was on August 17, then the explosion was at Kirpi 2, we have no wounded, the Turks have no killed.
                        On July 14, a car bomb was blown up.
                      4. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 4 March 2021 21: 52
                        0
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        The landmine was on August 17, then the explosion was at Kirpi 2, we have no wounded, the Turks have no killed.
                        On July 14, a car bomb was blown up.

                        Inaccuracy. And it was about 14.06.20/XNUMX/XNUMX.
            2. ironic
              ironic 4 March 2021 21: 22
              0
              It seems that the charge was very weak. And fire on the side of 0.5 is not at all uncommon, it is not a fact that even the forehead will withstand it if it is a long-barreled sniper and special ammunition. But the fact that they hung a cannon is a plus only on the command vehicle, in other cases it does more harm than good. They will also mack their own. You don't need to work here with a file, but with your head. Stop further development and production of this armored personnel carrier, but that's what needs to be worked on.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 5 March 2021 08: 54
                0
                Armor-piercing sub-caliber (core - tungsten carbide) .50BMG M903 penetrates 19mm of armor (normal) at 1500m.
                For the 14,5mm BZT, a penetration of 20mm at an angle of 20 'is declared for only 300m (about 450m along the normal).
                1. ironic
                  ironic 6 March 2021 01: 57
                  +1
                  And on rough terrain, dotted with village buildings, and half a kilometer in reserve will not be ...
              2. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 5 March 2021 17: 56
                0
                Fortunately, smart people also sit in the Ministry of Defense, and instead of leaving their infantry without armored personnel carriers for another 10 years, they order a normal vehicle with weapons created taking into account the experience of combat operations.As a result, our infantry already now has a massive, albeit not the most protected a vehicle that is capable of providing the mts with fire superiority over enemy infantry at a greater distance than the latter is able to respond.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 6 March 2021 01: 52
                  +1
                  But in fact, you have a lot of boxes that can easily be turned into a colo-slag from camouflaged firing points that you will not even see, and I do not even take the case of a collision with an ATGM, or a well-protected TBTR or TBMP, even weaker armed.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 6 March 2021 11: 35
                  +1
                  So we have 100 million reservists, we will crush the number ... Oh, this is from China belay
                3. ironic
                  ironic 9 March 2021 15: 42
                  0
                  This approach is sad no matter where ... crying
              3. 3danimal
                3danimal 6 March 2021 12: 01
                0
                A pair of snipers with the Barrets will confidently incapacitate, and if the BTR-82A stops, then from the same 1,5 km.
              4. ironic
                ironic 9 March 2021 15: 43
                0
                Not only that. And 1.5 km is luxus, which the attackers do not always have.
            3. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 6 March 2021 13: 51
              0
              Yeah, disguised - in a combined arms battle ...
              We repeat the question above: HOW MANY barrets are there in an infantry battalion of the US Armed Forces and NGs?
            4. ironic
              ironic 9 March 2021 16: 04
              +1
              I don’t know for sure, but in 18 Barrett received 8 lemons for a new batch of M107. And this is about 800 rifles in addition to the existing ones.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 6 March 2021 14: 11
            0
            I propose to end the argument. Fortunately, except that the existing level of protection of the BTR-82A raises questions and requires strengthening, otherwise we will not come to a consensus, and arranging holivar is such a thing.
          3. ironic
            ironic 9 March 2021 16: 06
            +1
            It is possible to finish, but not the level of protection of this armored personnel carrier requires strengthening, and ideas to continue releasing an attempted murder of a serviceman require their logical conclusion.
          4. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 9 March 2021 19: 16
            +1
            There is no alternative yet: typhoons 4x4 and wolverines have only gone into series, the typhoon 6x6 does not carry weapons, and the boomerang will have to wait 15 years for the required number of years (until they finish finishing, cure for sores, start production and rivet up to 2000 units). So it turns out that either modernize and saturate 82s, or sit and wait.

            Quote: ironic
            And this is about 800 rifles in addition to the existing ones.

            But this is really interesting. By the way, and who do they arm them with? It seems that the Marksmen are using a rifle cartridge.

            Quote: ironic
            well protected TBTR or TBMP

            TBMP and TBTR will not be rolled out instead of light and medium infantry fighting vehicles - the scale and terms for transportation and transportation are too large. And the resource of the heavy ones is even less than that of the btra.

            Quote: ironic
            this is not yours and not amerskoy tin box. And when it goes into the JLTV series with a whole set of remote body modules, what then? Avoid approaching rugged terrain and buildings closer than 1.5 km?

