Armored personnel carriers YPR-765 in Ukraine

38

One of the transferred YPR-765 armored personnel carriers, May 2022. Photo by Telegram / BMPD

Back in the spring, the Netherlands handed over to the Kyiv regime a number of YPR-765 armored personnel carriers that had been removed from storage. Later, such equipment fell into the combat zone and supplemented other combat vehicles of Ukrainian formations. However, the moral and physical obsolescence of armored personnel carriers and the superiority of the Russian army have done their job - the number of Dutch vehicles is constantly declining.

Equipment at the front


The Netherlands announced its readiness to transfer old combat vehicles to Ukraine back in mid-April. Their exact number and timing of dispatch were not reported at that time. According to foreign sources, the Dutch army could provide no more than 40-50 vehicles. The Ukrainian side, in turn, wrote about 300 units, and such information, obviously, did not correspond to reality.



Over the next few weeks, the Netherlands organized the shipment of the promised equipment and trained the first crews. As it turned out, vehicles in the configuration of an armored personnel carrier are being transferred as assistance - they are distinguished by the presence of an open turret with a machine gun. Wherein weapon the equipment was not attached, and the recipient had to resolve this issue on their own.

In mid-May, the first photos and videos appeared on Ukrainian resources showing the YPR-765 armored personnel carrier somewhere in Ukraine. At the same time, no more than a few cars were present in the frame, and the actual delivery volumes again remained unknown.

Armored personnel carriers YPR-765 in Ukraine

YPR-765 somewhere in Donbass, May 2022. Photo by Telegram / ChDambiev

In early June, it became known about the first losses among imported equipment. During the offensive, our troops found the YPR-765 armored personnel carrier without visible damage. As it turned out, the car got stuck on the ground, and the crew abandoned it along with weapons and various equipment. A special look of the situation was given by the slogan "Peremoga is behind us" on the armor of the car.

In the following weeks, Dutch armored personnel carriers repeatedly appeared in various areas. Losses of such equipment were also reported. At the same time, the frequency of appearances of YPR-765 in published materials is not too high. It follows from this that only dozens of armored personnel carriers were handed over to Ukraine, and reports of 300 vehicles were elementary wishful thinking.

The last reliably known episode of the use of YPR-765 took place on Monday, August 29th. The notorious counter-offensive in the Kherson direction involved, among other things, several imported armored personnel carriers. On the evening of the same day, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that the Ukrainian side had lost about 30 armored fighting vehicles of various classes, not counting tanks. Apparently, YPR-765 from the Netherlands was also present among the wrecked armored vehicles.


A column of armored personnel carriers in motion. Photo Telegram / ChDambiev

How many YPR-765s were used in the “counterattack”, and how many of them were knocked out by Russian troops, has not yet been specified. However, the total number of such vehicles is small, and each case of destruction of even two or three vehicles causes significant damage to the entire fleet. In addition, such episodes have a negative impact on the overall ground potential of Ukrainian formations.

Development option


YPR-765 is actually a deep modernization of the "classic" American armored personnel carrier M113. The first version of such an armored vehicle, designated as XM765, was created by the American company FMC back in the late sixties. The next few years were spent on finalizing the project and finding buyers.

The new FMC project did not interest the Pentagon, but attracted the attention of several foreign armies. The first in this series were the Netherlands. In 1974, they tested experimental equipment, and a year later the first contract for the supply of armored vehicles appeared. Subsequently, additional agreements were signed, incl. related to licensed assembly at local enterprises. A total of approx. 2100 vehicles designated YPR-765.

The second major customer was Belgium. Since the late seventies, she has purchased and assembled under license more than 1000 cars under the designation AIF-B. In the late eighties, the purchase of YPR-765 began Turkey, who wanted to receive almost 1700 armored vehicles. Less than 300 products were purchased ready-made, the rest were assembled independently.


Armored personnel carrier without weapons. Photo Telegram / BMPD

YPR-765 were produced in different versions. The most massive were armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles capable of transporting soldiers and supporting them with fire. Also, reconnaissance, command and staff, ambulance and other vehicles were made on the existing chassis, depending on the needs of a particular customer.

