"Now only BTR-82AT are being made": the Ministry of Defense made a choice in favor of protection

The Military Industrial Company has launched mass production of the newest armored personnel carrier BTR-82AT, which replaced the previous models at the production site.

"MIC" now makes only such machines for the Ministry of Defense [...] Thus, the standard BTR-82A is being changed and updated, and this is already being done in series

- said the head of the company TASS.

According to him, the new product has additional protection and is equipped with lattice screens, which allows it to withstand the effects of rocket-propelled grenades and guided projectiles. The new sighting system makes it possible to detect targets around the clock at a distance of up to 3 km at night and up to 2 km during the day. The new machine has an independent line of sight with stabilization, a rangefinder, a thermal imager, and it is possible to capture and track a target.

The BTR-82AT was created in the process of modernizing the BTR-82A. For firing at highly armored targets, such as a tank or a heavy armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle, the new vehicle is equipped with portable Kornet ATGMs. The new remotely controlled weapon station is an initiative development. It includes a 30 mm automatic cannon and a 7,62 mm PKTM.

The combat crew consists of 9 or 10 people. The turbo diesel engine has a power of 300 hp. The maximum speed on hard surfaces is 80 km / h. The weight of the updated car reached 17 kg, which actually deprives the BTR-250AT of buoyancy (dismantling of protective and lattice screens is required).

In terms of the composition of weapons, protection and the ability to solve tactical and fire missions, the BTR-82AT actually becomes an infantry fighting vehicle

- believed in the western edition of Army Recognition.

Previously, "VPK" was responsible for the production of new BTR-82A and the modernization of the old-built BTR-80 to their level. Judging by the stated statement of the head of the company, the release of this modification has been curtailed, the Ministry of Defense has made a choice in favor of the more protected BTR-82AT.

Comments

[Jacket in stock]

the Ministry of Defense made a choice in favor of the more protected BTR-82AT

I still don't understand what the difference is. Only in bars?

[Bashkirkhan]

Quote: Jacket in stock

I still don't understand what is the difference

At one time, I asked a similar question to Yandex. Received an exhaustive answer. I think he will answer you too. Try.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

asked a similar question to Yandex. Got an exhaustive answer

I have no doubt about it.
It's just not clear, but what are we discussing here?

[Bashkirkhan]

Quote: Jacket in stock

what are we discussing here?

There is nothing to discuss. БТР-80 это не автомат Калашникова, который одинаково полезен и ниггеру в Бронксе и спецназу в джунглях, а банально плавающая защищённая от ОМП и случайных героев-пулеметчиков повозка для мотопехоты в полном ОЗК, охреневающей от темпа марша 50км/сут. across the lunar landscape of EuroTVD in the direction of Brest (French), when in front and on the sides - the skeletons of tanks from neutron b / n shine green and the path festively outlines flashes from exchanges of tactical nukes between Starfighters and the positions of Luns and Points, and Mi-24 and 8 and 26 with replacement crews to continue moving after overdose and Tu-22M3 with X-15 to ensure peace to all your homes to the music of Red Alert.
For everything else and any other conflicts, this is an unprotected, inconvenient and blind tin can for future heroes.
The BTR-60/80 was created for a specific task in a specific historical context, for specific requirements, and among these requirements was not the convenience of landing, a ramp, protection against RPGs, land mines and IEDs on the road, or providing information and visual awareness, but were protection against Weapons of weapons of mass destruction and riflemen, speed, buoyancy and support for infantry actions in defense and offensive as part of a formation, at least in conjunction with another armored vehicle.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

No, there is something to discuss here, the same people who insist on hanging screens, they put a soldier in the back of a truck behind a ZU-23-2 installation and consider it normal, they also hang dynamic protection units on cars and consider it normal.
In the BTR-80, first of all, there were no automated drives and a stabilizer, this was the main drawback, it was turned into another drawback by hanging an uninhabited tower. And now attention, the main question, why it was impossible to make normal drives, install a stabilizer and leave the turret habitable?

[alexmach]

I still don't understand what the difference is. Only in bars?

And other hinged screens.

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Jacket in stock

difference. Only in bars?

Well, someone from the Moscow region liked that in Moscow every summer in the same place the curbs and tiles are changed, they decided to build a metalwork plant, and do all the "newest" BTR-80 with a "new" cannon with gratings ... landing under enemy fire through the upper hatches could land .... (from those who have time) ...

[psiho117]

Quote: Jacket in stock

what is the difference. Only in lattices

No, there are still additional armor screens.
Grids are useless without them.
Basically, these grids are designed to withstand very specific threats - PG-7 and PG-9 grenades.
In other cases - guaranteed reduction of the high-explosive effect, and probabilistic - destabilization of the cumulative. jets.
The probability will vary greatly from case to case.
Research Institute of Steel reports:

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

[cobalt]

The meaning of this is down to equipment, is it not easier to have motorized rifle brigades on equipment capable of forcing water obstacles and brigades on heavier equipment, for which it is possible to make armored personnel carriers, albeit heavier in weight, but with good armor.

