British Wolfhound armored cars in Ukraine

61

Wolfhound in training

In early April, the UK promised to transfer to Ukraine a large number of several types of armored vehicles from its storage bases. To date, some of the required armored vehicles have been reactivated and sent to Ukraine. One of the first to the new owners were protected Wolfhound trucks. The Ukrainian army has already begun to master them and use them in training events.

Help with armored cars


In early April, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson paid an official visit to Kyiv. After the trip was over, it was announced that the British side would provide the Kyiv regime with additional military-technical assistance. At that time, it was about several types of ground armored vehicles and some missile weapons.



According to British media, in April it was planned to provide 120 armored vehicles of the Mastiff, Wolfhound, Husky types and Spartan armored personnel carriers as assistance. These machines were previously in service with the British army, but a few years ago they were put into reserve as unnecessary. Now it was proposed to reactivate unnecessary equipment and transfer it to an ally. In this case, the armored cars will be given without means of communication and standard weapons.

In the following weeks, the topic of supplying British armored cars faded into the background and was hardly discussed. However, information appeared in the British media about a possible reduction in supply volumes. For unspecified reasons, only 80 armored cars were planned to be sent to Ukraine - a third less than previously reported. The progress of work on the preparation of equipment was not disclosed.


Regular anti-cumulative protection and improvised sandbags

Just the other day it became known that the British side had carried out all the necessary procedures and had already shipped the first armored cars to the recipient. A short video has appeared on Ukrainian resources showing the teachings of one of the army units. To increase mobility and other indicators, Wolfhound armored cars were handed over to him.

On the published video, two armored cars enter the frame at the same time. Machines as a whole remain in the original "British" configuration. At the same time, some elements of regular booking were supplemented with sandbags. Judging by what is shown, protected trucks are planned to be used as "gantraks".

It can be assumed that these are one of the first Wolfhound armored cars in Ukraine, and in the near future their number will increase. In addition, unified Mastiff and other vehicles will be delivered in parallel. This means that British technology will start to get into the frame more often and in news. In addition, armored cars will soon have to go to the war zone, where they can turn into debris or a trophy.

foreign technology


At the beginning of the 2011s, the American company Force Protection (since XNUMX part of General Dynamics) launched mass production of the Cougar MRAP armored car in several modifications. This technique has interested a number of foreign customers, incl. Great Britain. Soon a major contract appeared for the mass production of three types of armored cars at once, slightly modified according to the requirements of the buyer.


The three-axle version of the Cougar for the British Army received the designation Mastiff PPV (Protected Patrol Vehicle). 450 of these machines were built. Also produced 130 unified armored trucks Wolfhound HTSV (Heavy Tactical Support Vehicle). A two-axle modification of the armored car entered service under the name Ridgback PPV in the amount of 160 units. Deliveries began in the middle of the XNUMXs and continued until the mid-XNUMXs.

The UK ordered new MRAPs for use in overseas operations. Armored cars were actively used in Afghanistan and Iraq and showed acceptable results. However, in the 30s, the political situation changed, and Britain's foreign military activity began to decline. In this regard, part of the available armored cars was withdrawn from the active fleet. So, they sent approx. 70 Mastiffs and XNUMX Wolfhounds.

It was planned to gradually write off the equipment in storage and, if there were customers, sell it abroad. So, in mid-2020, the British Ministry of Defense was ready to sell several hundred MRAPs of all types, incl. American production. Actual deliveries abroad have begun only now, and Ukraine is becoming the recipient of previously decommissioned armored vehicles. It is reported about the possible supply of 80 to 120 units. technology.

Features and capabilities


Cougar, Mastiff, Wolfhound and other vehicles of the family belong to the MRAP class. These are armored vehicles with a number of characteristic features aimed at increasing ballistic and mine protection. Depending on the configuration, such vehicles can carry people or cargo, as well as provide fire support.


Cabin of an armored car

All armored vehicles of the family receive unified two- or three-volume armored hulls. Armor withstands 12,7mm bullets from all angles. Mine protection is designed to undermine 14 kg of TNT under the wheel or 7 kg under the bottom. British armored cars were additionally equipped with a set of lattice screens with a maximum area.