The USA, the Netherlands and Belgium produced the YPR-765 not only for their own needs, but also for export. In varying quantities, this technique was supplied to the countries of Asia, Africa and South America. At the same time, by now, the first operators began to abandon old armored vehicles. So, the Netherlands decommissioned and partially sold their YPR-765. Similar processes are ongoing in Belgium.

Technical features


YPR-765 was developed on the basis of the M113 armored personnel carrier and retained its main features. At the same time, new solutions and components were used. The resulting sample in the BMP configuration has a combat weight of approx. 13,6 tons, carries up to seven paratroopers and carries cannon and machine gun weapons. In other versions, the weight and equipment change.

For the XM765 / YPR-765, an updated armored hull with a modified shape was created. It is made of aluminum, on top of which steel sheets are installed with a gap. The space between the armor metal is filled with polyurethane foam. In the course of subsequent upgrades, overhead booking modules were offered. Depending on the configuration of the armor, the vehicle can withstand the impact of small-caliber projectiles when fired from the front corners.


YPR-765 abandoned in early June. Photo Telegram / "Turned in the war"

A power unit based on a Detroit Diesel Allison 6V-53T diesel engine with an HP 267 power is placed in the forward compartment of the hull. Power is delivered to the front drive wheels. The caterpillar undercarriage with five rollers on board has a torsion bar suspension. The machine develops a speed of more than 60 km / h and can swim without training.

In the BMP version, the YPR-765 vehicles were equipped with a turret with a 25 mm Oerlikon KBA B02 automatic cannon and a 7,62 mm MAG machine gun. The unified armored personnel carrier received a small-sized turret with an M2HB machine gun open from above. Other types of weapons could also be used, such as anti-tank missile systems, mortars, etc.

Deprecation problem


At the time of its appearance, the BTR / BMP YPR-765 was a completely modern combat vehicle with fairly high performance characteristics. However, almost half a century has passed since then, and during this time the requirements for infantry armored vehicles have seriously changed. Despite all attempts to modernize and update, the YPR-765 machines, like the original M113, no longer meet such requirements.

As practice has shown, the mobility of the Dutch armored personnel carrier is insufficient even for the Ukrainian landscape - and in such conditions the vehicle can get stuck. The level of protection does not match the current threats. Own armor and mounted protection blocks can only withstand bullets and some types of small-caliber projectiles. Modern armor-piercing ammunition or large caliber systems pose the most serious threat. At the same time, the YPR-765 in the form of an armored personnel carrier can only carry a heavy machine gun, which limits the possibilities for self-defense and infantry support.


YPR-765 participate in the "counteroffensive" in the Kherson direction, August 29, 2022. Photo Telegram / BMPD

As recent events have again shown, a great threat to armored vehicles is its illiterate use. So, several dozen armored vehicles, including the Dutch YPR-765, were sent to attack practically in an open field, without preparing an operation, without cover, etc. The result of such a "counterattack" was predictable - the Kyiv regime once again lost people and equipment, but did not solve a single task.

A combination of factors


Thus, in the case of foreign YPR-765 armored personnel carriers, one can once again observe already known factors, and how they lead to a predictable result. Ukraine was again handed over unnecessary equipment, obsolete morally and physically, and therefore of no value. The Kyiv regime, in turn, is doing everything possible to lose it as soon as possible, and under the most dubious circumstances.