[strannik1985]

The meaning of this before equipment

On the contrary, wheeled brigades will be limited in mobility in urban areas. Over the past 30 years, I don’t remember crossing the water barrier on my own, but they fought in the city more than once or twice.

[Vissarion Golubov]

The best armored personnel carrier made in Israel from our T-55. The infantry is actually protected at the tank level, frontal up to 200 mm. And we have...

[Nafanya from the sofa]

In Israel everything is "longer and fatter". Everyone knows that. And if, suddenly, someone, to their misfortune, is against, then he ANTISEMIT!

[Cron]

Quote: Vissarion Golubov

The best armored personnel carrier made in Israel from our T-55. The infantry is actually protected at the tank level, frontal up to 200 mm. And we have...

Did they put this tank on the wheels?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

As far as I understand, you haven't heard of Eitan?

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

As far as I understand, you haven't heard of Eitan?

Why do I need Eitan? I asked about the T-55

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Because it is wheeled and heavily armored.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Because it is wheeled and heavily armored.

Well, compare him to Boomerang, what's the problem?

The man cites the example of the T-55 comparing it with the BTR-82. Which was more logical to compare with the same T-15. Why compare completely different cars is not entirely clear to me, of course

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

Well, compare him to Boomerang, what's the problem?

Boomerang if that is not a heavy armored personnel carrier. Although reservations are better than 82.

Quote: Cron

The man cites the example of the T-55 comparing it with the BTR-82. Which was more logical to compare with the same T-15.

Firstly, not the T-55, but an armored personnel carrier based on it. Secondly, why not compare the armored vehicles? It's a matter of criteria.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Firstly, not the T-55, but an armored personnel carrier based on it. Secondly, why not compare the armored vehicles? It's a matter of criteria.

What other criteria? Well, then compare the Octopus with Abrams. And take another breath, but we have .... About the same nonsense was carried by the commentator above.
I would compare it with the T-15 and say maybe we should use old cars and remake them. Since the new platform is so slow in admission. Maybe it would be cheaper at times. But no, he compares with 82. Where is the logic at all?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

The logic here is that we do not have heavy armored personnel carriers a little less than at all. And where it would be desirable to use heavy ones, you will have to use 82.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

The logic here is that we do not have heavy armored personnel carriers a little less than at all. And where it would be desirable to use heavy ones, you will have to use 82.

Yes, no, and that's sad. Well then, we need to focus on the fact that we are not heavy, and not compare with 82s. Who have completely different tasks. There was no choice either this or that. Why do they drag so long with heavy ones I don't know.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

Why do they drag so long with heavy ones I don't know.

The reasons, as I see it, are that before it was banal there was no money for this and there was no critical need. The same United States is still quite doing without heavy armored personnel carriers. In principle, even now, heavy armored personnel carriers are not a cheap pleasure. We are sawing T-15, but we are unlikely to wait for it in the near future, in my opinion it would be possible to create an ersatz based on old tanks.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

The reasons, as I see it, are that before it was banal there was no money for this and there was no critical need. The same United States is still quite doing without heavy armored personnel carriers. In principle, even now, heavy armored personnel carriers are not a cheap pleasure. We are sawing T-15, but we are unlikely to wait for it in the near future, in my opinion it would be possible to create an ersatz based on old tanks.

Money, yes, because the other was a priority. As for the critical need, that's the way it is. This is a conflict in Ukraine that can flare up at any moment. Unless, of course, the Ministry of Defense cherishes the lives of soldiers. And so you look at how they drive around Idlib on armored personnel carriers when there are Typhoons and Lynxes, you start to doubt. I'm not saying that they are not there at all, but why use APCs in addition to them is not clear to me.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

This is the conflict in Ukraine

Well I do not know. Here, drones and high-precision weapons are probably more needed.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Quote: Cron

This is the conflict in Ukraine

Well I do not know. Here, drones and high-precision weapons are probably more needed.

Aviation, you probably wanted to say. Well, it won't do without ground operations anyway. And so it would be possible to minimize losses

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

Aviation, you probably meant to say.

No, it is drones.

Quote: Cron

Well, it won't do without ground operations anyway.

Here I agree. But it is the massive use of drones as a means of reconnaissance and strike that will minimize losses. It's just that armor is the last level of protection, when, say, disguise, disinformation, and other obstacles to the enemy's intelligence activities do not help.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

No, it is drones.