Under the hood is a 7 hp Caterpillar C-330 diesel engine mated to an Allison 3500SP automatic transmission. The transmission provides all-wheel drive. An armored car with a gross weight of up to 22,5-22,7 tons is capable of speeds up to 100-105 km / h. High mass to a certain extent limits off-road and terrain patency.

The Cougar and Mastiff are equipped with a van hull with space for two crew members and eight paratroopers. For landing, side and stern doors are used. The Wolfhound is an armored truck and is therefore equipped with a shortened armored hull. The aft part of the chassis is given over to the cargo area with armored sides.

Armored cars Cougar can carry weapons and combat modules of various types. The British Army preferred partially armored turrets with rifle-caliber machine guns. The Wolfhound and Mastiff being transferred to Ukraine carry M2HB heavy machine guns.


View from the shooter's position

Doubtful prospects


In general, Mastiff and Wolfhound are of great interest to the Ukrainian army. With their help, it will be possible to partially make up for the losses of recent months in protected infantry transport. In addition, this technique shows fairly high performance and, as the experience of past owners shows, it can be used in solving various combat and auxiliary tasks.

Wolfhounds can be used in the original protected truck role. They are also being worked out as “gantrucks” with a large number of shooters on the cargo area. It cannot be ruled out that some vehicles will receive suitable weapons of a larger caliber. Along with this, the "Mastiffs" will be responsible for the transportation and fire support of the infantry. In all cases, a high level of protection will be of great importance.

However, there are a number of serious problems that can offset all the advantages of British armored cars. First of all, these are difficulties in the line of operation. It is quite easy to teach local drivers how to drive a car. At the same time, the organization of full-fledged maintenance and repair on a local basis turns out to be an extremely difficult task. However, with the current level of risks and threats, armored cars may simply not live up to the next scheduled maintenance.

MRAP-class armored vehicles are designed to counter a poorly equipped and armed enemy, which can only be used by infantry weapon and improvised explosive devices. The Ukrainian army is currently being smashed by a much more advanced enemy. Armored cars are threatened by armored vehicles of all classes, artillery of various calibers, rockets, aviation etc.


Shooting over the side

The existing bulletproof, anti-cumulative and mine protection will not save British / Ukrainian armored cars from Russian weapons. At the same time, Wolfhound or Mastif, equipped only with machine guns or, at best, small-caliber artillery, will not be able to defend themselves.

Evil irony


New British military assistance in the form of armored vehicles has only recently begun to arrive in Ukraine, and the local military is still only mastering such equipment in the conditions of rear ranges. How soon the armored cars will go to the front is unknown - but their future is obvious. Like other Ukrainian and foreign weapons and equipment, they will be destroyed or taken as trophies.

In this situation, an evil irony of fate is visible. "Cougar" and its modifications were created in order to reduce the risks in the fight against poorly equipped and trained armed formations. But now the Ukrainian army is playing the role of a backward enemy. And the technology gap is so big that no amount of MRAP will help her.
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    1 June 2022 05: 09
    But now the Ukrainian army is playing the role of a backward enemy. And the technology gap is so big that no amount of MRAP will help her.

    It's not a technological gap, but the oversaturation of the theater with anti-tank weapons, and on both sides, which makes these machines not the most reliable. However, none of the warring parties has TBTRs.
    1. +1
      1 June 2022 05: 56
      and in the oversaturation of the theater with anti-tank weapons, and on both sides, which makes these machines not the most reliable. However, none of the warring parties has TBTRs.

      absolutely agree with the first. Moreover, in this situation (when even the use of tanks requires special tactics of use to prevent their defeat), TBTRs will not help in any way. Since they still won’t reach the armor protection of the tank, and they won’t provide much support to the infantry on the battlefield, since they will be quickly destroyed by PTB means. Their maximum destiny is to deliver it to the battlefield. And all these Wolfhounds, Caguars, Tigers - this is the area of ​​​​responsibility, at best, convoys, sweeps, counter-guerrilla activities, etc.
      1. -2
        1 June 2022 06: 04
        yes, it's just a "shushpanzer".
      2. +3
        1 June 2022 06: 13
        Quote: Ka-52
        TBTR won't help.

