Bet on 30 mm caliber: US Army increases order of Stryker Oshkosh armored vehicles

155

The US Armed Forces are going to acquire additional Stryker armored vehicles from Oshkosh Defense. Their main difference is the presence of a 30 mm cannon. Oshkosh was selected in June 2021 in a bid to modernize Double V-Hull A1 Stryker infantry vehicles with a medium-caliber weapon system (MCWS).

As a result of the competition, Oshkosh managed to beat the Leonardo DRS-Moog team, as well as the General Dynamics Land Systems-Kongsberg team. After Oshkosh won the competition, the US Army awarded the company its first order for 91 vehicles worth about $ 130 million. In total, the military can create up to 6 brigades on Stryker armored vehicles with the MCWS version, so the potential contract value is about $ 942 million over six years.



The first unit to receive the updated MCWS Strykers is the I-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Joint Lewis McCord Base in Washington state. Colonel Bill Venable, program manager at the Office of Ground Combat Systems, has promised completion of the contract by December 2023.

The American army decided to equip armored vehicles of three of its six Stryker brigades with a rate of 30 mm guns. This decision was taken after consideration by the Army Council for Supervision of Compliance with the Requirements of the Characteristics of Combat Vehicles Used in Europe by the 2nd Cavalry Regiment of the American Army. The Pentagon has instructed to apply the new MCWS capabilities to DVH ICVVA1, which will form the basis for future Stryker brigades.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    11 August 2021 13: 00
    Manned with a log, looks like industrial espionage ...
  2. +2
    11 August 2021 13: 03
    Only they have 30mm, more powerful than ours, and a bunch of serial BOPS options for them.
    1. -5
      11 August 2021 13: 12
      The Americans had a good car in Vietnam - the Cadillac Gage V-100 Commando. Why develop a new one from scratch? Can't you put a 30mm cannon on it?
    2. 0
      11 August 2021 13: 12
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Only they have 30mm, more powerful than ours, and a bunch of serial BOPS options for them.

      hmm, and more specifically about "more powerful"
      1. +7
        11 August 2021 13: 15
        The armed forces of NATO member states standardized 30-mm caliber ammunition 30 × 173 mm (STANAG 4624) and 30 × 113 mm (STANAG 7219)... For example, the US armed forces use both types of 30 mm rounds: 30 × 173 mm - on the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, and 30 × 113 mm B - on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.
        Our modern - 30 × 165 mm
        1. -6
          11 August 2021 13: 17
          Quote: Zaurbek
          The armed forces of NATO member states have standardized 30 mm ammunition in the calibers 30 × 173 mm (STANAG 4624) and 30 × 113 mm (STANAG 7219).

          Quote: Zaurbek
          Our modern - 30 × 165 mm

          reminded - "Soviet computers are the largest in the world"
          1. +3
            11 August 2021 13: 20
            Well, here you can compare the level of metallurgy and powder chemistry in NATO and the Russian Federation, and simply the fact that BOPS 30mm in the Russian Federation only announced and produced samples. And compare the weight and armor of our infantry fighting vehicles and their serial.
            1. -3
              11 August 2021 13: 34
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Well, here you can compare the level of metallurgy and powder chemistry in NATO and the Russian Federation, and simply the fact that BOPS 30mm in the Russian Federation only announced and produced samples. And compare the weight and armor of our infantry fighting vehicles and their serial.

              in like, but I'm naive, I usually compare guns)
              1. +4
                11 August 2021 13: 37
                Well, the projectile should fly out of something ..... and get somewhere. Yes, they also forgot to mark the sights.
                1. -8
                  11 August 2021 13: 47
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Well, the projectile must fly out of something

                  yes, yes, a bullet from a bulldog also flies out))))))))))))))))
                  1. +2
                    11 August 2021 13: 48
                    Here I am about the same.
                    1. -10
                      11 August 2021 14: 04
                      Quote: Zaurbek
                      Here I am about the same.

                      I doubt that about the same, the Rhinemetal gun is no better than the 4a72, what "more powerful" can we talk about?
                      1. +8
                        11 August 2021 14: 09
                        2A72 is not a "masterpiece" ...... why don't you like the Rheinmetall gun?

                        The 30 mm Mark 44 artillery mount (Mk. 44 Bushmaster II) is a 30 mm automatic cannon manufactured by Alliant Techsystems. Developed on the basis of the 25-mm M242 Bushmaster cannon and is 70% compatible with the latter in terms of accessories, having 50% more firepower [source unspecified 3066 days].

                        The barrel is chrome plated for greater survivability. Rounds of NATO standard 30 × 173 mm with high-explosive fragmentation (HEI) and armor-piercing feathered subcaliber tracer (APFSDS-T) projectiles.
                      2. -5
                        11 August 2021 14: 32
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        2A72 is not a "masterpiece" ...... why don't you like the Rheinmetall gun?

                        2a72 is just a masterpiece and the bourgeois have no superiority, the bourgeois is slower, the range is shorter
                      3. +3
                        11 August 2021 14: 33
                        And probably her accuracy is higher?
                      4. -2
                        11 August 2021 14: 39
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        And probably her accuracy is higher?

                        I don't know, but did the accuracy of m16 help against Kalash?
                      5. +2
                        11 August 2021 14: 47
                        T34 against Panthers and T-4 later did not help ...
                        I do not understand what is the dispute here ?! The Striker has better optics, better communication, the TOU-2V is, the gun is more powerful itself, there are serial BOPS ....... The booking is better. BTR-82 - a carriage from the 19th century - on which only the Thermal Imager was recently installed. The 2A72 without fixing the additional one (As on the BMP-3) is an oblique gun, it was installed on the BTR-82 only because of the weight and recoil small compared to the 2A42. And then they try to fix it. All fresh versions have 2A42 and a new turret.



                        First appeared author. 30mm gun. 2A42, Automation of the gun is based on the use of energy of powder gases discharged through a side hole in the barrel, the mass of the gun is 115 kg. Rate of fire, rds / min: large at least 550 small 200-300. Installed on BMP 2, BMD 2, helicopters. The gun has proven itself exclusively on the positive side. Then came the BMP-3, and on it was installed auth. 2A72 gun The operation of the gun’s automation is based on the use of barrel recoil energy during its long course, which sharply reduces the gas contamination of the carrier’s combat compartment, on which the gun is mounted, and significantly reduces the effect of powder gases on the crew. The mass of the gun is 84 kg. Rate of fire, rds / min:
                        at least 330. Moreover, since the BMP-3 cannon was paired and fixed with 100mm. she had no problems with accuracy, although the rate of fire was "cut". But when they began to try to shove her into the BTR-80, 82, then her jambs began to climb out, namely, the low accuracy of shooting, due to the fact that the barrel dangles like shit in an ice hole. Moreover, since it is installed in a non-residential module, and its important advantage is the gas contamination of the fighting compartment. The designers cut through this counter and began to make a casing around the gun so that it dangles less when firing. Was it not more logical to put the old proven 2A42 instead of all this? Although there is experimental development with the 2A42.
                      6. -4
                        11 August 2021 15: 08
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        T34 against Panthers and T-4 later did not help ...