No, it was aviation. You do not need to be carried out on propaganda in the media. The main work during the same Karabakh conflict was still carried out by aviation. They just promoted something else. With these little dolls, you won't be able to fight much. 250, or half a ton of cast iron is still the same 250, or half a ton of cast iron. And with modern guidance, they can be thrown very accurately.
As an auxiliary, yes, drones are very good, but no more. These are all the same slow-moving maize machines, but of a smaller size. The fact that Erdogan was able to promote them through the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Karabakh does not make them some kind of imba. It's just that these were wars, with their own specifics, and there these UAVs showed themselves with dignity, but no more. The Americans have had these drones for several decades, but still the basis is, of course, aviation. For there are no dilettantes sitting there

use of drones as a means of reconnaissance

Well, they seem to be regularly replenished after 08.08.08. So they should be abundant

But it is the massive use of drones as a means of reconnaissance and strike that will minimize losses.

And when did conventional aviation manage to surrender its positions?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

The fact that Erdogan was able to promote them through the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Karabakh does not make them some kind of imba.

And who says that this is a weapon? Drones have their drawbacks. It is precisely the war in Karabakh that has shown how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones. This is even if we take into account the Armenian carelessness and sometimes not very effective use of drones by Azerbaijanis.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

It is precisely the war in Karabakh that has shown how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones.

To begin with, this conflict did not show anything special. And Azerbaijan had an advantage in everything. Azerbaijan fought against the defense army of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. There was not even a close conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, if you haven't noticed.
And here the decisive factor was rather illiterate defense and the surrender of the country's interests by one individual.
Unobtrusive drones played a big role in cutting out the air defense of Karabakh, which consisted mainly of outdated systems, and only then aviation went into action. And the UAVs have already performed the role of gunners, and, on the smallest detail, they have eliminated some targets.

They will be ineffective against a strong army. Against the LDNR will of course be the deciding factor. Against the Russian Federation ... Well, good luck. They can buy at least 1000 of these corn workers. Most of them will be buried in the places of basing, other air defense and fighter aircraft will switch. But then the trumpet will come to the mother's generals

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Even against a strong army, this will be a serious advantage factor. But it was just about the army of Ukraine, which in the near future will not be able to oppose anything especially to the army of the Russian Federation. And drones just against the Ukrainian army will decide much more than heavy armored personnel carriers.

[Cron]

Even against a strong army, this will be a serious advantage factor.

Firstly, a strong army also has these "fintiflyushki" in stock. Even if not, there is a deeply echeloned air defense with fighter aircraft. None of the conflicts you are referring to is anything like that. There was only a fight against the "Papuans" with more modern weapons. "Papuans" against a more modern army. About any even close equal ratio was not there.
In the same Syria, almost all air defense was on alert and guarded important facilities, including the administrative centers of Damascus. The presence of air defense on the front line was not a big necessity. So the Turks frolic for the first time heartily. The same Carapace should not act alone. They must cover the so-called blind spots. You also need to take into account that the Syrians lost most of the park during the civil war. And also that they were armed with old modifications.
In Karabakh, almost all air defense was as ancient as mammoth shit, with the exception of some specimens. And then, as I understand it, they only began to tighten at the end. But due to their small number, they could not have a significant impact.
And from this they inflated some epoch-making event.
Almost all of the Armenians were sitting in the barracks, the SU-30s did not shine at all. Is that only the Torah then additionally fitted a couple of pieces and that's it.
It was a war of the Karabakh army against Azerbaijan, Armenia did not want to get involved in this mess.

In total, we see how a more modern army, with more modern weapons, with a much larger number of units, crushes a backward enemy. What did you expect? And what does it have to do with the UAV?
Yes, with the help of them they opened the backward air defense, or rather the places of their deployment and destroyed. They cleared the way for aviation, and looked for targets to defeat. They also effectively hit some objects.

And drones just against the Ukrainian army will decide much more than heavy armored personnel carriers.

Where did I make this comparison? Where? I did not say that we need APCs instead of UAVs. Where did you see this? It's just that in certain situations, this technique can minimize losses among personnel. You are not hoping to clean up urban development with the UAV, are you?

Only precision weapons and aircraft will decide. If the task is to defeat the enemy, and not play a local war, and then go to sign Minsk 3.
With the help of the UAV, it will be convenient to open air defense in order to minimize losses and use it for reconnaissance and target designation.

Even against a strong army, this will be a serious advantage factor.

This will not be any serious factor, given what is now available among the UAVs. They will smash you in the first hours. And the airfields where they are based, and warehouses, and supplies, and headquarters. It is foolish to assume that this will be a war like the Karabakh war. Where Azerbaijan calmly launched its corn plants and no one destroyed their places of deployment.
Only when used in combination can it give an effect. Otherwise, it will turn into useless tweaks. Like the Karabakh tanks and artillery, which were left without protection

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

Yes, with the help of them they opened the backward air defense, or rather the places of their deployment and destroyed.