        Agree that this infantry delivery vehicle is somehow more reliable.
        Quote: Ka-52
        Since they still won’t reach the armor protection of the tank and they won’t provide much support to the infantry on the battlefield,

        In addition to TBTRs converted from a tank a la Namer.
        Quote: Ka-52
        as they will be quickly destroyed by means of PTB.

        You also need to work out the tactics of work.
        Quote: Ka-52
        Their maximum destiny is to deliver it to the battlefield.

        In general, yes.
        Quote: Ka-52
        all these Wolfhounds, Caguars, Tigers are the area of ​​​​responsibility, at best, convoys, sweeps, counter-guerrilla measures, etc.

        Rather, the evacuation of the wounded
        1. +3
          1 June 2022 06: 24
          Agree that this infantry delivery vehicle is somehow more reliable.

          well, in general, yes. The landing zone may be closer to the battlefield, and they can certainly provide some kind of cover for it at the time of landing.
          But pay attention - TBTRs can be allowed to adopt either armies with small armies (Israel, Germany) or really rich ones (USA). Let's look at the Russian army. TBRB will be only slightly cheaper than a tank. And a couple of days ago, enthusiasts wrote to me that we need 3000-5000 infantry fighting vehicles of the Puma or Namer level. Doubts gnaw at me that, of course, screaming from the couch is easy, but pushing it into the budget will be much more difficult.
          1. +3
            1 June 2022 06: 36
            Quote: Ka-52
            TBTRs may allow either armies with small armies to be adopted (Israel, Germany)

            Israel has 180 thousand conscripts, after the initial mobilization 250 thousand, after the total mobilization - 700 thousand. That is, if up to 200 thousand are fighting in Ukraine, including the LDNR, then it is not so little.
            Quote: Ka-52
            or really rich (USA

            In my very amateurish opinion, it will be cheaper to make TBTRs from T55 / 55/62 than to create new infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers of your own.
            Quote: Ka-52
            TBRB will be only slightly cheaper than a tank.

            If you do it from scratch, the Jews do it with Centurions, T-55 / Merkav.
            Quote: Ka-52
            And a couple of days ago, enthusiasts wrote to me that we need 3000 BMPs of the Puma or Namer level. Doubts gnaw at me that, of course, screaming from the couch is easy, but pushing it into the budget will simply not be realistic.

            If you reopen junk - a penny (relative to new ones)
            1. -1
              1 June 2022 07: 02
              That is, if up to 200 thousand are fighting in Ukraine, including the LDNR, then it is not so little.

              Well, if we are talking about a special operation (or a war in Ukraine), then this is one thing. By the way, the urya-patriots spread rot on me that I doubted the need for accelerated stamping of +5000 BMP-3. On the other hand, the mobilization potential of the Russian Federation is 30 million. (against 700 thousand Jews), and BARS, a combat army reserve, is 3 times more than the Israeli total mobilization.
              In my very amateurish opinion, it will be cheaper to make TBTRs from T55 / 55/62 than to create new infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers of your own.

              Well, there is the same practice of alteration. Made in Omsk BTR-T based on the T-55 in the late 90s. just didn’t work, but now it’s probably forgotten
              1. +2
                1 June 2022 07: 49
                Quote: Ka-52
                Well, if we are talking about a special operation (or a war in Ukraine), then this is one thing. By the way, urya-patriots rotted me that I doubted the need for accelerated stamping of +5000 BMP-3

                So the BMP-3 against modern PTB weapons is also not a panacea.
                Quote: Ka-52
                On the other hand, the mobilization potential of the Russian Federation is 30 million. (against 700 thousand Jews), and BARS, a combat army reserve, is 3 times more than the Israeli total mobilization.