                        ))))))))))))))))))))
                        "Oskin let the German tanks at a distance of only 300 meters, after which he opened fire on them. As a result, three" Royal Tigers "were destroyed, and the rest decided to turn back. Alexander Oskin, not knowing that the new enemy tanks were practically invulnerable, entered from them into battle and emerged victorious. "
                        https://topwar.ru/78862-neravnye-tankovye-dueli-chast-3-t-34-85-protiv-korolevskih-tigrov.html
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        I do not understand what is the dispute here ?! The Striker has better optics, better communication, the TOU-2V is, the gun is more powerful itself, there are serial BOPS ....... The booking is better. BTR-82 - a carriage from the 19th century - on which only the Thermal Imager was recently installed. The 2A72 without fixing the additional one (As on the BMP-3) is an oblique gun, it was installed on the BTR-82 only because of the weight and recoil small compared to the 2A42. And then they try to fix it. All fresh versions have 2A42 and a new turret.

                        I don’t understand either, in Iraq the strikers showed themselves as a complete G, now they were pissed off and passed off as candy, while the BTR82 was also pissed off, but this is different))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))
                      7. +1
                        11 August 2021 15: 16
                        Did Oskin fight the "Royal Tigers" for sure?
                      8. -8
                        11 August 2021 15: 22
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Did Oskin fight the "Royal Tigers" for sure?

                        ett not to me, but we came across materials when ours in the Second World War had collisions with insufficient armor penetration, tore the tracks, used other vulnerabilities, this is a style, you need to blame - they will overwhelm
                      9. +1
                        11 August 2021 15: 25
                        As a result, look at the statistics of shooting Tigers and Panthers and calm down. 90% of them were destroyed by artillery and aircraft, abandoned due to breakdowns. The only tank comparable to them is the IS-2 ..... with a 122mm gun.
                      10. -8
                        11 August 2021 15: 31
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        As a result, look at the statistics of shooting Tigers and Panthers and calm down. 90% of them were destroyed by artillery and aircraft, abandoned due to breakdowns. The only tank comparable to them is the IS-2 ..... with a 122mm gun.

                        yes violet somehow, t34 in the end did not disappear and did not disappear
                      11. +3
                        11 August 2021 15: 35
                        Not purple. The T-34 was technologically advanced, during the design they had a reserve in weight and armor for the future (the designers guessed the trend), the cart pulled a heavy turret with an 85mm cannon. And there were more of them in pieces during the war than all the German tanks together ...


                        What of this does the BTR-82 have ?! There are more strikers and analogues from NATO in pieces, they are produced in bulk ... and they are better as armored personnel carriers. Bullshit turns out comrade!
                      12. -2
                        11 August 2021 17: 22
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        There are more strikers and analogues from NATO in pieces, they are produced in bulk ..

                        uh-huh, current
                        "US Armed Forces are going to acquire additional Stryker armored vehicles from Oshkosh Defense. Their main difference is the presence of a 30mm cannon. "
                      13. -1
                        12 August 2021 12: 09
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Did Oskin fight the "Royal Tigers" for sure?

                        As far as I remember, a column of royal tigers was driven to the front by factory drivers without a crew, Oskin shot them from an ambush, from a short distance to the sides.
                      14. +1
                        12 August 2021 12: 35
                        This can be attributed to those 90% of the destroyed Tigers by artillery and aircraft.
                      15. -1
                        12 August 2021 14: 02
                        But this does not negate the feat of the Soviet tanker. He could not know this, and opening fire, he went to certain death.
                      16. -1
                        12 August 2021 14: 06
                        Such feats should be reduced to 0 ... tankers (PT) should have a cannon that penetrates the enemy's tank ... preferably from a greater range than the enemy. And the sight that will allow you to do this. Then we will be able to have experienced and trained crews ....
                      17. +1
                        12 August 2021 14: 08
                        Unfortunately, war is more like chaos than a thoughtful chess game.
                      18. 0
                        12 August 2021 14: 09
                        Yes, but you can't serve a TIGER with a one-time crew .... a vicious circle.
                      19. 0
                        12 August 2021 16: 56
                        do not peck the brain, read the results of armor penetration tests in Kubinka, the T34-85 gun took it on board
                      20. 0
                        12 August 2021 19: 33
                        And where did the Tiger get it from? And where?
                      21. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 26
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        And where did the Tiger get it from? And where?

                        in the case of Oskin - out of nowhere, on the protank another case was described t34 royal in the stern, and the BS-3 cannon beat him in the forehead,) invincible))))))))))))))))))))
                      22. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 46
                        Read who beat them and who did not. This also applies to the allies. Before the appearance of 152 ISU. He had no enemies, the Tigers from a distance shot whoever they wanted with impunity and pierced everything.
                      23. 0
                        12 August 2021 22: 11
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Read who beat them and who did not. This also applies to the allies. Before the appearance of 152 ISU.

                        This probably applies to the allies), the ISU152 was serially produced from December 43rd, Tiger B was serially produced from March 44th)
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        He had no enemies

                        alternative history? were the royal tigers not allowed to take Berlin?
                      24. +1
                        11 August 2021 15: 05
                        You are confusing something. The 2A72 cannon is just a gun with a low rate of fire. Not the worst weapon in my opinion, but not in how you present it.
                        The high-speed cannon is the 2A42, there is something to talk about here. I had an affair with her in the mid-80s of the last century, and then she was far from being called a masterpiece. It is quite possible that the shortcomings of the weapon have been eliminated at the moment and I am breaking into an open door.
                      25. -4
                        11 August 2021 15: 13
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        The 2A72 cannon is just a gun with a low rate of fire.

                        330 against 200 bourgeois
                      26. +2
                        11 August 2021 15: 16
                        Of which 50% past .....
                      27. -5
                        11 August 2021 15: 27
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Of which 50% past .....

                        I remember playing as a child, tra-ta-ta-tata - and you finger to the side, tuu-tuu - by
                      28. +2
                        11 August 2021 15: 28
                        In YouTube, there are tracer firing in all directions.
                      29. -7
                        11 August 2021 15: 30
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        In YouTube, there are tracer firing in all directions.

