"As part of the rearmament program": the Marines of the Black Sea Fleet received a large batch of new BTR-82A

The Department of Defense continues to re-equip the Marine Corps units with modern military equipment. According to the press service of the Southern Military District, a large batch of new armored personnel carriers BTR-82A entered service with the marines of the Black Sea fleet.

According to the report, a separate battalion of the Black Sea Fleet marines, stationed in the Krasnodar Territory, has received 40 new armored personnel carriers BTR-82A. We are talking about the 382nd separate battalion of the marines from the 810 separate brigade of the marines of the Black Sea Fleet, stationed on the Azov coast in the city of Temryuk.

It is noted that the delivery took place within the framework of the state defense order under the program of rearmament of marine units with new equipment.

The armored personnel carriers were delivered to the railway station. the station by rail directly from the manufacturer, after which the equipment was moved to the battalion's vehicle fleet. The battalion's engineering forces are currently preparing the armored personnel carriers for operation.

Last week, the Ministry of Defense announced the arrival of the first batch of BMP-3 in the amount of 40 infantry fighting vehicles for service with the marines of the Pacific Fleet. The new BMP-3 replaced the BMP-2 in service.

Comments

[Thrifty]

Well, at least the personnel will not have to be "horseless" now in the "battle"! I am waiting for the appearance in the parts of "Kurganets" or "Boomerang. '"

[mojohed2012]

And God himself ordered the released BMP-2 to be delivered to the LPNR as part of fraternal assistance.
And not far away.

[figwam]

Quote: mojohed2012

And not far away.

It's very far from the far east.

[mojohed2012]

This is how the marines of the Black Sea Fleet are rearmed. There is a Crimean bridge, there is a railway, if necessary, there will be no problems.
But it is necessary - so to form a subdivision of volunteers in the border area and give them these infantry fighting vehicles with weapons and ammunition. All the same, they will be more needed there than just the AK and the infantry.

[vic02]

Read the last paragraph of the article carefully. Or do you not know where the Pacific Fleet is?

[Ripap]

Maybe it's enough to rivet these coffins on wheels 80 and 82A ?! So much money is spent on the production of completely obsolete technology. Complete helplessness in front of mines and IEDs, armor that does not even hold the armor-piercing 7,62 NATO in the side, the 2A72 autocannon "amazing" with its accuracy and rate of fire .. Where are the boomerangs? Come on, boomerangs, where is the BTR-87?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Why is the 2A72 cannon so displeased, the KPVT was really better. Why did the rate of fire and accuracy suddenly become so low?

[Ripap]

Better was the 2A42 on the Rostock armored personnel carrier, but they nailed it, and they produce this stuff instead.

Why did the rate of fire and accuracy suddenly become so low?

And it didn’t suddenly become, but always was. It was installed for one single reason, the roof of the BTR-80 hull does not withstand the recoil of 2A42.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Would the 2A42 be so much better? I have serious doubts about this. The guns are quite comparable.
The accuracy of the 2A42 itself was never particularly impressive, it is unlikely that it is much worse in the 2A72, as is the accuracy. More talk than facts.

[Ripap]

Well, if of all their performance characteristics you look only at the caliber, then yes, comparable. There are many nuances, too lazy to paint.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The nuances are more invented, because of the strong recoil, the technique shakes with 2A42, its advantages are theoretical.

[Ripap]

The payment for using the scheme with a movable barrel was somewhat worse accuracy and a significantly lower rate of fire - only 300-330 rds / min, which does not allow the effective use of this gun against air targets.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There is no need to theorize so much. There is a rate of fire, and there is a practical rate of fire. The length of the ammunition tape is less than the sky-high figures of 300-330 rounds per minute.

[abc_alex]

Quote: RipRap

Better was the 2A42 on the Rostock armored personnel carrier, but they nailed it, and they produce this stuff instead.

Is he somehow fundamentally better?

[Ripap]

Everyone. It is more mobile, maneuverable, more armored, with greater firepower. And mine protection is better there, although it is also not a fountain.

[abc_alex]

Quote: RipRap

Everyone. It is more mobile, maneuverable, more armored, with greater firepower.