                If you have to call on such masses, it's scary to think what kind of breakfast will be laughing It’s even scarier to think how it will end - I led the numbers to the fact that if TBRTs are stamped, mainly from junk, by Jews, then the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in their current form can also quite afford this.
                Quote: Ka-52
                Made in Omsk BTR-T based on the T-55 in the late 90s. just didn’t work, but now it’s probably forgotten

                The question is the desire to harp something like that - you can’t show such crafts at parades
              2. +3
                1 June 2022 08: 34
                in the need for accelerated stamping +5000 BMP-3

                IMHO - the question here is in the application itself .. The concept says that the type of infantry fighting vehicles operate in the combat formations of tanks, covering them from enemy infantry by dismounting their own if necessary. But in today's conditions - there is such a machine as, say, the Terminator. It is possible - she will cope even better, and the BMP with infantry - can already follow at a distance. Acting as a conventional armored personnel carrier. Landing troops only for the final cleaning of the territory passed by the first line ..

                For when the first BMPs were created, there was nothing like the Terminator. But now there is?
                1. 0
                  1 June 2022 08: 49
                  I write only about the relatively safe delivery of infantry to the right place. By the way, a tank is a means of supporting infantry, not vice versa, because the territory where the infantryman set foot is considered conquered. ))
                  1. +1
                    1 June 2022 09: 00
                    I only write about the relatively safe delivery of infantry to the right place.

                    And why then do you need an infantry fighting vehicle? An armored personnel carrier will cope with this, or an armored truck like Typhoon ..
                    1. +1
                      1 June 2022 09: 05
                      So I'm talking about TBTR
                  2. +1
                    1 June 2022 09: 08
                    By the way, a tank is a means of supporting infantry,

                    exactly. Most of the debaters here forget about the changed role of tanks. Which, with the current level of anti-tank weapons, have long ceased to be a tool for breaking through the defense with a blow built in the form of a pig wedge. The battles in Ukraine (which cannot be called local or low-intensity in any way) showed that the tank is primarily a mobile, protected firing point for destroying enemy fortifications and covering infantry
                    1. +1
                      1 June 2022 09: 13
                      "Offensive - there is a transfer of the artillery line of action forward .." (c)
                      1. +1
                        1 June 2022 09: 49
                        Quote: paul3390
                        Offensive - there is a transfer of the artillery line of action forward .. "(c)

                        Plus the electrification of the whole country drinks ))
                        Now it all comes down to banal control over points of interest to you on the map, there is no solid front line - a farce ...
                      2. +1
                        1 June 2022 10: 42
                        Now it all comes down to banal control over points of interest to you on the map, there is no solid front line - a farce ...

                        as in all recent wars. But if in Libya or Syria no one needs the front line (who needs a desert?), then in Ukraine every settlement is a fortified area. With their density and high provision with aerial reconnaissance equipment, any concentration and advance of enemy forces is easily opened. Further, if there are artillery batteries in the breakthrough zone or it is possible to call in aircraft, the breakthrough group is either destroyed or dispersed. So there is no particular need for a solid front. It is better not to disperse forces (not so significant) to simply sitting in the trenches, but to concentrate them in offensive / defense zones.
                      3. 0
                        1 June 2022 10: 53
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        then in Ukraine every settlement is a fortified area

                        A point on the map.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        It is better not to disperse forces (not so significant) to simply sitting in the trenches, but to concentrate them in offensive / defense zones.

                        Quite right - the Israelis, Amers and Britons in general have no such thing as trenches for a long time
                      4. +1
                        1 June 2022 11: 05
                        Quite right - the Israelis, Amers and Britons generally have no such thing as trenches

                        Americans and British have not fought professional armies since WW2. Iraq and Argentina don't count. They are betting on mobile warfare everywhere. When the Americans need field fortifications, they make them elevated, with the help of gabions Yes
                      5. 0
                        1 June 2022 11: 18
                        What do you call a professional army?
                        Field fortifications - as a strong point, no more.
                      6. +1
                        1 June 2022 11: 30
                        there was no army in Grenada, nor in Panama. In Afghanistan, Somalia - too. There was no ground operation in Yugoslavia. In Iraq in 2003, it is difficult to call the war a war. What else is there? Oh yes, Vietnam. Well, in Vietnam, the Americans quite dug trenches, caponiers, dugouts, albeit to a limited extent - within their bases. Whether the army of northern Vietnam can be called professional is debatable. On the one hand, it had a full-fledged organizational structure, and on the other hand, it was an ordinary mobilization army.
                      7. +1
                        1 June 2022 11: 46
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        In Iraq 2003, the war can hardly be called a war.