                        there are a lot of things on YouTube
                      30. +2
                        11 August 2021 15: 31
                        I will not crawl into your intimate bookmarks.
      2. -10
        11 August 2021 15: 14
        hmm, and more specifically about "more powerful"

        I wrote a post below.
    3. +1
      11 August 2021 13: 28
      Now I heard new BOPSs for 30 mm Br-11 began to arrive in the troops, there armor penetration, if I'm not mistaken, is more than 100mm per 2km
      1. +1
        11 August 2021 13: 35
        Quite right. New to NATO they have been appearing on 25mm, 30mm cannons since the 2000s. And on the A10 (I don't know if the cartridge matches the land ones) uranium with the 80s
        1. -5
          11 August 2021 13: 43
          Quote: Graz
          the troops began to receive new BOPSs for the 30 mm Br-11, there armor penetration, if I am not mistaken, is more than 100 mm per 2 km

          Quote: Zaurbek
          Quite right. New NATO they began to appear

          this is here and not in NATO))))))))))))))))))))))
          1. +1
            11 August 2021 13: 45
            We have - now, in NATO - yesterday .... and now in large quantities.
      2. -6
        11 August 2021 15: 23
        Now I heard new BOPSs for 30 mm Br-11 began to arrive in the troops, there armor penetration, if I'm not mistaken, is more than 100mm per 2km

        ZUBR8 "Kerner"
        The speed is 1110 m / s.
        Penetration against inclined steel armor of high hardness.
        At 100 meters: 45 mm / 60 g.
        At 1000 meters: 28 mm / 60 g.
        At 2000 meters: 22 mm / 60 g.
        Unfortunately, it is primitive. The NATO BMP will only pierce point-blank (if it does): M2 "Bradley" in the first modifications "held" our 30 mm BT 300 meters in the frontal projection, later the frontal armor was reinforced several times (the first time with 30-mm armor plates, which was added later not known for certain). "Marder" was originally supposed to "forehead" to keep our BT at any distance (Marder is generally a very formidable machine).
        1. -5
          11 August 2021 15: 43
          Quote: Astor-27
          Now I heard new BOPSs to 30 mm began to arrive in the troops Br-11, there armor penetration, if I'm not mistaken, is more than 100mm per 2km

          MemoryBR8 "Kerner"
          1. -7
            11 August 2021 16: 17
            Sorry, misunderstood?
            1. -1
              11 August 2021 16: 19
              Quote: Astor-27
              Sorry, misunderstood?

              br11 entered, but was br8
              1. -7
                11 August 2021 16: 23
                Ah, I got it ... As far as I know, the 11th has not yet entered the troops (it seems that there have been no orders yet). Pilot production. I have not heard of military trials either.
                Although, perhaps my information is somewhat outdated ...
                1. -3
                  11 August 2021 16: 26
                  Quote: Astor-27
                  Ah, I got it ... As far as I know, the 11th has not yet entered the troops (it seems that there have been no orders yet). Pilot production. I have not heard of military trials either.
                  Although, perhaps my information is somewhat outdated ...

                  ett not to me
                  Quote: Graz
                  Now I heard new BOPSs for 30 mm Br-11 began to arrive in the troops, there armor penetration, if I'm not mistaken, is more than 100mm per 2km
                  1. +2
                    11 August 2021 16: 41
                    https://youtu.be/kw6_xTYazGI?t=16
                    1. -5
                      11 August 2021 20: 59
                      Yes, ATP, I looked. Only with armor penetration does he drive something.
                      1. -1
                        12 August 2021 06: 54
                        and what does it mean that the new telescopic French Bops drives the 40mm cannon on their new car, the jaguar penetrates 140mm at 2km. And this ammunition, as I understand it, is French for the time being the most top-tier in the world, let's wait for what the Americans will show there with 50mm.
                        https://youtu.be/J3VvWj5vHdg?t=419
                        our br-11s are rather slightly smaller because of the caliber, although who knows
                      2. -3
                        12 August 2021 07: 53
                        The Belgians (Mecar) developed a tungsten BOPS of increased elongation by 30X165 sometime in 2005. He was considered the best (I do not know for sure the data of ZUBR11 - one can only guess). But the armor penetration of the Belgian: 55 mm / 60/1000 m and 45 mm / 60/2000 (i.e. at a meeting angle of 90 degrees: 82mm / 1000 m and 67mm / 2m). Apparently, these parameters are the limit for this ammunition. In any case, the order of the numbers is clear. Where did the author of the video 000 mm / 120 m get it, I don't know ...
                2. -1
                  11 August 2021 20: 53
                  Quote: Astor-27
                  Oh, got it

                  where are the two sorry? in the post you wrote below about "the differences make it much better."
                  1,2 - when using br11 about nothing, 3 - don't think of anything? that the recoil increases and the vehicle pumps, so they left 30mm,
                  because they don't know how to stabilize)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                  1. -5
                    11 August 2021 21: 21
                    1,2 - when using br11 about nothing, 3 - don't think of anything? that the recoil increases and the vehicle pumps, so they left 30mm,

                    1,2) Well, modern foreign infantry fighting vehicles are booked at level 5 STANAG 4569 and higher (Strf-90, "Ajax"). So you will still have to get closer to them up to 500 meters (that is, go 1 500 m and wait for you to be torn to pieces). So I would not say "anything" ...
                    3) Increasing the caliber of the BMP cannon to a caliber that makes it possible to use projectiles with a "smart" fuse - this is a global trend (ours, too, are doing experimental work in this direction (the same "Baikal")), recoil and stabilization have absolutely nothing to do with it. wink
                    1. -1
                      11 August 2021 21: 31
                      Quote: Astor-27
                      modern foreign infantry fighting vehicles are armored at level 5 STANAG 4569 and higher (Strf-90, "Ajax"). So it will still be necessary to get closer to them up to 500 meters

                      what are you talking about? striker (they wrote here) 12mm circular, this is a 500m cord with bs holes, his forehead was closed) so he will not be in the forehead, tea is not popuasy.
                      Quote: Astor-27
                      this is a global trend (ours are also doing experimental work in this direction (the same "Baikal")), the return and stabilization have absolutely nothing to do with it

                      hello to trends, when the bourgeoisie learn to stabilize, they will put it on, but for now baikal, and this is with us and not with them
                      1. -6
                        11 August 2021 22: 11
                        The Stryker is armored in class 4 in a frontal projection (it and KPVT in the forehead from 200 m will not take it). From the sides, yes, class 3 - anti-steering. And Stryker, it's still an APC, not an infantry fighting vehicle.
                        hello to trends, when the bourgeoisie learn to stabilize, they will put

                        What are you, as a child, by God: the Germans stuck a 31-mm Milenium into their KF35 (IFV) (Lynx) with remote detonation fragmentation shells (back in 2016); the Swedes have 40 mm Bofos from the late 90s (also "smart" fuses); Rheinmetall 503 (35/50) for Marder-2 (but can also be put on Marder-1). About Bushmeister (30/40) has already been spoken about * his Poles put themselves on "Wolverine" ...
                      2. -1
                        11 August 2021 22: 26
                        Quote: Astor-27
                        Stryker, this is an armored personnel carrier, not an infantry fighting vehicle.