No, wait. ".... her" is not about that. If one holds a bullet from 200 meters, and the other from 180, this, of course, is good, but not essential.
As I understand it, the armament of both vehicles is identical. Maneuverability? Let us suppose. Security? How much stronger is the security?

[Ripap]

And, that is, 2A42 + PKT + AGS17 + ATGM Competition = 2A72 + PKT? Understand! And in terms of security .. Rostok holds a 25mm NATO autocannon in its forehead, 12,7mm in the side is not armor-piercing. 80 and 82a hold nothing.

[abc_alex]

Quote: RipRap

And, that is, 2A42 + PKT + AGS17 + ATGM Competition = 2A72 + PKT? Understand!

Wait. Do not swear.
Our defense industry has an abundance of combat modules for light armored vehicles. And the same "Berezhok", if desired, could be installed on the BTR-82. If they don't, then there are reasons. For me, the idea of ​​attaching an ATGM outside the car is absurd. An ATGM is not a shovel or a scrap; it costs nothing to damage it.
Okay, you've proven security. But tell me, do you really think that you need to make a wheeled tank out of an APC? No, I don’t argue, you can make it out of the BTR-90, I just don’t think it’s necessary. Its protection is still not sufficient for combat within sight, and the mass of 22 tons with a 500-horsepower engine is practically a T-34-76. Agree, how the tank "thirty-four" will be abruptly, no?
Again, 22 tons means forgetting about airmobility "with little blood". Even the Mi-26 will not lift it, only the VTA aircraft.

Well, the protection of the landing ... Are you sure that the airborne assault is correct?

[Ripap]

And what is the problem with airborne landing? For example, in the event of an ambush on the road? What car would you prefer to be in?

And no, you cannot install the "bank" on 80k, it barely climbed onto a much larger 90ik.

[abc_alex]

Quote: RipRap

And what is the problem with airborne landing? For example, in the event of an ambush on the road? What car would you prefer to be in?

To be honest, I would prefer to be in a car with which the situation would look exactly as you painted, from above, and armed with a NURS package and a cannon. :)
Yes, in the case you described, the side exit is safer. But if there is an ambush from the second side? Elementary, machine gunner?
As I understand it, the complaint about the BTR-90 was not that there are landing hatches on the sides. And the fact that there is no landing hatch in the stern. Those who make ambushes, after all, are also not fools, and how exactly to catch the BTR-90 will be calculated very quickly.

[Ripap]

My personal opinion is that the importance of landing from the stern is greatly overestimated. (For armored personnel carriers - not for infantry fighting vehicles). An armored personnel carrier is not a vehicle for delivering infantry to the front ranks of the attackers, but in the rear, you can stand on the side and calmly parachute under the cover of the vehicle. And if there is an ambush on the road from two sides, then no APC will save you.

[-Dmitry-]

The differences between the BTR-90 and the BTR-82 are quite large. These are completely different cars in class. Rostock has a combat weight of 22 tons. against 15t. in the BTR-82A, that is, it is a heavier armored personnel carrier, that is, an automatic limitation on transportability. In fact, the re-BTR-82A is an under-boomerang, but significantly more expensive than the BTR-82A. If we take into account the promising Boomerang, then transferring factories, and this is a separate rather expensive topic, is not advisable for the production of the BTR-90. Something like that, I think.

[ultra]

In general, the "bushmaster" has bops in the bk, and not that the armored personnel carrier, even the bmp3 will not hold this ammunition. And the guns of our armored personnel carriers, bmp will not be able to hit the same Bradley in the frontal projection.

[donavi49]

The sprout would have taken off in the 90s if the USSR had not skipped a beat. But now sprout (even in the 10s) to put on the line is to deliberately pass into degradation. Well, or a dissenting opinion - for there will be the world's only new serial armored personnel carrier with only side exits.

They didn’t put something on fire, from Berezhka (which is now being ordered on the BMP-2M) to Bakhchi.

[Ripap]

Correct, it is much better to produce by 2021 ABSOLUTELY outdated armored personnel carriers 80 and 82a, and feed breakfast about boomerangs. But not degradation, but a breakthrough.