                        Why? War. In the 90s there was a tougher war.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Vietnam. Well, in Vietnam, the Americans quite dug trenches, caponiers, dugouts, albeit to a limited extent - within their bases.

                        They built fortifications. But there was anti-partisanism. The war would have been an attack on North Vietnam, but they were afraid of the reaction of the PRC (as in Korea). Hence the fiasco.
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Whether the army of northern Vietnam can be called professional is debatable.

                        With a full-scale attack on North Vietnam, they would have eaten it.
                        The question is different:
                        With which army did the USSR professionally fight after 1945, or Russia?
                        I'm talking about combined arms operations.
                        Hungary 1956 and Georgia 2008. Well, skirmishes with China on the border in the late 60s.
                        The rest is either a guerrilla war like Afghanistan or a police operation like Czechoslovakia.
                        Conclusion:
                        After WWII, only Argentines and Israelis fought with a real professional army in 1948-49. Also Iraqis.
                        In all three cases, the results were unimpressive, even for the Israelis.
                      8. +1
                        1 June 2022 11: 58
                        With which army did the USSR professionally fight after 1945, or Russia?

                        why drag the USSR or Russia here is not clear, but I agree with the subsequent examples and conclusions laughing
                        After WWII, only Argentines and Israelis fought with a real professional army in 1948-49. Also Iraqis.

                        aha Yes
                      9. 0
                        1 June 2022 12: 04
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        why drag the USSR or Russia here is not clear, but I agree with the subsequent examples and conclusions

                        I mean, the armies of large and economically developed countries, not only with professionals, but even with more or less equals, did not fight on a full scale, because. it would be fraught with a big furry animal for everyone.
                    2. -2
                      1 June 2022 09: 47
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      a tank is primarily a mobile, protected firing point for destroying enemy fortifications and covering infantry

                      In fact, since the storming of Berlin, this metamorphosis has occurred, due to the effectiveness of the Faustpatron. Tanks for the first time began to work behind the infantry. Then in the October War of 1973, after naked Israeli tanks tried to demolish the Egyptians from the Sinai and suffered heavy losses from the Egyptians with the "Baby". The Jews began to let the infantry in first.
                      And if until 2006 (Second Lebanese) the main unit of the Israeli reservists was a tank brigade, which included infantry, etc., after the results of the work of the ATGM in South Lebanon, this has changed. At the same time, they reduced the number of tanks in the IDF in general. The rest were supplied with KAZ and began to stamp TBRT.
            2. +1
              1 June 2022 08: 28
              In my very amateurish opinion, it will be cheaper to make TBTRs from T55 / 55/62 than to create new infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers of your own.

              Is not a fact. The T-55 is clearly used from storage, which means that it must first be restored .. Plus a remake. Maybe the savings won't come out.

              In addition, we will again get a zoo with different chassis and spare parts. So - perhaps it will still be more profitable to make new ones, based on the T-90 ..
              1. 0
                1 June 2022 08: 49
                Who knows, everything has to be counted.
              2. +2
                1 June 2022 09: 01
                The T-55 is clearly used from storage, which means that it must first be restored .. Plus a remake. Maybe the savings won't come out.

                And how many of them are on the storage bases? I very, very doubt it's a significant amount. Most likely they have all already gone through cutting.
                1. +1
                  1 June 2022 09: 02
                  How many parts are left for them? Something is doubtful that the possibility of their release is still preserved. And the reserves are obviously not unlimited ..
                  1. 0
                    1 June 2022 09: 06
                    Quote: paul3390
                    how many spare parts are left? Something is doubtful that the possibility of their release is still preserved. And the reserves are obviously not unlimited ..

                    cannibalism request
                2. 0
                  1 June 2022 09: 05
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  how many of them are on the storage bases?