                        somehow you imperceptibly crawled onto the tracked vehicles, I'm talking about the striker and its 30mm module, I hope you understand the difference
                      3. -5
                        11 August 2021 22: 34
                        Let's return to Stryker: the cannon is bicaliber, the Poles on their Wolverine have no problems with it. Neither 30 nor 40 mm. From the word at all (they probably just do not know that there is such a website "Military Review" where poquello (poquello) knows that they must have problems with stabilization). Singaporeans do not know this either, thank Buddha, otherwise they would not put Bushmeister on their Bionics. recourse
                      4. 0
                        11 August 2021 22: 40
                        Quote: Astor-27
                        Let's return to Stryker: the cannon is bicaliber, the Poles on their Wolverine have no problems with it. Neither 30 nor 40 mm. From the word at all (they probably just do not know that there is such a website "Military Review" where poquello (poquello) knows that they must have problems with stabilization). Singaporeans do not know this either, thank Buddha, otherwise they would not put Bushmeister on their Bionics. recourse

                        ) yes, they don't know the type of problems either

                        No comments
                      5. -6
                        11 August 2021 22: 42
                        Well, send it down to you. Blessed is he who believes (I, a sinner, am used to relying more on reason).
                      6. 0
                        12 August 2021 12: 37
                        On the Stryker there is a variant with a 105mm L7 cannon ....... but they decided to remove them from service. There is also an ATGM ...
                      7. 0
                        12 August 2021 16: 59
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        On the Stryker there is a variant with a 105mm L7 cannon .......but they decided to take them off

                        I don’t understand, just write? if removed - it turned out G therefore removed
                      8. 0
                        12 August 2021 19: 32
                        These are removed, but ours are only put ... and on the tracks. What does this have to do with this
                      9. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 04
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        These are removed, but ours are only put ... and on the tracks. What does this have to do with this

                        not tired? what gun, module do they remove? tell me the characteristics
                      10. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 43
                        Check it out for yourself. L7 cannon
                      11. 0
                        12 August 2021 21: 08
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Check it out for yourself. L7 cannon

                        and?
                        "M1128 revealed quite real technical problems. First of all, due to the lack of stabilization, it was impossible to conduct aimed fire on the move. And in general, shooting in motion from this vehicle seems to be very problematic, at least judging by the way the Stryker behaves. When firing from a standstill. BMTV poorly "holds" the recoil of a full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which has always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy.
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        and on caterpillars

                        to understand why such cannons are put on tracks by religion does not allow? how to ask how Baikal differs from these guns, as well as 30mm modules
                      12. 0
                        12 August 2021 22: 30
                        This is a mobile PT weapon. Like an octopus, this is far from a tank
                      13. 0
                        12 August 2021 23: 02
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        This is a mobile PT weapon. Like an octopus, this is far from a tank

                        and what
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        These are filmed, and ours are only staged.

                        ?
                        octopus then shoots from its own Fri normally, in tch on the move,)))))))))))),
                        but it was originally about modules with automatic cannons
                      14. 0
                        13 August 2021 11: 57
                        And they came to the conclusion that the Striker's Bushmaster is more powerful and more accurate and penetrates more than 2a72 .......... and the striker himself is better protected than the BTR82.
                      15. 0
                        14 August 2021 03: 40
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        And they came to the conclusion that the Striker's Bushmaster is more powerful and more accurate and penetrates more than 2a72 .......... and the striker himself is better protected than the BTR82.

                        has become sweeter? )))))))))))))))))))
                        Firstly - there are no normal data for the bourgeois Wishlist, secondly - in my humble opinion, as the striker was shit, it probably remained like shit (and what actually happened to make it not so?), Thirdly - elementary physics says that the higher location, other things being equal, the more the gun shakes
                      16. 0
                        14 August 2021 08: 31
                        What is * normal data *? The concept of the armored personnel carrier is similar, their design is 30 years younger, the USA has not and does not lag behind in diesel engines and metals and communications from the USSR and the Russian Federation. In general, the average APC of the early 2000s, massive in various versions.
    4. -1
      11 August 2021 15: 45
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Only they have 30mm, more powerful than ours, and a bunch of serial BOPS options for them.

      ========
      And "with them" is WHO? The second is about BOPS: This is - WHAT KIND??? Example - in the studio!
      1. +1
        11 August 2021 16: 00
        The L14A3 ammunition, with a projectile mass of 300 g and an initial velocity of 1170 m / s, penetrates a 40 mm thick rolled homogeneous armor plate (RHA) when hit at an angle of 45 ° at a range of 1500 m. core were signed in 1985 with BMARC and HONEYWELL, but in 1996, after rejecting a ready-to-use design from Oerlikon, the UK Department of Defense decided to enter into a contract with BAE Systems to develop an APEP based on the design projectile APFSDS-T RO273 of this company. This design was claimed to provide a 57% improvement in performance over the L14A3 ammunition, but was abandoned in 1998 on the grounds that it did not meet customer specifications.
      2. +1
        11 August 2021 16: 03
        The PMC 287 projectile reaches an initial velocity of 1405 m / s when fired from the Bushmaster II cannon and 1385 m / s when fired from the 30-mm Mauser cannon of the MK30 series. Its tungsten alloy core, which has a density of 18g / cm3 and a length to diameter (L / D) ratio of 13,5, can punch 55mm thick slab at 60 °, NATO standard (110mm path length) at a distance of more than 1 km. Median dispersion is defined as "less than 0,5 thousand", tests demonstrated a median dispersion of 0,3 thousand.

        The NM 225 projectile with a steel sleeve experiences a maximum chamber pressure of 460 MPa and has a higher initial velocity (1430 m / s). Its 153-g core has some advantage when firing at vertical plates (penetrates rolled homogeneous armor with a thickness of> 120 mm at a distance of 1 km). And the PMC 287 projectile is reported to be more suitable for firing at slabs at a more oblique angle of encounter.
        1. +1
          11 August 2021 16: 21
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Ammunition L14A3 ...... penetrates a plate of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) 40 mm thick when hit at an angle of 45 ° at a distance of 1500 m.

          Quote: Zaurbek
          The PMC 287 .... shell can penetrate a 55 mm thick plate at an angle of 60 °

          =========
          Dear Zaur! And you have seen a LOT of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with an armor thickness of more than 4 - 5.5. cm??? Can you list the types and HOW MUCH are they produced? what lol
          Well, and the TANK, such a weapon will not pierce anyway! ... For this, ATGMs are installed on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles ...
          That's how it is!
          hi
          1. -11
            11 August 2021 16: 31
            Of course a lot - everything. hi
            BMP-2, for example, 6 mm only hatch covers, and everything else is thicker (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:akWxN5o60IQJ:armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BMP1/bmp2armor/ + & cd = 13 & hl = ru & ct = clnk & gl = ru)
            BTR-80 - from 8 to 10 (forehead) mm.
            1. +1
              11 August 2021 17: 58
              Quote: Astor-27
              Of course a lot - everything. hi
              BMP-2, for example, 6 mm only hatch covers, and everything else is thicker (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:akWxN5o60IQJ:armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BMP1/bmp2armor/ + & cd = 13 & hl = ru & ct = clnk & gl = ru)
              BTR-80 - from 8 to 10 (forehead) mm.

              =======
              Have you read CAREFULLY? WHAT was written there?
              Quote: Astor-27
              with an armor thickness of more than 4 - 5.5. cm??