[donavi49]

Well, the BTR-80/82 is on the line and it can be produced and fine-tuned with a file in a semi-proactive manner.
Rostok would objectively kill a normal armored personnel carrier of the current generation, for the re-equipment of production, refinement of Rostok itself for trial operation, further development at the level of the current one with the BTR-82. The money for the same boomerang would have been spent on conceptually outdated (albeit much better than the BTR-80) equipment. And up to 40-50x a normal armored personnel carrier would not be objectively seen by the army. And so maybe by the 25th he will begin to feel, and by the 30th he will see it everywhere.

[Ripap]

By the 30th year, the boomerang will already become obsolete. And the army still rides on armored personnel carriers that do not protect against anything.

[-Dmitry-]

By the 30th year, the boomerang will already become obsolete. And the army still rides on armored personnel carriers that do not protect against anything.

So you yourself said that this is not an infantry fighting vehicle - it does not need to go in the first rows of the attackers and tank with a 25mm forehead. shells.

[-Dmitry-]

Well, the BTR-80/82 is on the line and it can be produced and fine-tuned with a file in a semi-proactive manner.
Rostock would objectively kill a normal armored personnel carrier of the current generation, because the re-equipment of production, the refinement of Rostock itself according to the experimental

I agree.

[lucul]

Correct, it is much better to produce by 2021 ABSOLUTELY outdated armored personnel carriers 80 and 82a, and feed breakfast about boomerangs. But not degradation, but a breakthrough.

All "obsolete" BTR-82 And simply in the lack of enemy detection systems. Imagine that the BTR-82A is supplemented with a small reconnaissance drone with a thermal imager. It will fly 1-2 km ahead of the armored personnel carrier convoy and at an altitude of 200m, and of course controlled from the armored personnel carrier. The thermal imager on the drone will allow you to detect any ambush, of course, if it is not in a concrete shelter.
This is so offhand.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

How will a "reconnaissance drone with teplak" save you from mines, ATGMs and machine gunners / grenade launchers in the window of a house?
Escorting transport convoys by helicopter has long become mandatory, but air support is not always possible, and it certainly is not a panacea.

[lucul]

How will a "reconnaissance drone with teplak" save you from mines, ATGMs and machine gunners / grenade launchers in the window of a house?

Is the city cleared by infantry or armored personnel carriers? )))

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

Who does it cleanse from?
From local residents and professional saboteurs who smile and wave a handkerchief during the day, and at night they take out a box of TNT, drop it by the road and start languidly waiting for the guests with a grenade launcher?
And we have not yet touched on the countermeasures of tpn, and there are plenty of them, if we talk about stationary positions.

[lucul]

and at night they take out a box of TNT, drop it near the road and start languidly waiting for the guests with a grenade launcher overweight?

Do you think even a tank is protected against such a thing? ))))

And we have not yet touched on the countermeasures of tpn, and there are plenty of them, if we talk about stationary positions.

The armored personnel carrier serves to deliver soldiers to battle, and there is no need to hang the functions of a tank on it. Support the infantry from the back with fire, yes, but not in front of the infantry.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

Do you think even a tank is protected against such a thing?

You can destroy anything. But much better protected, yes. Especially when it comes to modern armored vehicles, in which the armor around the circle is not much weaker than in the forehead.

The armored personnel carrier serves to deliver soldiers to battle

Delivery to where, excuse me? There is no "battlefield". In maneuvering combat operations, the enemy with approximately the same degree of probability can be both in front and behind.

and it is not necessary to hang the functions of the tank on it.

I completely agree. It remains to convey these thoughts to the generals, who, without knowing why, are trying to shove maximum caliber cannons into cardboard self-propelled coffins to the detriment of everything else.

[-Dmitry-]

How will a "reconnaissance drone with teplak" save you from mines, ATGMs and machine gunners / grenade launchers in the window of a house?

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

Who does it cleanse from?
From local residents and professional saboteurs who smile and wave a handkerchief during the day, and at night they take out a box of TNT, drop it by the road and start languidly waiting for the guests with a grenade launcher?
And we have not yet touched on the countermeasures of tpn, and there are plenty of them, if we talk about stationary positions.

