GAZ-5923: failed Soviet "Boomerang"

126

One of 12 assembled BTR-90s in Kubinka. Source: wikipedia.org


Based on the Afghan experience


The war in Afghanistan was supposed to leave a significant mark on the domestic technical stories. But the subsequent collapse of the country put an end to most of the undertakings. As a result, the military saw only episodic improvements in technology - for example, reinforced armor on the bottom of the T-62. Or a heavily weighted BMP-2D with additional armor plates, which has lost its ability to swim, but has noticeably gained in security. Paradoxically, we do not see this combat vehicle in the NVO zone, despite the fact that it would be most welcome here. With most of the "Afghan" BMP-2D, the additional armor was simply removed, turning the car back into a 14-ton amphibious vehicle.



Afghanistan in the 80s showed that the potential of the BTR-80, and even more so the BTR-70, is not enough for modern combat operations. Improvements required all parameters - security, firepower and mobility. Of course, the Soviet classic armored personnel carriers could fulfill their main function of delivering infantry to the front line, if not for the constant clashes. In conditions when the "mountains are shooting", the bulletproof armor of Soviet armored personnel carriers played a symbolic role. The tragedy of the situation was added by the widespread use of anti-tank mines, causing fatal damage to light armored vehicles. It was from here that the forced placement of infantry on the armor began, which, for obvious reasons, has not been eradicated so far.


BTR-90, aka GAZ-5923, aka K-1-7 product. Source: wikipedia.org


The photo allows you to compare the dimensions of armored personnel carriers. Source: bastion-karpenko.ru

The embodiment of a new trend in the domestic school of military construction was to be the GAZ-5923 or the BTR-90, better known to the general public. Development work on the topic was named "Rostok". This is an evolutionary continuation of the concept of wheeled armored personnel carriers made in the USSR. There is no exact date of birth of the GAZ-5923, it is only known that the car was created in the early 1990s, that is, the product can be conditionally called the last Soviet armored personnel carrier.

At first glance, the BTR-90 looks like a slightly scaled copy of the predecessor of the 80 series. Indeed, the layout solutions are similar - the engine is in the stern, in the bow is the control compartment, in the center - combat and landing. Therefore, the landing of troops through the side hatches and ramps remained unchanged - right under enemy fire.

In the late 80s - early 90s, the GABTU, which issued an order for a new armored personnel carrier, did not fully realize that a good armored personnel carrier was a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. What, in fact, they came to only at the beginning of the XXI century with the Russian platform "Boomerang". Here, the engine is in the right place, and the weapons are cannon, and the troops leave through the back door. By the way, this armored vehicle was created according to NATO standards, like the Ukrainian BTR-4E, which the Kharkovites worked on the basis of a Soviet armored personnel carrier.

The irony of fate is that neither the Soviet BTR-90 (GAZ-5923) nor the latest Russian Boomerang appeared in the army. Although the first was put into service in 2008.

Expensive and difficult


Despite the conceptual similarity with its predecessor, the "ninetieth" armored personnel carrier has a completely unique design. First of all, it is noticeably larger - 3 meters high, 3,1 meters wide, 8,2 meters long. The mass exceeded 22 tons, which made the BTR-90 almost 8 tons heavier than the BMP-2. It was from this tracked vehicle that the armored personnel carrier borrowed the turret and fighting compartment.

As a result, the firepower increased qualitatively due to the 30-mm 2A42 gun, the PKT machine gun, the Konkurs-M anti-tank complex and, which was absent from the donor, the AG-17 automatic grenade launcher. Worthy made and booking. The forehead had to withstand fire from small-caliber guns, and the sides - a 12,7-mm machine gun almost point-blank, with the exception of armor-piercing bullets. On later prototypes, hinged protection was provided.

It is interesting that the upper frontal part has lost the kink characteristic of domestic armored personnel carriers and a pair of windows. This deprived the frontal projection of weakened zones, which is why the mechanic is forced to drive the car either in triplexes or in a special protective cap for the head. They thought about protecting the crew from head-on shooting, but about how the landing force would leave the car under the same fire through the side ramps and upper hatches, no.

At one time, Deputy Minister of Defense V. A. Popovkin criticized the BTR-90 precisely for such a placement of hatches, which was one of the reasons for the refusal to purchase. Say, he "cannot imagine how the soldier will run out of the armored personnel carrier through the side hatch on the move." Well, it remains only to praise Popovkin for his foresight - the soldiers of the Russian army are still leaving the armored personnel carrier from the side and from above. Only from the much less protected BTR-82A.