            Now the role of the btra is performed by the armored version of the Humvee, MATV, maxpro and striker. And of them in the basic version, only the last two are more or less protected.
            Why is JLTV better than 82? The most massive module is predicted to him from the stabilization. 12,7mm + dart. But in terms of armor, it seems to be no worse.
            And at least 82 can really support. With additional armor and 12.7 mm it will hold:
            https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3693097.html

            As a result, it turns out that of two evils (waiting for a boomerang and while using 80s or waiting for a boomerang and using 82s (with their subsequent fusion into the reserve) we choose the smaller one.
          5. ironic
            ironic 9 March 2021 22: 54
            +2
            No, because they did not develop with priority.

            I don’t know who they will arm, but I’ve dug information about the contract. And 8 lemons for a proto do not pay for a small one.

            The freight wagon platform can withstand up to 70 tons of cargo, and our tractors are hauled to the Golan, your KAMAZ trucks will also be able to.

            I meant that a collision with such a maneuverable vehicle could cost the crew and half of the landing party in a matter of seconds. And specifically he cited this as an example, as a modern version expected to enter service and, accordingly, to the market. And where the market is, go know who the buyer tomorrow is. In Israel, for example, no one is going to fight with Russia, but they always count on a meeting with Russian equipment, for it is a large exporter, which means it is a visde.
          6. 3danimal
            3danimal 9 March 2021 23: 10
            0
            With additional armor and 12.7 mm it will hold:
            https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3693097.html

            Will not hold back:
            wrote in one of the comments about the subcaliber .50BMG m903, penetrates armor of the same thickness (19-20mm) at a distance three times greater than the 14,5 BZT.
            So you need to book a minimum of 14,5.
            As a result, it turns out that of two evils (waiting for a boomerang and while using 80s or waiting for a boomerang and using 82s (with their subsequent fusion into the reserve) we choose the smaller one.

            Doesn't upgrading the fleet to 82A take money and production capacity (which is slightly less than that of the United States or China)? And does not let the officials from the Ministry of Defense declare that everything is ok, and carelessly engage in the transition to the same Boomerang?
          7. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 10 March 2021 18: 58
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            Doesn't upgrading the fleet to 82A take money and production capacity (which is slightly less than that of the United States or China)? And does not let the officials from the Ministry of Defense declare that everything is ok, and carelessly engage in the transition to the same Boomerang?

            So far, the power and money for the production of a boomerang have not been allocated - the car that goes on the parade is very different from the one that is being tested now. In general, there is a strange story with a boomerang - it seems that the technical specification has been remade for it.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 9 March 2021 19: 16
      0
      The BTR-80 is hopelessly outdated, both in terms of layout and in terms of armor protection. It is not entirely clear why it is necessary to make an under-BMP out of it. Nobody will attack us right tomorrow, there is time.
      And after all, under this sauce, the delivery and procurement of armored personnel carriers based on Boomerang will be delayed, IMHO. What should be the top priority.
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 10 March 2021 19: 06
      0
      You can argue endlessly with the layout - I am generally a fan of the layout as on the ratel and K-63969 (by the way, an interesting armored personnel carrier from Kamaz, but recognized as "redundant"). The gun was installed on it due to the experience of Afgan and Chechnya, but with the armor of the problem - there was an option with the installation of additional ceramic panels (from 14,5 mm to the side) - even a discussion and a photo were on the courage - but then (and that was the time Stouretkin) refused.

      And where did you find the info that 12,7 from M2 is stronger than the analogue of KPVT? It is very interesting - nevertheless, KPVT has a huge capacity.
    4. 3danimal
      3danimal 10 March 2021 20: 35
      0
      And where did you find the info that 12,7 from M2 is stronger than the analogue of KPVT

      Here, for example.
      https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/slap.htm

      This figure is available in various sources.
      Then he became interested in the characteristics of the armor-piercing 14,5:

      http://gunrf.ru/rg_patron_14_5x114_ru.html

      We simply did not have sub-caliber rounds for heavy machine guns.
      You can argue with the layout endlessly.