There is every reason to believe that such trends will continue in the foreseeable future. As a result, the entire delivered batch of YPR-765 machines will be destroyed under certain circumstances, and individual samples will be lucky to become a trophy. As a result, equipment from the Netherlands will not help the Kyiv regime in any way and will not affect the processes of its forced demilitarization.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    1 September 2022 16: 14
    I didn’t read the article, but I’ll try to guess, the author describes the performance characteristics from the Internet, and at the end, as always, sums up that Ukraine was supplied with unnecessary junk, which will be destroyed or trophied in the near future.
    1. +5
      1 September 2022 16: 17
      well something like this... bully
    2. -1
      3 September 2022 16: 39
      like the author clearly and clearly painted everything, trash is trash.
  2. 0
    1 September 2022 16: 40
    as I understand it, the M113 armored personnel carrier is better than nothing, although the aluminum side armor is 44 mm
    actually keeps a line of 14,5 mm KPVT on board
    but with fragments of OF - it's already a disaster
    122-mm 3OF56 (-1) (D-30) and 152-mm 3OF45 Viceroy (Msta) - no longer there, will break through the M113 armor
    RPGs, LNGs, ATGMs - we don’t even consider
    1. +4
      1 September 2022 16: 45
      But is there an armored personnel carrier that an ATGM can withstand?
      1. +1
        1 September 2022 18: 50
        Quote: ASAD
        But is there an armored personnel carrier that an ATGM can withstand?
        The Jews could fasten the active system to their Namer, there is a chance to survive.
        1. -5
          2 September 2022 10: 41
          in military acceptance on a star,
          they put a DZ Cactus to the Tayota and cheated with an RPG
          only the glass was broken by a shock wave, the door was crushed
          - there were no breaks or penetrations
    2. +4
      2 September 2022 07: 42
      Well, in this regard, BMP-1,2 is not better in terms of protection
    3. -1
      4 September 2022 02: 09
      actually keeps a line of 14,5 mm KPVT on board
      but with fragments of OF - it's already a disaster
      122-mm 3OF56 (-1) (D-30) and 152-mm 3OF45 Viceroy (Msta) - no longer there, will break through the M113 armor
      Dear, do not carry nonsense! What does it mean to keep a line of KPVT on board ..., and fragments (albeit 122-152 mm) break through the armor ...?! Actually, if you don’t know, a bullet, by any means, has a much higher penetration ability than fragments ... But here, for starters, you need to take into account the distances from the armored personnel carrier to the place where the projectile was detonated and to the KPVT from which the bullet will fly out. .. Yes, if the projectile explodes in the immediate vicinity of the armored personnel carrier (a couple of meters), then it will probably make some holes ... but this is not certain, because the fragments are an unstable thing, because the body of the projectile scatters as it pleases ...., they can simply scratch the armor in places. It’s more reliable to hit a shell directly in an armored personnel carrier, then yeah - it will break through! laughing But with a bullet is a completely different story. Even the 7,62 mm B-32 bullet, fired (for example) from PKM from a distance closer than 100 meters, at a meeting angle of 90 degrees with a 43 mm (and not 44 mm, according to your stories) side of the M-113, its breaks through! And 14,5-mm B-32 bullets, at angles of 90 degrees, successfully pierce this side from distances closer than 850 meters !!! At smaller angles, of course, a smaller distance is required ... So, at 50 degrees, it breaks through from distances of up to 400 m ... By the way, if you don’t know, then during the Soviet era, several of these armored personnel carriers from Vietnam came to us (in the USSR) "dragged" ... And at our training ground they were normally studied and fired at. And I am writing this to you, just on the basis of the results of those very shellings ... which were then taught to us at a military university ...
      1. 0
        6 September 2022 13: 15
        Somehow, at the training ground, he fired at a decommissioned BMP-1 from a ZU 23-2. Penetrates both sides.
        1. 0
          8 September 2022 23: 54
          Somehow, at the training ground, he fired at a decommissioned BMP-1 from a ZU 23-2. Penetrates both sides.
          Still would! With ZU-23 ...! And from what distance...? wink
      2. 0
        17 October 2022 11: 12
        in a bullet, for any, penetration is much higher than that of fragments

        Three times "ha"
        1. -1
          17 October 2022 22: 00
          But what about only three times ..., sir ?! wink laughing
          1. 0
            17 October 2022 22: 21
            if the projectile explodes in the immediate vicinity of the armored personnel carrier (a couple of meters)

            A well-known example - the NATO standard for armored vehicles STANAG 4569 describes different levels of protection - small arms, protection against fragments of shells, explosive devices