The only difference between the exit scheme of the 90th vehicle and the BTR-80 predecessor is the large openings. The placement of paratroopers in armored personnel carriers is also different - in the BTR-80 seven people sit facing the sides, and in the BTR-90 - to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Naturally, they did not know about any explosion-proof chairs and mounts at the end of the 80s, but some nuances were nevertheless foreseen. For example, the V-shaped bottom of an armored personnel carrier can also be considered an Afghan legacy, which, coupled with increased weight and large wheel arches, significantly increases the resistance of the BTR-90 to undermining anti-tank mines and IEDs. Wheel gears increased the ground clearance of the armored personnel carrier to 510 mm, which also had a positive effect on explosion resistance.








The latest modification of the BTR-90 with the Berezhok combat module. Source: wikipedia.org

An important novelty of the BTR-90 was the power plant from the airborne combat vehicle - a six-cylinder boxer 510-horsepower turbodiesel 2V-06-2 of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. The specific power of an armored personnel carrier with this engine is 23,2 liters. s. / t (for comparison: the BTR-80 has this parameter equal to 19 hp / t). Initially, the choice was between the UTD-29 diesel from the BMP-3 and the Chelyabinsk opponent from the BMD-3 line. But for the Gorky armored personnel carrier there were simply no free UTD diesel engines from Barnaultransmash - the entire circulation went to the acquisition of infantry fighting vehicles. Therefore, the acquisition of the BTR-90 power plant was carried out according to the residual principle.

Installing a motor from tracked vehicles carries a number of risks. First of all, this is a small resource - the operating time of tracked vehicles before overhaul is much lower than that of wheeled vehicles. Recall that the BTR-80/82 has a KamAZ-740 truck diesel engine with a resource of 150-200 thousand kilometers before overhaul. Moreover, the BTR-90 is much heavier than the BMD-3 and BMD-4, which further increases the load on the relatively short-lived diesel engine. Therefore, the 2V-06-2 engines were continuously refined to meet the needs of the Gorky armored personnel carrier, but never reached perfection.

As a result, the Barnaul UTD-90TR with a capacity of 32 hp was installed on the latest version of the BTR-660. with., which also did not differ in the reliability necessary for wheeled vehicles. Unlike the Chelyabinsk boxer engine, the UTD diesel engine had a V-shaped arrangement of cylinders, which increased the height of the unit by 30 cm. This, in turn, required the restructuring of the engine compartment of the car. The real highlight of the armored personnel carrier was a two-line hydromechanical transmission.

Unlike its predecessors, the BTR-90 does not have bridges in the usual sense - the torque is supplied separately to the wheels of each side. Hydrostatic transmission allows the car to turn around in place “like a tank”, and a reverse gearbox allows it to move forward and backward at the same speed, which, by the way, reaches 100 km / h. Placing such a complex and expensive transmission on an ordinary, in general, armored personnel carrier has also become a trend of the Afghan combat experience. The BTR-90 has a turning radius two times smaller than that of the 80-series vehicle, which significantly increases survivability in cramped combat conditions. For example, in the city and in the mountains.

The story about the BTR-90 cannot be supplemented by the results of a study of the ability of a four-axle vehicle to overcome a threshold ledge, which was conducted at the Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University. During the work, the engineers made an interesting conclusion - the ability of the car to climb an obstacle depends on the weight load on the wheels. Therefore, variable weight distribution becomes an effective method of increasing cross-country ability. Let's digress from the 8x8 scheme and take a look at the classic UAZ-3151, which, with seven equipped fighters in the back, has a weight distribution of 41% on the front axle and 59% on the rear.

The authors of the study propose the following tactical maneuver for overcoming the ledge - the "UAZ" loaded with fighters climbs the obstacle until the rear wheels rest. Then the combat crew gets out of the car, thereby changing the weight distribution to a ratio of 55/45%, and the car easily climbs onto the ledge. A loaded UAZ is able to climb a 0,2-meter obstacle, an empty one - 0,26 meters. And if you put two fighters on the hood of the UAZ (the weight distribution will be 60/40%), then the car rises already by 0,3 meters. Such a life hack from Nizhny Novgorod engineers.