Quote: Cron

They cleared the way for aviation, and looked for targets to defeat. They also effectively hit some objects.

Quote: Cron

With the help of the UAV, it will be convenient to open air defense in order to minimize losses and use it for reconnaissance and target designation.

I don’t understand. Are you trying to persuade me to buy or not to buy?

Quote: Cron

They will smash you in the first hours. And the airfields where they are based, and warehouses, and supplies, and headquarters.

Will they be destroyed so easily? Straight and battalion and company drones as well? Will you sit and watch the evil enemies do all this? Or can you do something in return? Well, let's say at least how does Lavrov express his concern? Why do you hate these drones so much? What did they do to you?

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

I don’t understand. Are you trying to persuade me to buy or not to buy?

Buy, of course. Where did I write otherwise? I just see them as one of, and not only.

Is it just so easy to destroy?

What's the problem?

Straight and battalion and company drones as well?

Well, you really do not turn everything into delirium, please. If you are going to win with this "including", then my condolences to you.

Will you sit and watch the evil enemies do all this?

What exactly are they doing? Destroy what? When do I only have corn machines in stock? Well, I don’t know, out of anger I’ll launch a loitering ammunition in their direction, what else can I do?

Why do you hate these drones so much? What did they do to you? laughing

Where do I hate them? On the contrary, I only welcome. They are the future and already now they are making a significant contribution.
I am simply bewildered by those who use them as a religion.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

I am simply bewildered by those who use them as a religion.

So far, only you have them in this category. I don't seem to have called on them to pray for them anywhere. I just very modestly noticed that I think they are more important than heavy armored personnel carriers at this stage.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

I just very modestly noticed that I think they are more important than heavy armored personnel carriers at this stage.

So it was generally only about the armored personnel carriers, which you then brought into the discussion of the UAV. I didn't compare them at all. And that, and that is necessary.

So far, only you have them in this category. I don't seem to have called on them to pray for them anywhere. smile

Come on? And this is what then:

It is precisely the war in Karabakh that showed how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones.

This is a religion that does not take into account other factors at all, but is only based on a picture that was launched into the information space.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

So it was generally only about the armored personnel carriers, which you then brought into the discussion of the UAV. I didn't compare them at all. And that, and that is necessary.

I did not suggest discussing UAVs. I just noted that I think TBTRs are less important than drones. So your claims are essentially claims to yourself. Who knew that you were so offended by UAVs as a child?

Quote: Cron

And this is what then:

This is an adequate view of the surrounding reality. With or without drones, the Armenians would have lost anyway. But with drones, the defeat was simply crushing. And what is typical without TBTR. From the word at all.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

I did not suggest discussing UAVs. I just noted that I think TBTRs are less important than drones. So your claims are essentially claims to yourself.

No, these claims are only against you. For they discussed only armored personnel carriers without binding, which is now more important.

Who knew that you were so offended in your childhood by UAVs? smile

Let's make more of this nonsense, your level only gets higher from this, the main thing is to believe in it

This is an adequate view of the surrounding reality.

This is an inadequate view, but just a look that was imposed on the information space, that's all

And what is typical without TBTR. From the word at all

You will study the area first, so that you do not write such nonsense later.

It is precisely the war in Karabakh that showed how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones.

Why couldn't she show how helpless those who do not have a normal air defense system are? Ahh ... They didn't force it on you.

In fact, the war in Karabakh once again showed that whoever controls the sky wins. And who is not, he is forced to suffer defeat. This formula has remained unchanged to this day. This mythical overwhelming advantage of drones is not yours. It's just that they played a major role in this particular conflict. Because they were assigned this very main role. And they did the right thing. For the outdated air defense could not effectively fight against such inconspicuous targets. And without the control of the sky, any army is doomed to failure, and no matter how it was achieved

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cron

No, these claims are only against you. For they discussed only armored personnel carriers without binding, which is now more important.

Yeah. That is, I mentioned it in passing. You've inflated the topic. But the type has nothing to do with you?

Quote: Cron

Let's make more of this nonsense, your level only gets higher from this, the main thing is to believe in it

I think I'm not the only one who sees your hysteria regarding the UAV.

Quote: Cron

This is an inadequate view, but just a look that was imposed on the information space, that's all

Nobody forced it on me. I formed my opinion about drones even before this hype with bayraktars.

Quote: Cron

You will study the area first, so that you do not write such nonsense later.

And what is there to study? Mountains, foothills, valleys. TBTRs could not do anything. But the UAVs were able to.