            So, the 4th level describes protection against a KPVT bullet (meeting speed with a target of 900 m / s) or fragments when a 155 mm projectile explodes at a distance of 30 m from an armored vehicle. That is, under these conditions, the same protection is required

            3rd level - protection against an armor-piercing bullet 7,62x51 OR fragments of a 155mm projectile that exploded at a distance of as much as 60 meters
            1. -1
              18 October 2022 01: 05
              Dear, you read this well-known example of yours and think! What are the "equal conditions" even here??! For fragments 30 meters (which, in fact, is close), and for a B-32 bullet (there, in addition to speed, the distance is indicated) 200 meters! So, excuse me, which one has higher penetration??! wink
              And from personal combat experience, I’ll say, the armor that the B-32 PKP (KPVT) will penetrate from a distance of 200 meters, a fragment of a 155/152-mm projectile from 30 meters from the gap ... if any breaks through, then the probability of such an event is very small (maybe 1-2%)! Because the fragment must be correct in weight, shape and must meet the armor correctly! In general, the concept of a fragment is very vague and unpredictable, they are all of different shapes, weights, and most of them (especially at 30 meters ...) may not pose a danger to armor at all! And the fragments scatter very unpredictably ... You can, for example, stand 10 meters from the place of a shell explosion and not get a single fragment! ... But the B-32 bullets are all specifically "sharpened" for breaking through armor and shooting " guides them to the right place!
              1. 0
                18 October 2022 09: 22
                For fragments 30 meters (which, in fact, is close), and for a B-32 bullet (there, in addition to speed, the distance is indicated) 200 meters! So, excuse me, which one has higher penetration?

                Dear, you did not clearly state your thought, and this started the discussion

                Ammunition has damaging properties. Among them, the piercing action is the ability to pass through a chosen obstacle. With regards to the case under discussion - 152 fragments pierce armor designed for large-caliber bullets

                The distance from which the ammunition or striking element was fired is another parameter. As well as the principle of operation of the ammunition. The projectile is dangerous because it bursts close to target, covering everything around with a field of fragments. If it doesn't explode close to the target, then it's a miss. Just like a bullet misses the target, and there is nothing to wait for the result
                a fragment of a 155/152-mm projectile from 30 meters from the gap ... if any breaks through, then the probability of such a case is very small (maybe 1-2%)

                There are domestic and foreign standards for the protection of equipment, I will focus on them
                It is possible, for example, to stand 10 meters from the place of a shell explosion and not get a single fragment!

                The classic "survivor's mistake". It is necessary to evaluate not isolated successful cases, but 100500 that had the opposite consequences
      3. +1
        29 November 2022 11: 32
        Well, yes, well, yes, on the BMP-3 its side armor made of aluminum is 56 mm, the KPVT of 600 meters is freely stitched, and here is the American aluminum of 44 mm, which during the Vietnam War the DShK stitched through at a distance of up to 800 meters, although they write everywhere that the front armor on the armored personnel carrier m113 from a caliber of 12.7 mm protects at 200 meters, but nowhere is it written that this protection is due to the motor that stands in front like on an infantry fighting vehicle 1-2
  3. 0
    1 September 2022 16: 53
    There are May videos of "crazy" armored personnel carriers near Severodonetsk ...
    Donavi49 convinced me that he would prefer to go into battle on these crazy armored personnel carriers than on the BMP-1, and gave a clear preference to the "Dutchman" in an absentee comparison ....
    1. +1
      1 September 2022 20: 01
      The "Dutchman" has at least a good machine gun, and not a useless BMP-1 cannon.
      1. -3
        1 September 2022 20: 04
        I also wish you "in which case" to be in the "crazy" "Dutch": there is no contradiction between us ....
        drinks
      2. 0
        2 September 2022 06: 15
        Do you know what machine guns put dill on these armored personnel carriers? After all, the Dutch gave them without weapons.
        1. +1
          2 September 2022 08: 14
          Come on, they put a standard M2 Browning there. Even if the Dutch shrugged, there are those trunks that fell from the amers.
          1. -1
            2 September 2022 13: 38
            You can’t see a single Browning in the photo ... but in the first photo they generally stuck a Kalash. fellow
        2. 0
          2 September 2022 08: 49
          So I look at the first photo in the AKM turret fixed. Do they have all the DP with disks over?
      3. 0
        6 October 2022 22: 55
        There is also a machine gun on the BMP-1, and the gun there is Thunder, this is the same SPG-9.