GAZ-5923: failed Soviet "Boomerang"
The heaviest BTR-90 with the Bakhcha-U combat module. Source: arsenal-info.ru

The problem of cross-country ability of the BTR-90 was studied on the example of overcoming a 1-meter-high scarp, while the diameter of the wheel of an armored personnel carrier does not exceed 1,2 meters. An eight-wheeled vehicle is best adapted to overcome precisely such obstacles - according to calculations, the height of the scarp can reach 1,4–1,6 wheel radius. For comparison: 4x4 vehicles are capable of climbing 0,7–0,8 wheel radius. The BTR-90 on tests confidently took a vertical meter scarp at a speed of 7–8 km / h. This was largely due to the large angle of inclination of the lower frontal part. Which, by the way, on some prototypes of the BTR-90 was disfigured with an additional block of headlights.

Despite the adoption by the Russian army in 2008 (under the complex index K-1-7), the BTR-90 was built in no more than 12 copies. Each subsequent version of the armored personnel carrier differs markedly from its predecessor. So, in 2001, they presented an actual wheeled infantry fighting vehicle with a Bakhcha-U turret from the Tula Instrument Design Bureau. Here is a 100-mm gun, and a 30-mm automatic cannon, and the Arkan ATGM, and a thermal imager, and a sight stabilized in two planes with a laser rangefinder. The mass of this option exceeded 23,5 tons. On a copy of the 2002 model, which received the name BTR-90 "Berezhok", the tower was armed with a 30-mm cannon, ATGM "Kornet-E", PKTM and automatic grenade launcher AG-30M.

According to the developers, the fire control system "Berezhka" increased its combat effectiveness by 3,2 times than that of the original "Rostok". Depending on the year of manufacture of the prototype, the type of waterway propulsion unit also changed. The early ones had water cannons with hydraulic drives inside the hull, which were later replaced with remote rotary propellers, which increased the speed on the water to 12 km / h.

But all the tricks of the designers did not help - the BTR-90 never went to the troops. Minister of Defense Serdyukov started well-known games with the defense industry with familiar results. And in 2014, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Oleg Salyukov, commented on the rejection of a promising vehicle as follows:

“At the moment, we are purchasing the BTR-82A, which takes into account as much as possible the developments in the weapons complex, fire control system, security, mobility and command controllability.”

The last time the BTR-90 was exhibited was four years ago at the Army-2018 forum.
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    6 September 2022 05: 43
    Yes, that they constantly send armored personnel carriers into a frontal attack. That's what tanks are for. An armored personnel carrier is an armored personnel carrier, you don’t need to hang guns and thick armor on it and turn it into a tank, and transfer the functions of an armored personnel carrier to lightly armored KAMAZs.
    1. +17
      6 September 2022 06: 34
      Quote: Konnick
      Yes, that they constantly send armored personnel carriers into a frontal attack.

      This is the specifics of our army ... In general, if I am not mistaken, an armored personnel carrier should not unload troops under fire. Dismounting should be done long before contact with the enemy.
      But you never know who owes what to whom ...
      1. 0
        25 November 2022 08: 10
        Interestingly, there are statistics on how many times an armored personnel carrier gets into a situation of landing under fire during operation in combat conditions?
        1. -2
          25 November 2022 17: 41
          Quote: Guran33 Sergey
          Interestingly, there are statistics on how many times an armored personnel carrier gets into a situation of landing under fire during operation in combat conditions?

          Definitely not in our Armed Forces, it may have been carried out in the Soviet Army.
    2. +3
      6 September 2022 08: 48
      BTR-90 "Berezhok", the tower was armed with a 30-mm cannon, ATGM "Kornet-E", PKTM and automatic grenade launcher AG-30M.

      The set of weapons resembles that of the BMPT Terminator.
      Only in smaller quantities.
      So the platform is smaller
    3. -2
      6 September 2022 13: 06
      But what about the large-caliber sniper rifles that are already massively in service with the infantry?
      1. +4
        6 September 2022 13: 36
        Massively? Do you still want to distribute 30mm "mosquitoes" to everyone?
        I’m so for it (solidly), but in my opinion the fighters will not be happy.
        1. -6
          6 September 2022 15: 57
          Are you chatting with yourself, clown? Did you put forward a stupid thesis about 30 mm and make fun of it yourself?
          1. 0
            6 September 2022 16: 29
            Come on, tell us about the "very necessary 12.7 mm snipers", or about the fact that you need to drop everything and take a pack of amusing (and always large) calibers into service.
    4. 0
      6 September 2022 20: 32
      The saturation of the battlefield with heavy machine guns, apparently, dictates a similar approach. So we see what happened - protection against such weapons is increased, mine resistance too.
    5. +1
      7 October 2022 12: 54
      Armored car Z-STS "Akhmat": quick and easy
      https://topwar.ru/201108-broneavtomobil-z-sts-ahmat-bystro-i-prosto.html