              Centimeters, Karl! What does it mean in translation: 40 - 55 millimeters!
              And what kind of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles have such armor ???
              fool
              1. -6
                11 August 2021 18: 54
                Sorry, I didn’t notice (it’s already night time, but the eyes are "not those" request )
                The answer is: there is such a standard - STANAG 4569. It has 6 levels of protection.
                Modern armor, as a rule, is multi-layered and combined, therefore, we must talk not about thickness, but the equivalent of thickness. The equivalent is usually rolled, homogeneous (so-called homogeneous) armor. Let's talk about the equivalents.
                The armor penetration of a caliber armor-piercing projectile with a steel core is usually taken equal to its caliber (at a distance of a direct shot). A sub-caliber armament is more effective than a conventional caliber one by about 0,6 (i.e., at 1000 m, a 30-mm armament will penetrate approximately 30 mm of armor, and a sub-caliber armament will penetrate 48 mm).
                Based on these simple calculations, we turn to STANAG 4569.
                Level 5 - 25 mm BPS from 500 m - Marder, Bradley, Kurganets, BMP-3 (in frontal projection, but with a reinforced screen - it was developed, but for some reason it is not released). And this is the equivalent: 25X0,6 + 25 = 40 mm of homogeneous armor (in fact, even more: the distance is short - 500 m).
                BMP Stridesfordon 90 (Sweden) - holds 30 mm BOPS (i.e. equivalent: 30X0,6 + 40 = 48 mm)
                BMP ASCOD (Austria, Spain, Great Britain) - out of view (in a circle) holds a 40-mm BPS !!! 64 mm armor. Out of sight !!!!
                1. +1
                  12 August 2021 15: 06
                  [quote = Astor-27] Sorry, I didn’t notice (it’s already night time, and the eyes are "not those" request) [/ quote]
                  ======
                  It's OK! It happens! Himself repeatedly "hit"! request
                  -----------
                  [quote = Astor-27] Modern armor, as a rule, is multi-layered and combined, therefore, we must talk not about thickness, but the equivalent of thickness. [/ quote drinks
                  =======
                  Gu of course! I didn't even mention it, I thought it was obviously!
                  ----------
                  [quote = Astor-27] Armor penetration of a caliber armor-piercing projectile with a steel core is usually taken equal to its caliber (at a distance of a direct shot) [/ quote]
                  =======
                  Something like that, but not quite ... Much depends on the caliber and initial speed. But in general - something like this! hi Paradoxical as it may seem, the smaller the caliber, the more this ratio is violated ... The question is in the specific pressure per square centimeter!
                  ------------
                  [quote = Astor-27] Based on these simple calculations, let's move on to STANAG 4569.
                  Level 5 - 25 mm BPS from 500 m - Marder, Bradley, Kurganets, BMP-3 (in frontal projection, but with a reinforced screen - it was developed, but for some reason it is not released). [/ Quote]
                  ========
                  Yes, it seems, as it were, they produce, but to a limited extent, because with this "screen", the BMP-3 loses its buoyancy ..... Therefore, it did not receive wide distribution ...
                  -----------
                  [quote = Astor-27] BMP ASCOD (Austria, Spain, Great Britain) - out of view (in a circle) holds a 40 mm BPS !!! 64 mm armor. Out of sight !!!! [/ quote]
                  ========
                  Stop, stop, stop! Holds .... BUT with mounted combined protection "Mexas", which consists of boa carbide, fiberglass and Kevlar ..... In addition, this BMP - DOESN'T FLY! There is also a mass of 24-28 tons, with small dimensions!
                  And so, WITHOUT hinged armor, these BMPs hold: in add - 30 mm BPS (mind you not BOPS, but a regular BPS!). And 14.5 mm - to the side!
                  PS By the way, we have long ago developed a new BOPS 30 × 165 mm 3UBR-11, which is 1.5 - 2.2 times more powerful than the good old 3UBR-8 (27 mm at a distance of 1000 m) - i.e. approx 55 mm at a distance of 1000 m!
                  Somewhere like that ... drinks hi
                  1. -1
                    12 August 2021 16: 15
                    The Belgians (Mecar) developed a tungsten BOPS of increased elongation by 30X165 sometime in 2005. He was considered the best (I do not know for sure the data of ZUBR11 - one can only guess). But the armor penetration of the Belgian: 55 mm / 60/1000 m and 45 mm / 60/2000 (i.e. at a meeting angle of 90 degrees: 82mm / 1000 m and 67mm / 2m). Apparently, these parameters are the limit for this ammunition. In any case, the order of the numbers is clear. Where did the author of the video 000 mm / 120 m get it, I don't know ...

                    (I wrote this above about the 11th (after all, how smart I am! I myself sometimes wonder wink )
                    There is one special feature with this STANAG 4569. Ours take the equivalent of rolled homogeneous armor of high strength, and the adversary - of medium strength.
                    In addition, the same armor will give a different equivalent for a sub-caliber and a gauge blank: it clearly follows from the school formula for kinetic energy that the dependence on mass is linear, and that on speed is quadratic. Those. a heavy blank saves energy, and the PBS after firing it rapidly loses it. Besides, normalization, center-of-mass-center-of-force distance ratio and all that ...
                    From this there are some misunderstandings about the levels of STANAG 4569. But, if we translate into "our" mm, then the 5th level of STANAG 4569 = 100 mm of homogeneous armor of high strength (for a sub-caliber, naturally, for a caliber blank, it will be less 55) - that's why I wrote that armor penetration = caliber). The 60th level is Bradley, the Marder of the latest modifications. Those. at a range of confident defeat (5/1 range of a direct shot = 2 m) BMP adversary, one hell, do not make their way in the forehead (you need to approach closer) ... So it was they 500 years ago that they installed the 30th level in the obligation. Now 5+ or 5 require ... Of course, the reservation (even in the forehead) is somehow spaced, it can be punched somewhere and it is possible (in the same "tides" of sights, the base of the tower). But this thing is: for good luck.
                    And the fact that they don't swim ... So Bradley doesn't swim now, and Marder never swam. What for? Let the reconnaissance swim ... Have you seen a lot that buoyancy is useful in a real battle? In Afghanistan, our first thing we did: they threw off the wings from the base vehicles, and put on additional screens ... Yes, and the BMP-2 floats ... Togo ... I don't know how the BMP-3 floats, but on the BMP-2 I Cupid or Volga would not dare to cross. Yes, and Shilku or Ussuri - too. The only thing that I saw from real waterfowl was the BTR-50P. This one really floats - no worries, no hassle: drove into the water and swim. Even the PT-76 is worse (the turret interferes - trim on the nose). And the BTR-50 is like a boat.
                    1. +1
                      12 August 2021 17: 00
                      Quote: Astor-27
                      (I wrote this above about the 11th (after all, how smart I am! I sometimes wonder myself wink)
                      There is one special feature with this STANAG 4569. Ours take the equivalent of rolled homogeneous armor of high strength, and the adversary - of medium strength.