        Can send a fragmentation shot more than 4 km away.
        1. -2
          7 October 2022 08: 16
          Maybe she can, but first try to see something from the BMP from 4 km, and then get into it. Yes, and in a hypothetical battle between the BMP-1 and M113, I would bet on the second one.
          1. 0
            7 October 2022 11: 35
            Maybe she can, but first try to see something from the BMP from 4 km, and then get into it. Yes, and in a hypothetical battle between the BMP-1 and M113, I would bet on the second one.


            The BMP-1 has a multiple optical sight in which you can clearly see, for example, a column or an area where equipment or infantry is concentrated and cover it with fragmentation shots.

            The BMP-1 will smear the M113 like a God turtle with the very first cumulative grenade or ATGM (Malyutka).

            The BMP-1 is an infantry fighting vehicle, its task is to break through the front and suppress enemy firepower, and the M113 is just an armored personnel carrier with a machine gun, where the shooter is little protected from bullets and shrapnel.
      4. 0
        29 November 2022 12: 15
        Where does such confidence in the useless BMP 1 gun come from? Why do you think so ?
        From the war in Chechnya? From the war in Syria or the war in Ukraine?
        Its only drawback of detection in the Afghan war is that the BMP 1 has a vertical aiming angle that does not exceed 27-30 degrees, and so a 73 mm shot from BMP 1 and SPG9 has a fragmentation spread of 25 meters and there is a video where, when hit from a BMP 1 shot, side projection of the T64B tank, the tank was destroyed and burned out completely, there is also a video where a shot from a BMP1 cannon at the Donetsk airport disabled the T64 tank
  4. -2
    1 September 2022 20: 34
    Very high silhouette, good aim. Well, of course, the Netherlands intended to use them against the rebellious natives, and the armored personnel carrier confidently holds spears, arrows and stones ..
    1. +3
      1 September 2022 23: 18
      The ATGM doesn't care how high the silhouette is.
    2. 0
      27 November 2022 23: 43
      By the time the equipment was purchased, the natives were no longer in Holland.
  5. +1
    2 September 2022 09: 39
    Quote: bk0010
    The Jews could fasten the active system to their Namer, there is a chance to survive.

    Yes, they have heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on our tanks. And what do you order to do, their Arabs trained well, flew in a horde with RPGs, and fired from all angles.
    1. 0
      17 October 2022 11: 19
      they are heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on our tanks.

      Based on any tanks
      And they are considered armored personnel carriers

      Puma - Centurion
      Ahzarit - T-54/55
      Namer - Merkava 4

      Domestic school - similar TBTR and Ukrainian BMP-55 based on T-54/55 are presented. Kharkiv will also present a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the T-64. Why didn’t all these spectacular and effective projects even go into series - if Israel has personally successfully used such machines, then you can guess the answer
  6. +1
    2 September 2022 10: 35
    There are also Australian m113s there, modernization from 2007
  7. 0
    3 September 2022 16: 52
    Interestingly, Russia has never been in conflict with Holland.
    Ukraine is turning into a scrap collector. I remember how Lithuania gave them Land Rover armored vehicles, 47 years old. And none of them started
  8. 0
    4 September 2022 08: 17
    Ours near Nikolaev, dragged a tank to themselves, one such piece of iron.
  9. +1
    4 September 2022 15: 05
    For the delivery of infantry to the front line and as a transport for ammunition supply, the vehicle is quite suitable, and to shove with a machine gun or undershot on anti-tank systems and RPGs, then any infantry fighting vehicle will end. There are no bad armored vehicles, there is incorrect combat use.
  10. 0
    31 October 2022 21: 19
    Unfortunately, Russian equipment is also not distinguished by its novelty, as well as what is supplied to Ukraine.