      Patency should be worse than that of an armored personnel carrier, but men do not ride on armor.
      The need to ride on armor - as I understand it, due to the lack of mine protection, a cramped hull, and an inconvenient exit from the hull - you can’t quickly jump out with the whole crowd.
      The absence of a turret guarantees that the car will not be sent to act as a tank, that is, to storm well-fortified enemy positions.
  2. +8
    6 September 2022 06: 03
    I wonder why they are not developing a 45mm automatic gun. Make a KPVT module, 45mm automatic gun and PKT. It is high time to rename the armored personnel carrier into a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. The armored personnel carrier is the BTR-152. It would be better if they made heavy infantry fighting vehicles out of old tanks, since there is development. And then they stand, useless rust. And then all this badyaga with Armata and Boomerang will apparently drag on for a very long time.
    1. +5
      6 September 2022 08: 09
      It seems that now the BTR-82A is already officially an infantry fighting vehicle. A 45mm gun won't fit anywhere. And no more ammo left. Of the old tanks, only armored personnel carriers can turn out. There is no place for weapons more than a machine gun in a remote installation. And you can’t get the engine anywhere, if you move it forward, it’s already easier to make a new one.
    2. +1
      6 September 2022 13: 39
      More caliber - slower rate of fire, fewer shots (they are larger), recoil (there are rumors that infantry fighting vehicles or similar (BMD?) vehicles almost fell apart from 30mm guns and they lowered the gunpowder canopy).
      Then 152mm is recoilless.
      But with the tradition of "landing on armor" - this will lead to blowing off your own, and fatal.
      1. 0
        7 September 2022 12: 44
        Well, after all, there was a 45mm air gun in the Great Patriotic War, they put it on Yaks. A bit true, the recoil is strong, it was difficult to aim and the engine was blown away. If from old tanks (of which we have in storage, we ourselves don’t know exactly how many), we make heavy infantry fighting vehicles (and there are developments, both here and abroad), then a module with 45mm will be quite capable. 57mm is certainly more powerful, but the ammunition will be small, and the rate of fire. And here, I think, you can try to achieve 300 rounds per minute. And so everything goes to an increase in caliber, so we will soon reach 73 or 76.
        1. +1
          7 September 2022 16: 19
          Her (45mm with Yak) rate of fire was good if 250 rounds per minute.
          At 23mm (also Yak) - 600 rounds per minute.
          ZSU-57-2 - 57mm, already 120 rounds per minute. But two trunks.
          PT-76-57 - also 57 mm but did not "take off". Also 120 rounds per minute.
          Naturally, more caliber - fewer shells.

          BMP-2 say 600-700 v / m can. There is 30mm.
          This + AGS + ATGM should not be bad.