                  To hell
                  I think there are ten thousand
                  1. +1
                    1 June 2022 09: 15
                    To hell
                    I think there are ten thousand

                    7-8 years ago there was a federal program for the disposal of obsolete equipment. according to it, 60% of old tanks and infantry fighting vehicles were to be melted down by 2020. Your figure is correct only if the performers, in the best traditions of nichrome, did not do anything by spending the allocated funds on houses and yachts laughing
                    1. 0
                      1 June 2022 09: 50
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      Your figure is correct only if the performers, in the best traditions of nichrome, did not do anything, spending the allocated funds on houses and yachts

                      I'm afraid to be right drinks )))
      3. +1
        1 June 2022 09: 27
        Quote: Ka-52
        and in the oversaturation of the theater with anti-tank weapons, and on both sides, which makes these machines not the most reliable. However, none of the warring parties has TBTRs.

        absolutely agree with the first. Moreover, in this situation (when even the use of tanks requires special tactics of use to prevent their defeat), TBTRs will not help in any way. Since they still won’t reach the armor protection of the tank, and they won’t provide much support to the infantry on the battlefield, since they will be quickly destroyed by PTB means. Their maximum destiny is to deliver it to the battlefield. And all these Wolfhounds, Caguars, Tigers - this is the area of ​​​​responsibility, at best, convoys, sweeps, counter-guerrilla activities, etc.

        It is precisely that convoys are better than non-armored Urals, Kamaz trucks, etc. as part of columns.
        As for the “uselessness”, the fate of being destroyed or captured by this equipment ... tired ... how much will all this equipment take the lives of our guys?
        1. -1
          1 June 2022 09: 52
          Better than nothing - yes, optimal - I would not say.
          1. 0
            1 June 2022 11: 07
            Quote: Krasnodar
            Better than nothing - yes, optimal - I would not say.

            Such a truck will not protect a tank from a tank or projectile, but with a mortar attack, from a light rifle or an RPG, it can quite save a life. And the DRG will not fall asleep to conveniently mix with domestic anti-tank systems, heavy. Machine guns or ags ... what is not optimal for convoys on the front end?
            1. -1
              1 June 2022 11: 19
              RPG 7 won't hold a fly
              1. +1
                1 June 2022 11: 33
                Quote: Krasnodar
                RPG 7 won't hold a fly

                A “crassed” non-tandem may well withstand, well, in any case, it’s better than the Urals or Kamaz without armor ....
                1. -1
                  1 June 2022 11: 48
                  50 to 50. If not less.
    2. +1
      14 July 2022 18: 51
      This is not even a TBTR, but a lightly armored truck. Relevant only for colonial wars
  2. 0
    1 June 2022 05: 13
    14 kilos under the wheel ... There, those who are in the zoo, in the cage behind the cabin - shell-shock, blow away, and dig in with the sand that they carry for Easter cakes - and dig. There are dump trucks, and these are self-digging
    1. +1
      1 June 2022 09: 03
      I don’t think that resistance against such mines in Ukraine is very important for such equipment. Who mines roads there except for the Armed Forces of Ukraine? And so, an armored truck, what's bad? Everything is better than driving a conventional car or riding a harrow. We use armored Urals, etc. and okay. In the Caucasus, I had to drive very often in an ordinary UAZIK where only armor plates on the doors were made of armor. And once I had a chance to ride in an armored UAZ (we had one and constantly broke down due to overweight). So you know, it was much more fun and calmer, despite the wretchedness of such technology.
  3. 0
    1 June 2022 05: 16
    And why is the steering wheel on the left in the photo of the English car, and not on the right?
  4. +3
    1 June 2022 05: 16
    This junk for the scenery of the play called "Not yet dead, but soon everything"
    1. +2
      1 June 2022 07: 29
      Quote: Good
      This junk for the scenery of the play called "Not yet dead, but soon everything"
      Well, after all, no one is going to give new equipment to ukrobanderlogs, since the task is different, namely, the disposal of rubbish for good money + the reduction of Russia's military-economic resource. If they manage to pull out 20 million tons of grain from Ukraine, they will cover their "losses" that have been collecting dust for conservation for years. It is only the Ukrainian Banderlot who believes that the United States and England "help" them disinterestedly.
  5. 0
    1 June 2022 06: 15
    Armor withstands 12,7mm bullets from all angles.