Quote: Cron

This mythical overwhelming advantage of drones is not yours. It's just that they played a major role in this particular conflict.

Hand face. You should read at least a little and try to comprehend what you write.

Quote: Cron

For the outdated air defense could not effectively fight against such inconspicuous targets.

Well, there is a gap, I see. You understand that. Not bad already.

Quote: Cron

And without the control of the sky, any army is doomed to failure, and no matter how it was achieved

Well, with the help of the UAV, it was achieved. After all, it’s for sure that you were offended by UAVs as a child.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Yeah. That is, I mentioned it in passing. You've inflated the topic. But the type has nothing to do with you?

Where did I inflate it? Just asked maybe aviation after all? For we have it right here and now, and which will be many times more effective in this conflict.

I think I'm not the only one who sees your hysteria regarding the UAV.

What exactly is hysteria? Rejection of your religion?

Nobody forced it on me. I formed my opinion about drones even before this hype with bayraktars.

Yes, yes, that's how we believed you. The traces of where your sectarianism comes from are too visible

And what is there to study? Mountains, foothills, valleys. TBTRs could not do anything. But the UAVs were able to.

Well, it is logical that they could do nothing. Who can argue with that? You put in here that they weren't used at all. Why were they supposed to be used there? There was no choice between them and the UAV. UAVs replaced aviation, and opened up the enemy's defenses. TBTRy says they were not used at all. This is the finish line of course.

Hand face. You should read at least a little and try to comprehend what you write.

I am perfectly aware of what I am writing. Simply because of your limitations, you are not able to understand this. I wrote about this conflict, and not about all conflicts in general.

Well, there is a gap, I see. You understand that. Not bad already.

What clearance is that? That your mythical overwhelming advantage overcame ancient air defenses? Well yes, this is serious of course

Well, with the help of the UAV, it was achieved. After all, it’s for sure that you were offended by UAVs as a child.

Yes, even a hand-legged. Are you a teenager or what? Seriously? It's not even interesting to have a conversation with you. It feels like your childhood is still playing in one place.
Where did I argue that it was not achieved using the UAV? But you are trying to project this small-town conflict in general on all future conflicts.

You yourself wrote:

It is precisely the war in Karabakh that has shown how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones.

What exactly did this conflict show? How to smash the ancient air defense to smithereens? Well, with this, and the aviation would have coped in the same way. So what, then, is that overwhelming advantage? In what was used instead of aviation (at first, then she did all the main work, they just pushed them back) drones against the ancient air defense?
Is this your advantage? Against the army of Karabakh? Karabakh, Karl. Not even Armenia.
Virtually zero sky control. Neither aviation nor drones really, only the ancient air defense, which was generally not sharpened for such small targets. Yes, even against the aviation of Azerbaijan, it is so to itself. The only thing the Torah could oppose was something, but the cat wept there. But on the other hand, it was precisely the drones that showed something there, and not the rotten defense. There has already been talk about the fact that armored vehicles are not needed, and artillery, since it is so easily destroyed. As if it was not so before when the sky was given to planes. The only thing is, maybe so many videos weren't filmed. Maybe that's why such a psychological effect.

I wrote in our case, maybe aviation will still have a decisive role? For so far, it is simply useless to compare the potential. But for reconnaissance they are definitely needed. As shown on 08.08.08. And in order to open up the enemy's defenses, too, minimizing losses. Losing a plane is one thing, a UAV is another. They are also inconspicuous (small versions) for many air defense systems, which is also a big plus.

You wrote in Russian that the war in Karabakh showed how overwhelming is the advantage of those who have drones. And I thought that she showed only that for whom the sky is the one and the king. That's all actually.

Let's say we don't have any UAVs at all, but in Ukraine there are a whole thousand Bayraktars and other such equipment. According to your logic, they will have an overwhelming advantage? How many vehicles will they be able to lift into the air after the outbreak of the conflict? Do you think there will be a similar war when Azerbaijan calmly raised corn workers from its airfields? Oh well. The advantage will be for those who can suppress the enemy's defensive orders to their full depth. Azerbaijan could with regard to Karabakh, as we can with respect to Ukraine.

UAVs will still occupy one of the main roles, and it is necessary to develop this direction as quickly as possible, but so far this is not the case. In the meantime, all these small-town conflicts do not really show anything. In addition, how well-armed the enemy kicks the weaker one.
Listen, as if the next sunset of the era of heavy battleships is happening. But in fact there was just another war with the Papuans.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Everything. Let's not talk about UAVs anymore. For you, this is probably an extremely painful topic. Judging by the epaulettes, you are from aviation and you are extremely worried that the UAVs actually wrote off you for scrap. I sincerely sympathize with you, but there's nothing you can do about it, progress. You are not the first, you are not the last.