          Otherwise, no BMP is needed
    3. IVZ
      0
      9 September 2022 12: 14
      I wonder why they are not developing a 45mm automatic gun.
      . This cannon with telescopic ammunition was developed in opposition to Amer's similar development. Neither there nor there did not go. Reasons? Don't know. However, the Americans are now considering the LBT 40mm AP based on the Bushmaster 30 as an armament - in my opinion, almost the same 30x175 sleeve with a recompressed muzzle and 35|50 mm German development as an alternative. It is better to be skeptical of such information, and finally, our specialized research institutes will engage in analytics independently determining the directions of development and the required performance characteristics of promising weapons.
  3. Eug
    0
    6 September 2022 06: 25
    As for me, it is necessary to create a universal platform with the possibility of modification for various tasks - if it is a reconnaissance vehicle, then with a reduced "passenger capacity", but "quiet", with relatively good armor protection and the ability to overcome water obstacles; if a classic armored personnel carrier - then without overcoming water barriers, but with good armor protection of "passengers", suitable for placing air defense systems BD (ZRPK), 125 mm guns. and cannons - 120 mm mortars (as on Nony and Vienna) - instead of the standard BM with a 30 mm cannon and an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade launcher. I don’t see the need for a PKT - its tasks can be performed by a machine gunner with a PKM from the landing force. I see this platform as a kind of "designer" with quick-detachable (quickly mounted in the field by forces of repair and evacuation units) elements (additional armor, grilles, inflatable tanks for overcoming water barriers, they are also additional fuel tanks, etc.) with a front or central engine, hinged (1/3 up, 2/3 down, similar to the Kharkov BTR-64K type) ramp. Yes, fantasies...
    1. +4
      6 September 2022 12: 24
      Quote: Eug
      As for me, it is necessary to create a universal platform with the possibility of modification for various tasks - if it is a reconnaissance vehicle, then with a reduced "passenger capacity", but "quiet", with relatively good armor protection and the ability to overcome water obstacles; if a classic armored personnel carrier - then without overcoming water barriers, but with good armor protection of "passengers", suitable for placing air defense systems BD (ZRPK), 125 mm guns. and cannons - 120 mm mortars (as on Nony and Vienna) - instead of the standard BM with a 30 mm cannon and an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade launcher. I don’t see the need for a PKT - its tasks can be performed by a machine gunner with a PKM from the landing force. I see this platform as a kind of "designer" with quick-detachable (quickly mounted in the field by forces of repair and evacuation units) elements (additional armor, grilles, inflatable tanks for overcoming water barriers, they are also additional fuel tanks, etc.) with a front or central engine, hinged (1/3 up, 2/3 down, similar to the Kharkov BTR-64K type) ramp. Yes, fantasies...

      I will express my couch opinion - a unified platform is good, of course, but only in theory. For example, you proposed a reconnaissance modification, but this vehicle should first of all be quite compact (remember the BRDM, Fennec, command from Cadillac, VLB, etc.), since if such a vehicle entered into battle, most likely this is a one-way ticket. Therefore, this machine is no longer suitable for the family. Further - why is the carrier 125mm? If the armor level is comparable to the tank, then the entire family will be on a tank base, which means the price tag will tend to space + the need to place a “bus” (armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle) on this base will lead to an increase in dimensions (for a tank they will be clearly redundant) while maintaining the same booking level. And if the armor of the carrier 125 is not tank, then why bother?
      We go further - various art systems - at the very front they have nothing to do (modern 120mm mortars hit 6-7km, sometimes even more), the main damaging factor is fragments from the response (during an ambush, the work of a DRG or just a breakthrough of the enemy, a mortar or self-propelled guns do nothing will save), therefore, an increase in the level of booking and size (well, we also have a “bus” at this base) will only lead to an increase in the cost of the car (I will not say anything about visibility and mobility, 7 km is, although not an advanced, but a close zone) - hence from of the entire list, only infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers remain ... the machines seem to be similar in purpose, but different in essence. If we remove weapons and make armored personnel carriers, then why armor when there are no teeth? If we put serious weapons on the armored personnel carrier - what's the point of the car if you can make holes in it with your finger? (This is true if the car is needed precisely as a military, and not a police one)
      PKT is also necessary, because often the equipment has a better view than the infantry (at least due to the height and the presence of observation devices, + more eyes), and things may not be very good with communications - how to transfer the coordinates of the target to the machine gunner?
      What we have in total: the existing system of unification, when special versions (KSHM, medical transport, mortars, engineering vehicles, etc.) are created on the basis of the main vehicle (BMP / armored personnel carrier / tank), is more than justified, but to build a military (not police) base on one base its essence, a technique like the Israeli "lion cub") is no longer there. Unification of individual elements (weapons, means of communication and surveillance) is also good, but engines and other similar mechanisms cannot be unified - different power ...
      1. 0
        6 September 2022 20: 41
        Well, that's why there should be several platforms - heavy, medium and light. Conditional analogue of the BRDM (Typhoon), the middle family on the BMP chassis (Kurgan) and tank platform (T-14/15).
  4. +12
    6 September 2022 06: 53
    Wheels, high security, cross-country ability are incompatible things. Wheels will always lose to caterpillars in terms of security with comparable dimensions and weight. It is impossible to make a hodovka of sane dimensions with low ground pressure for a machine weighing more than 20-25 tons.

    In the Russian Federation, probably 3/4 of the territories is permafrost, snow and swamps. There is no life without caterpillars. So the wheels in the Russian Federation have only one place: light armored vehicles that do not take part in battles on the front line.