                      =======
                      wassat What's that !? There are even more curious things! The fact is that according to GOST R 50744-95 - if it is written that it holds an armor-piercing bullet of 12,7 × 108 mm from a distance of 50 meters - it means that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pierce the armor with this bullet from a distance of 50 m! And according to STANAG 4569, this means that no more than 50% of bullets penetrate the armor from a certain distance! Those. - if 49% breaks through - then it already "holds" !!! request
                      And with STANAG mine protection - it's even more fun! There it is considered: if after the detonation more than half of the crew is alive (at the moment when they are evacuated, and not depending on their condition and whether they will live to the hospital), then it is believed that the car WITHSTAND the explosion ... Although I don't seem to be a GOST ...
                      These are the "roosters and gingerbread" ..... request
                      1. -1
                        12 August 2021 17: 17
                        No, in my opinion, you are confusing something. If my memory serves me, then STANAG 4569 fires 3 shots with the appropriate ammunition. They shoot at the armor plate, of course, and not the car. There should be no penetrations. Accuracy (I don’t remember the length of the sides of the triangle formed by the hits (I can’t find it quickly in Russian, but it’s just not hunting with English).
                        I was not interested in high-explosive impact (contact detonation), I will not lie.
                        If I am not mistaken, then 50% of penetrations is according to the declared armor penetration. There was such a joke in someone (as if not in the Wehrmacht's weapons department).
          2. +1
            11 August 2021 16: 36
            "American" is "rolled" into an armored welded hull up to 12 millimeters thick. The "forehead" of the basic Stryker model is ready to endure a burst of armor-piercing bullets of 14 mm caliber. Fragments from the burst of a 155-mm projectile, even at 30 meters, are also not dangerous to him. The sides and sterns hold the blow more modestly - only armor-piercing rifle caliber is on the shoulder.

            It's another matter if you hang the special MEXAS metal-ceramic panels of German armored workers on the M1126 Stryker. And then already the stern with the sides holds a large-caliber machine-gun burst, and the "forehead" is able to reflect from half a kilometer and a 30-mm armor-piercing core.
            1. +1
              11 August 2021 18: 10
              Quote: Zaurbek
              It's another matter if you hang the special MEXAS metal-ceramic panels of German armored workers on the M1126 Stryker.

              =======
              Yes? And since when, armored ceramics, are made "armored workers[i] [/ i] "Can you tell me? Actually, such ceramics are not poured, but sintered from powder in special ovens! And by no means not on metallurgical plants!
              ----------
              Quote: Zaurbek
              And then already the stern with the sides holds a large-caliber machine-gun burst, and the "forehead" is able to reflect from half a kilometer and a 30-mm armor-piercing core.

              ========
              All this is true ... BUT! The problem with "ceramics" is that its protective properties are based on the fact that all the energy of the incoming ammunition is spent on the DESTRUCTION of the plate! Those. this is all good, of course, SINGLE hit, after which collapses.... And the entire volume covered by it remains protected only .... good old cold-rolled, homogenized steel ..... And the area of ​​such plates is usually approx. 50 x 50 cm! This is the trick that turns out ... hi
            2. 0
              11 August 2021 20: 58
              Quote: Zaurbek
              "American" is "rolled" into an armored welded hull up to 12 millimeters thick.

              that is, the cord with bs makes holes in it)))))))))))))))))))))
  3. -2
    11 August 2021 13: 31
    It would be interesting to compare with our BMP-82. There are specialists, who can enlighten?
    1. -1
      11 August 2021 13: 37
      Quote: Gritsa
      It would be interesting to compare with our BMP-82. There are specialists, who can enlighten?

      BTR-82M
      different classes
      1. -1
        11 August 2021 13: 41
        Quote: Flood
        BTR-82M
        different classes

        And what is the essential difference?
        1. +4
          11 August 2021 13: 45
          Quote: Gritsa
          And what is the essential difference?

          you know I was wrong about the different classes.
          now the border between the ideas of the armored personnel carrier and the bpm is very blurred.
          in fact, there is practically one weight category.
          probably, the comparison of these machines is still legitimate.
          but the Stryker was carried out with a variety of weapons. including as a wheeled tank.
          but again, it is correct to compare the performance with 30 mm modules.
          would be a specialist - would answer in detail
          just thinking about a given topic
          1. +4
            11 August 2021 13: 49
            The weight may vary .... The BTR-82 is an old car by old standards. The BTR-90 can be compared with the striker by weight ....
          2. +6
            11 August 2021 13: 54
            BTR-80 (82) and Stryker are similar vehicles. I will assume that the United States was "inspired" by our armored vehicle. But Stryker surpasses the 82k by a head in armor and mine protection, the convenience of the landing force and the crew, and situational awareness. Which is not surprising. Ours was made in the middle to the end of the 20th century, they are already in the 21st century
            1. -12
              11 August 2021 14: 09
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              But Stryker is head and shoulders above 82ku in terms of armor and mine protection, the convenience of the landing force and the crew, and situational awareness. Which is not surprising. Ours was made in the middle to the end of the 20th century, they are already in the 21st century

              yes, well, nafig, in order to make a car, you still need to have hands, but the Americans have them in F
              1. -6
                11 August 2021 21: 25
                If the Americans with their Fords have them from well ..., then where do we get with our Zhiguli? feel
                1. -4
                  11 August 2021 21: 36
                  Quote: Astor-27
                  If the Americans with their Fords have them from well ..., then where do we get with our Zhiguli? feel

                  make fords and make tanks somewhat different abilities
                  1. -5
                    11 August 2021 22: 39
                    The same thing, I assure you. Now, if only Zhiguli and nothing more, then a racing KAMAZ only in a one-off copy.
                    1. -3
                      11 August 2021 22: 49
                      Quote: Astor-27
                      The same thing, I assure you. Now, if only Zhiguli and nothing more, then a racing KAMAZ only in a one-off copy.

                      yes, yes, and the armata at the parade are cardboard
                      1. -6
                        11 August 2021 23: 02
                        I do not know whether they are cardboard or plasticine (you, of course, know it better: you are an international specialist on the problems of stabilizing weapons, so you have "cards in hand" about construction materials). But what I know is that the army has been trying to foist them on for 6 years, and the army is being kicked out of them with all its might. This year, it seems, they will still be foisted a little. And if our army kicks off from them (which it usually categorically does not do), then I somehow feel anxious about the tank troops.
                      2. -2
                        11 August 2021 23: 52
                        Quote: Astor-27
                        But what I know is that the army has been trying to foist them on for 6 years, and the army is being kicked out of them with all its might.

                        and where to read about it?
                      3. -5
                        12 August 2021 04: 27
                        Well, if you are really too lazy to look, then you can go to Wikipedia.
                  2. +1
                    12 August 2021 12: 39
                    Read the history of KAMAZ and what was taken as a model in the 60s.
                    1. 0
                      12 August 2021 16: 50
                      Quote: Zaurbek
                      Read the history of KAMAZ and what was taken as a model in the 60s.


                      isn't it? not?
                      KAMAZ today does everyone on Dakar and not in history
                      1. 0
                        12 August 2021 19: 34
                        Made by a factory team of private traders ......
                      2. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 28
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        Made by a factory team of private traders ......