[Cron]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

Everything. Let's not talk about UAVs anymore.

Yes, whatever you want, no one forces you to answer at all

For you, this is probably an extremely painful topic.

So it seems to you. I just look at things more soberly and analyze past conflicts deeper than it is presented in the information field. What exactly was in stock, what modification, in what quantity, even who exactly sits at the console plays a big role. The same UAV operators were great pros. They competently bypassed the air defense, competently opened it, competently led the enemy and delivered blows, or gave the command when he concentrated as much as possible in one place. But this their free-flowing behavior was primarily caused by the low activity of the air defense.
Therefore, to say that the UAVs made some kind of coup there is so stupid for me. But they did good advertising, of course, and accelerated the trend for drones.

The same can be arranged in the LPNR, they have nothing to oppose to this in a general way. Only as deeply as possible, do not concentrate in one place for many, etc. But they have Russia behind them, which can turn their bases and control points into dust in minutes. There is no point in playing tag with air defense with them. Even if Krabakh had a decent air defense, it would still be a matter of time before it was opened. I think it makes no sense to compare the possibilities of Azerbaijan and Karabakh, primarily financial ones.

Judging by the epaulettes, you are from aviation and you are extremely worried that the UAVs actually wrote off you for scrap. I sincerely sympathize with you, but there's nothing you can do about it, progress. You are not the first, you are not the last.

No, not even close to aviation. They will not be written off soon, if ever. With the new trends in green energy, the oil workers have not lost their work, and will not disappear soon.
I am only for UAVs, and for unmanned tanks, and for robots to replace soldiers, etc., human lives are much more expensive, but so far we have what we have.

[voyaka uh]

This is how it looks.
Akhzarit. Heavy armored personnel carrier based on T-55

[URAL72]

And we are working on the T-15. And what, in Israel all the infantry on Azarchit is moving? And how many of that infantry do they have?

[Vissarion Golubov]

And how many old tanks we have at our storage bases that no one needs the hell. At least for the shock armies, they made armored personnel carriers from them. And then the infantry rides on armor, fearing undermining, i.e. there is no certainty in the armor. How much can you sculpt from an armored personnel carrier - 80 ...

[strannik1985]

And how many at our bases

It drives because everything is visible and with a breeze, until the first land mine ...
Wheeled armored personnel carriers have very good mine protection characteristics.

[Vissarion Golubov]

Fum, just be quiet ...

[Vissarion Golubov]

Where is your T-15? Are there in the troops?

[Kuroneko]

The new sighting system makes it possible to detect targets around the clock at a distance of up to 3 km at night and up to 2 km during the day.

Oh, these newsmen ... Do they see worse during the day than at night?

[sifgame]

Advanced night vision device))))))

[andreykolesov123]

Quote: Cron

Quote: Vissarion Golubov

The best armored personnel carrier made in Israel from our T-55. The infantry is actually protected at the tank level, frontal up to 200 mm. And we have...

Did they put this tank on the wheels?

Akhzarit, Namer.

[Vissarion Golubov]

I read about him. How many people lost to the infantry due to the lack of normal equipment. When will we learn to take care of people.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

When the infantry lost people, it was when the equipment had to be abandoned, for example, due to the obstruction of mountain blockages. But if the technique passed, then the losses were small.

[Adimius38]

As if this savings did not come out sideways. To hang a car from the last century with beds and call it the newest ....... The same China is already in service with the ZBL-08 armored personnel carrier.This is a completely different modern concept that is somewhat similar to the long-suffering Russian Boomerang, which has not been able to enter the series for many years.

[URAL72]

From the point of view of the composition of weapons, protection and the ability to solve tactical and fire missions, the BTR-82AT actually becomes an infantry fighting vehicle "

And here I completely agree. The armored personnel carrier must deliver the infantry to the battlefield, and not to the enemy dugout. There is either a cheap armored vehicle, or a combat vehicle, but it is much more expensive and heavier, it eats more. True, intelligence also uses armored personnel carriers (in my platoon BTR-70 and BRDM-2), so we need an armored personnel carrier, like in the west. Kurganets will do.

[OgnennyiKotik]

The BTR-82 is actually a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, and it does so in Western reference books. The difference between infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in armament, the first cannon (20 mm or more) and other heavy weapons, the second has machine guns for self-defense.

[tatarin1972]

Well, the BRM is in service, now it seems like a modification has arrived.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If it comes to that, then first of all you need an optical-electronic reconnaissance module capable of detecting, if not the figure of a grenade launcher, then at least the flash of a shot. And having the ability to react independently to the flight trajectory of a grenade or ATGM in the event of inaction of the driver and gunner-operator.

[Kaw]

And here I completely agree. The armored personnel carrier must deliver the infantry to the battlefield, and not to the enemy dugout.