Well, actually, since the days of Afgan, before the convoys are escorted, engineering reconnaissance of the route has been carried out.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

It's just physically impossible to conduct engineering reconnaissance in front of every box.

[donavi49]

Boomerang is expensive, plus it needs to be improved. Over there at the extreme parade. And if in Syria? He will stand up with a wedge without bangs.


And what exactly should the staff of the MIC and Arzamaszavod company feed? For the foreseeable future, the 100500 modification is the only reality and it would be nice to buy a new modification with armor and an improved BM. Especially in the Crimea, where the situation is most likely to go into battle. And there it is not very comfortable for the suddenly appearing T-64 to explain that the armored personnel carrier should not fight with it and ask to wait for the approach of the mechanized column for a fair fight .

[abc_alex]

Quote: donavi49

Especially in the Crimea, where the situation is most likely to go into battle. And there it is not very comfortable for the suddenly appearing T-64 to explain that the armored personnel carrier should not fight with it.

Yes, you see, that's the point. ALL weapons of the Berezhok module imply visual contact with the target. Distance less than 5 km, line of sight. Who do you think will be in more favorable conditions in such conditions? A T-64 tank with a 125-mm cannon and a rather spreading control system, or an armored personnel carrier with ... hmm ... somewhat smaller reconnaissance and surveillance equipment? Again, do not forget that not only a direct hit will not be the most pleasant for the BTR-90. The close burst of the HE shell will also not add to its combat effectiveness. And the T-64B can throw such shells at a distance of up to 10 km.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

And what exactly should the staff of the MIC and Arzamaszavod company feed?

On the basis of the same BTR-80, it would be possible to saw a bunch of useful equipment, from air defense systems to mortars, so that a superpower army does not have this:

And there it is not very comfortable for the suddenly appearing T-64 to explain that the armored personnel carrier should not fight with it and ask to wait for the approach of the mechanized column for a fair fight

with the sudden appearance of an enemy MBT, the best that an armored personnel carrier can do is to hide in the terrain as soon as possible, to land a troop, and the already dismounted ATGM crew must deal with heavy armored vehicles, or better, aircraft controllers.
Once upon a time in Iraq, M3 and M2 could still shoot from a distance the short-sighted Iraqi takhnika during the day and blind at night, such a "ball" will not pass anymore.

[DMi]

In Syria, 82m was tested on not a weak such IED. Three lightly wounded. The car was remanufactured at the local repair shop. In this modification, anti-splinter kevlar in the cabin, as it were)

[Scorpion85]

It is noted that the delivery took place within the framework of the state defense order under the program of rearmament of marine units with new equipment.

"New technique" in the sense of old polished. BTR-82A is a modernized Soviet BTR-80, there is nothing new here, except for paint, tires and a "shamanic" BM.

[Fierce73]

The author did not carefully read the news about the delivery of new infantry fighting vehicles to the Pacific Fleet Marine Corps! We did not install BMP-3, but BMP-3F, which is very important for the Marine Corps !!!

[vl903]

and seaworthiness is important for the Marines, that means not being overwhelmed. heavy armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers will not fit

[Pamir]

Well, for now, probably at least so, transport is also needed for the units of the marines, everything is worn out after all .. The platform is of course outdated, but they have not yet supplied anything else. partially, and in some quantity with "AU220-Baikal", especially "Boomerang" is waterfowl.

[Pavel57]

Quote: -Dmitry-

The differences between the BTR-90 and the BTR-82 are quite large. These are completely different cars in class. Rostock has a combat weight of 22 tons. against 15t. in the BTR-82A, that is, it is a heavier armored personnel carrier, that is, an automatic limitation on transportability. In fact, the re-BTR-82A is an under-boomerang, but significantly more expensive than the BTR-82A. If we take into account the promising Boomerang, then transferring factories, and this is a separate rather expensive topic, is not advisable for the production of the BTR-90. Something like that, I think.

BTR-90 was relevant 10 years ago. The train, alas, has left.