                        and where is the "factory team of private traders" Ford and so forth?
                      3. 0
                        12 August 2021 20: 41
                        No …… .there are private Teams mostly. MAZ was added
                      4. 0
                        13 August 2021 00: 53
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        No …… .there are private Teams mostly. MAZ was added

                        vot, private - not private, but the essence on the face is written "KAMAZ"
                      5. 0
                        13 August 2021 11: 54
                        .. budgets are different. And the number of trucks in the race is different and the number of technicians is different.
                      6. 0
                        14 August 2021 03: 25
                        Quote: Zaurbek
                        .. budgets are different. And the number of trucks in the race is different and the number of technicians is different.

                        not well, I understand in sports, Americans and some other bourgeois are allowed to use doping, and the rest are prohibited, here nobody forbids, moreover - Kamaz wins despite various fantasies of perverting refereeing, the way is open
                      7. 0
                        14 August 2021 08: 36
                        Quite right, the west is involved mainly in circuit races. KAMAZ has been quite successful in the last 10 years ... ... a new cab, a new diesel engine ... ... a new family of trucks in all sizes ....
                  3. 0
                    14 August 2021 08: 39
                    Read how quickly the Americans began to make armored vehicles in WWII ... ... thanks to the developed industry. And the USSR never caught up with their piston aircraft engines.
      2. -8
        11 August 2021 15: 12
        I wrote the data on the tools below.
    2. +1
      11 August 2021 13: 57
      And what is this BMP-82? Have you missed the Sportloto-82?
      1. +2
        11 August 2021 15: 15
        You can not understand. Only major experts with a thorough knowledge of the subject can argue about the 4a72 and the BMP-82. Sarcasm, if that.
        1. -2
          11 August 2021 16: 38
          Quote: S. Sergei
          You can not understand. Only major experts with a thorough knowledge of the subject can argue about the 4a72 and the BMP-82. Sarcasm, if that.

          bullshit,
          "We say Lenin, we mean the party,
          we say party, we mean Lenin.
          V.V.Mayakovsky
    3. 0
      11 August 2021 16: 36
      https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/20186271214-KfrAo.html
  4. -1
    11 August 2021 13: 43
    As a result of the competition, Oshkosh managed to beat the Leonardo DRS-Moog team, as well as the General Dynamics Land Systems-Kongsberg team.
    This is the main "competition" in the life of their country ... what kind of Olympic Games there are ... what a shurum-burum, companies / corporations hawala !!! this is the main thing.
    1. 0
      11 August 2021 15: 07
      How are these main competitions going on on TV?
      1. 0
        11 August 2021 15: 35
        Why would it suddenly, most importantly, be exposed to the public? Where have you seen this?
  5. -9
    11 August 2021 15: 09
    The Bushmeister 30-mm automatic cannon has a number of differences from our 2A42 (2A72). And these differences make it much better.
    1) The cannon uses a feathered sub-caliber b / p as an armor-piercing b / p.
    2) Both OFZ and OPBS have a higher initial speed compared to our b / p.
    3) The cannon is, in fact, a bicaliber (when replacing the barrel and some units, it becomes a 40-mm automatic cannon, and this is already another calico - an HE with remote detonation).
    However, as far as I understand, it is planned to install a modification for the "European" ammunition (30 X170) - "native" b / p: 30 X173.
    For understanding: 2A42 - 30 X 165. Initial speed: 970 m / s (for BT, OFZ). Now, it seems, BPS "Kerner" (ZUBR8) has appeared, he has n / s = 1 m / s, but he, all the same, is the same Marder or Bradley only at point-blank range (primitive).
    Bushmeister (I take the data for the English L21A1 for ammunition 30 X 170). NS: 1070 m / s (RP); 1176 m / s (OPBS).
    These are the pies with kittens.
    1. 0
      11 August 2021 15: 19
      Quote: Astor-27
      The 30-mm automatic cannon Bushmeister has a number of differences from our 2A42 (2A72)

      that is, it's not about the design differences of the guns, but about the superiority of the bp (according to you)
      but the XM813 itself is upgraded compared to the original Mk44
      and the trunk is longer
      1. -5
        11 August 2021 16: 12
        The 2A42 is a good gun. But this is a cannon of the late 70s. And ammunition from the same time. It has disadvantages (barrel vibration, for example, with a long queue or in "aviation" mode) with which one could put up. But her "technical" dispersion is twice as large as on the same Bushmeister. Moreover, our "native" fire control devices. And in battle, he has a chance of success, who was the first to discover, the first to shoot and the first to hit ("at maximum distances, the first shot", as demanded by the order of the USSR Ministry of Defense (if memory serves, then 1986 hi ).
        1. -2
          11 August 2021 19: 58
          But she has a "technical" dispersion twice as much as on the same Bushmeister

          It's just the quality of the shells))))
          On Kalash, they began to use non-native cartridges and the dispersion immediately decreased))))
          1. -5
            11 August 2021 20: 08
            Well, I don't know ... I shot at them a lot. I got the impression that the scatter is the same. On different machines, on replaced trunks, different types of b / p. However, perhaps this is only an impression and the point is, indeed, in the shells ...
            1. -4
              11 August 2021 20: 14
              I got the impression that the scatter is the same. On different machines, on replaced trunks, different types of b / p.

              What's the problem then? The USSR lagged behind NATO in terms of the quality and efficiency of the combustible mixture. Roughly speaking, our military chemists lagged behind.
              But now, Russian chemists have pulled themselves together, for example, the Caliber is in no way inferior to the Tomahawk in the efficiency of a solid fuel engine.
              Therefore, all shells / cartridges developed before 2000 can be replaced)))
              1. +1
                12 August 2021 00: 10
                Quote: lucul
                for example, the Caliber is in no way inferior to the Tomahawk in the efficiency of a solid fuel engine.

                KR Caliber and Tomahawk have no solid fuel engines, and there are solid fuel starting boosters... The example you chose is unsuccessful. No. You may not know, but such boosters have been used on Soviet anti-aircraft missiles since the 50s.
    2. +3
      11 August 2021 15: 23
      The point is that it is fundamentally better ...
      1.The projectile itself is larger and more powerful
      2. the assortment of shells is much larger. If for the PF it is not so important, then for the BB it is important. We don't have them yet.
      3. In comparison with 2A72, it is more accurate
      4. LMS on Striker is better.