Where does this nonsense come from. There is no difference in the purpose of the BMP and the APC. They differ only in that the BMP has artillery / missile armament, but the armored personnel carrier does not. Their roles during hostilities are absolutely the same, and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles carry the infantry to the line of attack, and the infantry goes to the attack on foot in a chain. Read the charter of the motorized rifle troops of the Russian army.

[URAL72]

I see you read the charter, but you were not in battle. Infantry fighting vehicles, having landed the infantry, enters the battle, providing support to both the infantry and the tanks. But the armored personnel carrier in battle has nothing to do, although this happens. I mean the classic line fight, not the attack on the column. So there is a difference in the appointment.

[Kaw]

I see you read the charter, but you were not in battle. Infantry fighting vehicles, having landed the infantry, enters the battle, providing support to both the infantry and the tanks. But the armored personnel carrier in battle has nothing to do, although this happens. I mean the classic line fight, not the attack on the column. So there is a difference in the appointment.

And the armored personnel carrier must engage in battle. In the charter of motorized riflemen for 80 years, there is only one difference. Light armored vehicles not equipped with weapon stabilizers must support the infantry with fire from behind cover (terrain folds), moving quickly from cover to cover, and vehicles with a stabilizer must slowly move directly behind the infantry and shoot on the move.

[garm]

Why then not the BTR-90? He has better protection, and the cannon is 2A42, not 2A72. And they stabbed him to death due to excessive weight.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Garm

Why then not the BTR-90?

The concept of the BTR-60/70/80/90 is outdated, the 90 is fundamentally no better than the BTR-82A, but fundamentally more expensive. We need qualitative changes, we need a wheeled APC / BMP a la Boomerang.
For that matter, the BTR-87 is one of the best options for upgrading this line.

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Does Deripaska (military-industrial complex) need it? scientific research, experimental design, etc., etc. He and his sons cannot ride in them. Literally, probably like this - "weld the sheets and grates and roll back to put it into a series. Well, of course, come up with a justification" Go!

[psiho117]

Quote: Warrior StillTot

weld on the sheets and grates and roll back to put it into series. Well, of course, come up with a justification "Go!

No, the validity of the installation of lattice screens and additional. armored panels have been proven by the results of Afghanistan.
The question is just what they were pulling for so long.

[Romka47]

And why the ATGM is not immediately washed down on the combat module? I understand that the issues of cost, etc., but this is clearly the moment when "it is worth its money." Obviously, shooting on the move (okay, right after stopping) is several times more effective than portable, while they pull it out until they get out themselves, while the machine is put on while the rocket is .. Or have I missed something?

[out of habit]

Armored personnel carriers do not fight with tanks. The infantry can.

[Romka47]

But tanks with armored personnel carriers are at war) sometimes it is not you who choose the enemy, but he you. Except if "Armored personnel carriers do not fight with tanks."then the portable one is" unnecessary "like that Internet. Again (now the idea has reached) If the ATGM is still included in the vehicle kit, then transferring it to the combat module will free up space in the troop compartment (or where it is stored there)

[out of habit]

I'll try on my fingers. The Batter is not a battlefield machine, but the infantry will push ATGMs anywhere.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I would put the question more radically. Why not adapt the single-seat manned module "Coast" prepared for the BMD-2M? Everything you need is there, and even the gunner-operator will be more knowledgeable.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Imagine, with an uninhabited module, the gunner looks not into an optical sight, but into a low-resolution and high-quality glare screen, in which he sees almost nothing. He can no longer not only see beyond the battlefield, he does not even understand where he is looking, and you are also going to hand him the ATGM remote control!

[K-50]

The new sighting system makes it possible to detect targets around the clock at a distance of up to 3 km at night and up to 2 km during the day.

Maybe on the contrary, in the daytime 3 km and at night 2 km?
And even then the distance is somehow small.
Moreover, the 2A-42 has a firing distance of up to 4 km.

[thinking]

and what, cartridge 12, 7 canceled?

[Castro Ruiz]

Up to the BTR-90, this "newest" BTR-82AT comes from 80 of them.
Even the BTR-87 is seriously better.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Adimius38

As if this savings did not come out sideways. To hang a car from the last century with beds and call it the newest ....... The same China is already in service with the ZBL-08 armored personnel carrier.This is a completely different modern concept that is somewhat similar to the long-suffering Russian Boomerang, which has not been able to enter the series for many years.

Now, we are already looking back at China!