      The driver should be in front, behind - the ramp for the landing. This is already a global standard.
      Having hit the shelling, the armored personnel carrier stands up with its frontal armor to the enemy, the landing force comes out from behind under cover.
      80-ka cannot stand with a forehead - the landing party is in full view, leaving the side doors.
      And the sides are always weaker protected (if we consider the option - substitute the starboard side and leave the left door)
      Another important point is the ability to turn on the spot. The BTR-80 does not have it, as far as I know.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 10 March 2021 19: 18
    0
    About KPVT I found only the following figures:
    "B-32 - 32mm at 500 meters along the normal
    BS (modification unknown) - 50 mm by 500 m along the normal ".
    About 12,7 NATO, something is generally vague.
  • ironic
    ironic 2 March 2021 23: 09
    0
    15T? With enhanced mine protection? Who were they trying to calm down? Conscripts or mothers of conscripts?
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 6 March 2021 12: 02
      0
      All at once.
      And the committee of soldiers' mothers, I heard, was declared a foreign agent sad
      1. ironic
        ironic 9 March 2021 16: 08
        0
        We do not like such committees too much, but when one RPG-7 put 7s in M113 near Gaza, the whole country screamed completely different slogans. Personally, I would not have sent my boys to serve either in this armored personnel carrier or in the M113.
  • Diverter
    Diverter 4 March 2021 00: 02
    0
    I am sure that in this way, it will be necessary to upgrade the 70ku. Naturally after exhausting 80k
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 4 March 2021 12: 35
    0
    Interestingly, the new Diesel KAMAZ will get to the armored personnel carriers?
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 4 March 2021 14: 58
      0
      Will the chassis pull a 400 strong Kamaz?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 4 March 2021 15: 04
        0
        The box is needed ..... and everything else, why not? The weight will not increase.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 5 March 2021 03: 20
          +1
          the twisting moment on cardan transmissions and semi-axles will increase .. That which is designed for 180-300 l / s will critically quickly fail.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 5 March 2021 08: 09
            0
            Well, Kamaz themselves solved the problem
            1. Siberian54
              Siberian54 6 March 2021 12: 14
              0
              Didn't decide to install licensed axles with solar transmission and full blocking of the rear pair
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 6 March 2021 11: 38
        0
        Great question. It will be ... strange if along with the new engine there are restrictions on the use of its capabilities.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 6 March 2021 12: 12
          +1
          I was a driver of 60pb, these GAZs are still normal .. But the quality of gasoline was a song, just for one you will adjust the carburetors as Omsk comes, and his octane number is a little higher and the habit of pitching everything in a row, but the zampotekh (I still don't understand how he us I didn't kill oaks) hanging over my soul .. Now I understand he was right, but then ..
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 March 2021 12: 04
    0
    The gun shown in the photo does NOT have a remote detonation of projectiles.
    And in general, a very redundant weapon for an outdated cardboard armored personnel carrier. IMHO, it was necessary to leave KPVT and add AGS.
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 6 March 2021 12: 37
      0
      Well, here again, as before the Second World War, a surplus weapon, well, how long can you step on a rake?
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 6 March 2021 13: 42
        0
        Are you talking about a redundant 57mm anti-tank gun?
        So here we have an armored personnel carrier, not some new Kurganets, but an old cardboard armored personnel carrier-80 with a cannon from an infantry fighting vehicle. Although KPVT was quite enough, and together with the AGS, it was generally the ultimate dream.
        In North Korea, they like to hang everything in a row on equipment, MANPADS on a tank, for example smile
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 6 March 2021 13: 30
    0
    And the gun clearly lacks a powerful muzzle brake.
  • HOMUT1430
    HOMUT1430 8 March 2021 14: 44
    0
    excellent. relatively cheap equipment + inexpensive modernization. but this is primarily a transporter, before the massive deliveries of new generations of armored personnel carriers to the troops.
  • SiberianGun
    SiberianGun 12 March 2021 07: 58
    0
    Listen, read and marvel at the victoriousness of the reports of our leadership once again. They were boasting about the unfinished Armata, now, here's a new trend - old, which is more convenient to learn, to manufacture and maintain. How many times it has been said that the BTR-80, etc., are all the equipment of the last century!
    Yes, of course, the BTR-82A is better, but not so much!
    It's just that when you understand well how the leadership system works - in Russia, in the army, all these victorious reports do not arouse admiration. Looks like a show, for the people, for the higher authorities.
    When will we be more honest?
  • Alexey Pantyukhin
    Alexey Pantyukhin 12 March 2021 14: 16
    0
    TBMP T-15 is more suitable, with front MTO, tank armor protection



    http://btvt.narod.ru/3/t_15_hifv.htm
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 April 13 2021 13: 52
    0
    Neither new nor modernized, much less "old" does not correspond to modern realities! This car had exhausted itself even by the 80m .. BTR60 as it is, thicker armor, more powerful engine, more serious armament, but this is BTR60, a car from the 60s! The Russian army deserves a modern, adequately armored, armed and assembled armored personnel carrier.
  • The comment was deleted.