      It is possible to compare with BM on BMP-3. BTR-80/82 is a forced modernization, while there is nothing to replace it. And even the Ukrainians with their BTR-3 overtook her. The Belarusians presented something recently ... And in the Russian Federation, the same age as the striker - the BTR-90, they could not master it and now they have to jump through the "generation", going straight to Kurganets25. Which still needs to be mastered.
      1. -6
        11 August 2021 15: 49
        Yes, mastering "Kurganets" is just not a problem. The problem is different. We discussed this matter back in the mid-90s. An infantry fighting vehicle is a vehicle that is used directly in battle formations (as opposed to an armored personnel carrier, which, in essence, is such a taxi: drove to the battlefield and hid). How to use our infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield if they make their way at all distances of their actual fire? But in no way. They will burn with a blue flame (this was clear even before the 1st Chechen). And if the car is made protected (like the same Marder or Bradley), then it will slip through in 25 tons. Consider doubling the mass. It is necessary to redo the entire concept and recount everything (both railway and air transport, and all types of logistics). Then, yes, it can be used in battle formations, but in this case, it is necessary to increase the number of motorized rifle squads: the current one will not be enough: 2 in the car (and in my mind, it should be 3), 6 in the field. But out of these 6 - 2 people (the grenade launcher and the assistant) fall out of the rifle battle. There were 4 people left to cover the car in a fire battle. And this is not enough (especially in a "closed", urbanized area). And we still need to cover the tank. And there is never 100% completeness. We increase the compartment - the platoon climbed up. And a company. And the battalion. Who will go for it? These are not parades. And do not mow the lawns.
        So our infantry toils, without fire support ...
        1. 0
          11 August 2021 15: 55
          All recent wars are local, so many armored personnel carriers (as they did in the USSR) are not needed, but protected armored personnel carriers (BMPs) are needed in the required quantity for combat-ready units. 25-35tn is now the standard in this segment.
          1. -7
            11 August 2021 19: 17
            I completely agree with you. But this must be put into the ears of God + into the ears of the Minister of Defense, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces and the head of the Armaments Directorate of the Ground Forces. stop
        2. -1
          11 August 2021 16: 13
          And what is this infantry of yours? We, not yours, have a motorized rifle squad of 10 people. 2 in the car, and 8 more, including the squad leader, who may not leave his seat in the car in the tower.
          1. -8
            11 August 2021 16: 39
            Well, before 2000 the staff was 8 people (BMP-2). wink
            1. -1
              11 August 2021 16: 41
              Is it again, just for you?
              1. -6
                11 August 2021 17: 39
                See eg. Appendix No. 25 (Fortifications), Fig. 3 BU PVOB (part 3 platoon, squad, tank), added pri. Civil Code of SV No. 19 dated February 24.02.2005, XNUMX.
                Wow, you are in the "Combat Regulations" .2006. department exactly, 9 people. And where is the platoon management interesting?
                1. -2
                  11 August 2021 18: 53
                  Is the staff of a motorized rifle subunit determined by the Combat Regulations? This is something extraordinary.
                  1. -7
                    11 August 2021 19: 07
                    Can you read abbreviations? And understand the sentences? Where do I have it written that the staff of a motorized rifle unit is determined by the Combat Regulations?
          2. -8
            11 August 2021 16: 41
            And who was added and where was they put in the BMP?
            1. -1
              11 August 2021 16: 46
              In the BMP-2, no one was added or subtracted. The driver-mechanic, behind him the landing place, in the tower the gunner-operator and the commander, six behind. Everything is openly available and even with pictures.
              In the BMP-1, even 11 people can fit, but there is a single tower.
              1. -6
                11 August 2021 17: 01
                What is the name of the staff position? I meant it.
                And how many people fit into the BMP-2 - I already know. But only I know one more thing: if 6 people are put into the troop compartment, then their equipment will have to be left outside. On the armor. And it will be necessary to sit in the troop compartment like herring in a barrel. Equipment (duffel bags and other property) - on armor (armored and worn b / c, so be it, to the soldiers with wire tightly tied - let them wear without removing: let the l / s not be afraid of hardships and hardships), but where is carried to put (it was usually on the armor and placed)?
        3. -3
          11 August 2021 20: 04
          How to use our infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield if they make their way at all distances of their actual fire?

          And what, on the BMP is planned to overcome the echeloned enemy defense? ))))
          It is necessary to redo the whole concept and recount everything

          What is the BMP in essence? A vehicle to keep the infantry behind the tanks. This was already in the Second World War, when the tanks were separated from the infantry by tens of kilometers. And then the BMP goes in the second turn for the tanks and suppresses the enemy's infantry.
          But that's all, now, for some reason, the BMP is required to function as a tank))))
          1. -4
            11 August 2021 20: 27
            The BMP is required, among other things, being in battle formations, to provide fire support. In all types of combat. Incl. and when overcoming echeloned defense (if the adversary will build one). Read the battle manual.
            And to keep up with the tank, a bike or a truck is enough. Or an armored personnel carrier. There is such an armored personnel carrier: M113. On tracks. But, this is an armored personnel carrier, not an infantry fighting vehicle. And there is such a BMP: VBCI. It is wheeled. But BMP. As the saying goes: feel the difference.
            1. -1
              11 August 2021 20: 35
              Read the battle manual.

              So against layered defense and tanks are useless))))
              The BMP is needed when the tanks, having broken through the defenses, entered the operational space. And here you need a means to keep up with the tanks off-road (and the T-80 can give heat), and in which case, suppress the enemy's infantry, if the tanks stumble upon the infantry.
              If the BMP increase the armor, then the entire original ideology of the BMP is lost - as a cheap and very massive means of increasing the effectiveness of infantry on the battlefield.
              After all, with the mobilization of millions of soldiers and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers will be required in incredible numbers, and if they are expensive, then the lion's share of the newly recruited infantry will remain completely without infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.
              1. -9
                11 August 2021 20: 54
                and the T-80 can give heat

                Have you ever seen a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle? I will upset you to the point of impossibility: you will not be able to go faster than 20-35 km / h in either one or the other. You will be killed (there is a lot of iron and sharp corners inside). On the asphalt, yes, you can go faster. So wheeled vehicles are better on asphalt.
                As for the purpose of the BMP, have you been banned from Google yet? Read it. request
                1. -5
                  11 August 2021 20: 59
                  I will upset you to the point of impossibility: you will not be able to go faster than 20-35 km / h in either one or the other. You will be killed (there is a lot of iron and sharp corners inside).

                  ))))
                  1. -7
                    11 August 2021 21: 32
                    So what? Once again: you will be killed. Because, after 10 minutes of such a ride, you will get tired of keeping yourself suspended in the fighting compartment. Just about the TKN face and you will be killed.
  6. sen
    -1
    11 August 2021 15: 25
    We have a better option.
    1. 0
      11 August 2021 15: 30
      The most optimal is the BMP-2M 2a42 tower and 4 Cornets
      1. 0
        11 August 2021 16: 53
        Who knows, they are developing the Epoch module with a 57-mm low ballistics cannon. And in the BMP-2M it would be nice to have a 40 mm grenade launcher, not 30.
        1. 0
          11 August 2021 18: 28
          To do this, you need to put a 40mm grenade launcher into service and make a tank version ...
          1. -7
            11 August 2021 19: 35
            AGS-40 "Balkan" (GRAU Index - 6G27) - what is this, in your opinion? fellow
            1. 0
              11 August 2021 22: 18
              So there are some barriers .. or one manager and another need to drink vodka on Fridays
        2. -6
          11 August 2021 22: 49
          And "Baikal" (AU220M) is (it will even be more interesting).

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"