[Doliva63]

Quote: URAL72

From the point of view of the composition of weapons, protection and the ability to solve tactical and fire missions, the BTR-82AT actually becomes an infantry fighting vehicle "

And here I completely agree. The armored personnel carrier must deliver the infantry to the battlefield, and not to the enemy dugout. There is either a cheap armored vehicle, or a combat vehicle, but it is much more expensive and heavier, it eats more. True, intelligence also uses armored personnel carriers (in my platoon BTR-70 and BRDM-2), so we need an armored personnel carrier, like in the west. Kurganets will do.

Do you want to skate, Kurganets is suitable as a BRM?

[Doliva63]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

The BTR-82 is actually a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, and it does so in Western reference books. The difference between infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in armament, the first cannon (20 mm or more) and other heavy weapons, the second has machine guns for self-defense.

Funny people gathered here study their own technique according to western reference books Have you noticed that according to the BUSV (will it go for a reference book?) MCP on BMP and MCP on armored personnel carriers do not differ in any way in terms of tasks and tactics? That is, the Soviet military school never "bred" armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers in different "stables", in fact, they are one and the same.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In terms of tasks and tactics, they may not differ, but significantly in terms of capabilities. In the BMP-2, both the stabilizer and the drive, and in the BTR-80, everything is done manually and instead of a cannon there is a machine gun. And now for the BMP-2 the manned module "Berezhok", and for the BTR-82A is an uninhabited contraption with unclear capabilities.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

In terms of tasks and tactics, they may not differ, but significantly in terms of capabilities. In the BMP-2, both the stabilizer and the drive, and in the BTR-80, everything is done manually and instead of a cannon there is a machine gun. And now for the BMP-2 the manned module "Berezhok", and for the BTR-82A is an uninhabited contraption with unclear capabilities.

Offhand - have the staff of the SME / MSR on the armored personnel carrier and on the BMP never been compared? Various combat support designed to neutralize the shortcomings that seem to you.

[HaByxoDaBHocep]

And how will they move across half-flooded Europe after dikes and dams have been destroyed by tactical nuclear strikes?)

[DrRey]

An interesting sighting complex - 2 km during the day and 3 at night. Maybe turn off the daytime part altogether - the binoculars will be enough

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Jacket in stock

what are we discussing here?

Without lattice and lattice wheeled armored personnel carriers of the Russian Armed Forces ... it seems clear to everyone ...

[Elena Akinfieva]

And the fact that the M-113 is still being driven is different

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Elena Akinfieva

And the fact that the M-113 is still being driven is different

In the United States and Israeli Jews, they are mostly kept in storage ...
Small armies refuse tracked military equipment, wheeled ones are cheaper to operate, and weapons can almost always carry the same ...

[Radical]

Quote: Nazar

Bashkirkhan - In an article about mine protection "no gu-gu". it seems that this miracle of technology will carry the guys ON THE ARMOR

Just jumping, in case of being ambushed with this armor, will be very problematic ....

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

But no, when ambushed, a landing party on armor can see the moment of a grenade launcher shot and react in time. The problem is that when a land mine is detonated, it is better to be inside than outside, as in the case of an artillery attack.

[Evil 55]

"when a land mine is detonated, it is better to be inside than outside" - I do not agree ... It is better to get a shell shock and break a limb when dumping from a car, than to turn into minced meat under the armor if it breaks through.

[Evil 55]

Well, they would have made carbon fiber gratings with strapping on racks "in a circle" or cable type .. cheaper, more technologically advanced, and in terms of combat stability, an analogue of lattice screens ..

[John22]

There was the BTR-90, also well armored, but not amphibious. The MO refused. Now all over again.

[Radical]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

But no, when ambushed, a landing party on armor can see the moment of a grenade launcher shot and react in time. The problem is that when a land mine is detonated, it is better to be inside than outside, as in the case of an artillery attack.

I had to leave the "armor" just when I heard an RPG shot - the fighters react differently, nevertheless, everyone remained alive, it is important to observe the situation while moving, and give the command in time, and of course the most important question is preparation, training of personal composition, when they react instantly at your command - "to battle!"

[Diverter]

The past .... It is ... Let's make a good truck for the fighters? Yes! Zis 151! Shall we book it? Yes! BTR 152! Let's add flotation? Yes! BTR 60! Let's make the roof and the machine gun more powerful? Yes! BTR 60PB, 70, 80, 82, 87, 88,90 Let's make an BMP out of it? It will show itself in battle!

You there henbane overeat tovarischi ??? The APC is a bus for the fighters !!!!! You need a wheeled BMP - do it from scratch that meets all the requirements of our time. From a bus, a dump truck cannot be made from words at all and in any way. Need to strengthen your protection? Strengthen! But leave the weapons weak. KPVT maximum. In order for the guerrillas to be bullied when attacking a column or the like. And then, after all, some kind of especially zealous will start sending tanks into battle. Like the Su 76 in WWII. Or does the combat experience of ancestors teach you nothing?