    The smaller that we have MSV from large-caliber - 14,5 KPVT on old armored personnel carriers ...
  6. +2
    1 June 2022 06: 16
    British Wolfhound armored cars in Ukraine

    Heavy, patency will be low on dirt roads. The picture shows that sandbags are used in the back to protect the soldiers being transported. The idea is so-so.
  7. +2
    1 June 2022 06: 24
    dumbbells against a quality army? they went there cuckoo?
    this is not a pancake to drive shepherds through the wilderness. at best, escorting supply columns is no longer capable of anything
    1. +1
      2 June 2022 10: 50
      The purpose of this type of transport is not clear. As a truck, it is not very convenient, it eats a lot of fuel, transports little, like an armored convoy escort vehicle, nothing at all. Unclear.
      Well, maybe as a tractor for transporting wheeled artillery. There is where to put the ammunition and for the calculation of the armored module.
  8. 0
    1 June 2022 08: 53
    as they say ... in capable hands and EVERYTHING is a balalaika ... in general, learn materiel and improve combat training))
  9. 0
    1 June 2022 09: 39
    I'm not getting something here. these military supplies .. will our government continue to confine itself to mumbling about the "unfriendliness" of these countries?
  10. +1
    1 June 2022 14: 05
    Quote: Ka-52
    On the other hand, the mobilization potential of the Russian Federation is 30 million.

    Did you mess with China?
  11. 0
    1 June 2022 14: 38
    In Russia, soon there will be a paradise for modelers and lovers of military equipment... In all the museums of the country there will be original copies of military equipment from all over the world...
    1. +1
      14 July 2022 18: 56
      Alexey Brylev
      Russia will soon be a paradise for modellers
      And the Chinese will climb all this equipment with tape measures, and the world market will be flooded with thousands of tons of plastic
  12. 0
    1 June 2022 18: 00
    Quote: Vladimir 290
    So you know, it was much more fun and calmer, despite the wretchedness of such equipment.

    Well, yes, and I'm talking about tezh, something is better than nothing. But 14 kilos to bark that they are holding - I'm talking about it.
    By the way, about the armor on the door. Here it is like this. You know, so that the armor put on the door would save someone?But I didn’t hear from mine either ... Tales, yes, but really?Also of the same type of armor - legendary. Withstand 14 kilo tons. If there are no people inside. And rightly so - without some kind of armor, it’s probably worse than with armor
  13. 0
    2 June 2022 10: 28
    it is not clear why these armored cars are not destroyed even at the stage of "hitting" in Ukraine? did they crawl underground through the border?
    1. 0
      14 July 2022 18: 58
      couch
      why not destroy these armored cars at the stage of "hitting" Ukraine?
      It is much more practical to destroy them when they carry "passengers". They won't be able to escape. Mobile graves
  14. IVZ
    0
    5 June 2022 12: 27
    Great car for its tasks and theater.
  15. 0
    14 July 2022 18: 50
    Well, the next mobile coffins for the dill infantry. What is the combat value of these shushtraks there? They don’t attack the Ukrainian columns from ambushes, but the meeting with the Russian troops will end quickly. Yes, and for turntables an easy target. And he won’t even have time to leave quickly, because a lot of weights are hung on a poor truck
  16. 0
    31 July 2022 10: 36
    A series of local conflicts of the late XX - early XXI century pleased the rebirth of armored vehicles (mostly in the transport incarnation, albeit with the installation of weapons) and created a class of MRAPs with a bunch of subspecies. The British and Americans, who found problems for themselves in Iran and Afghanistan, did their best. No doubt, they turned out, among others, and very successful samples. This is understandable - the statistics of explosions on mines and IEDs, as well as ambushes on convoys, were solid. It would be strange if in 20 years they had not created a certain number of
    about intelligent machines (in the presence of frankly unsuccessful samples). But what is the value of this machinery in combined arms combat? Here we'll see.
  17. 0
    10 August 2022 13: 34
    I like Mr.
    Ryabov Kirill from the series "Useless and obsolete". I'm sure he would have said the same thing even if B61 nuclear bombs had been delivered. smile
  18. 0
    17 August 2022 19: 54
    Gee .. gee ... Looks like an armored car from which Lenin spoke at the Finland Station in 17 angry