    Well, yes, correctly, the military did not take Rostock into service. Look at this barn and the BMP-3. The weight is comparable, the armament of the BMP-3 will be even better. BMP-3 in the series, and this is a miracle that some kind of production needs to be redone.

    It is the armored personnel carrier that should be cheap. BTR-80/82 is a good armored personnel carrier. You just don't need to use it as an infantry fighting vehicle.
    Armored personnel carrier (armored transporter, armored personnel carrier) - an armored transport and combat vehicle (conveyor) for transporting personnel (shooters and the like) motorized rifle (motorized infantry, airborne, etc.) units and their materiel to the place of the combat mission and evacuation of the wounded and injured from the battlefield.
    1. +5
      6 September 2022 09: 11
      It is the armored personnel carrier that should be cheap. BTR-80/82 is a good armored personnel carrier. You just don't need to use it as an infantry fighting vehicle.

      In addition, the resource is much larger and much cheaper to operate, it’s just that the equipment must be used for its intended purpose, and not turned into a “jack of all trades”, and even require tank protection from the transporter.
      1. +4
        6 September 2022 09: 51
        BTR-80 is really a good car. But not enough armor. this is critical for an armored personnel carrier. The mine holds well, the wheel tears off, and he goes on under his own power. We would make some kind of hinged armor to use if necessary, and in peacetime to drive without it - save the resource.
        But they took a different path, increased the weapons, and got the BTR-82.
    2. +1
      6 September 2022 09: 59
      correctly, the military did not take Rostock into service. Look at this barn and the BMP-3. The weight is comparable, the armament of the BMP-3 will be even better.

      According to statistics, when an infantry fighting vehicle is destroyed, the crew dies in 45% of cases, when an armored personnel carrier is destroyed, the crew dies in 15% of cases.
      Therefore, the BMP is a dead end in terms of security. A 80 mm cannon was installed on the BTR-30 to equalize firepower with the BMP, this is the cheapest option, and they began to wait for what the industry would offer.
      If they accepted the BTR-90, it would be at least some kind of way out, and so the BMP-1 and BTR-80 have to fight, and of course they are the last century.
      1. +2
        6 September 2022 10: 16
        A 80 mm cannon was installed on the BTR-30 to equalize the firepower with the BMP, this is the cheapest option, and they began to wait for what the industry would offer.

        It is better to put the AGS, i.e. you can support your own with fire from a closed position, and not go for direct fire with a 30mm cannon.
        1. -3
          6 September 2022 16: 05
          It is better to put the AGS
          then, a mortar ... The "specialists" got sick
          1. +2
            6 September 2022 16: 26
            Zadolbali "specialists"

            Specialist, where to put the mortar? On the roof?
            1. -3
              6 September 2022 17: 28
              Quote: Konnick
              Specialist, where to put the mortar? On the roof?

              Israeli "merkavs" have long had 60-mm mortars. Right in the tower. They shoot through the embrasure.
              1. +3
                6 September 2022 18: 17
                Israeli "merkavs" have long had 60-mm mortars. Right in the tower. They shoot through the embrasure.

                The Merkava has a tower the size of an armored personnel carrier.
                1. 0
                  6 September 2022 18: 28
                  Quote: Konnick
                  The Merkava has a tower the size of an armored personnel carrier.

                  In an armored personnel carrier, it is quite possible to carve out a place for a 60-mm mortar. Whether it is necessary is another question. AGSs, by the way, were handicraftly placed on the armored personnel carrier tower back in Afghanistan.
                  1. +1
                    6 September 2022 20: 00
                    by the way, the armored personnel carriers were handicraftly placed on the tower back in Afghanistan

                    And they showed themselves well.
                  2. +3
                    9 November 2022 08: 54
                    In Afghanistan, Vasilek was also installed on MT-LB, maybe it is being installed now.
            2. 0
              6 September 2022 19: 35
              Quote: Konnick
              Specialist, where to put the mortar? On the roof?
              I would make a folding one. Here is a more interesting question - where to get mines? There is nowhere to carry on yourself, and it’s dumb.
            3. -2
              7 September 2022 02: 42
              and where to put the mortar?

              How do I know? Contact the "specialists", they know. Apparently, in the same place as the grenade launcher
      2. 0
        6 September 2022 12: 50
        Can you elaborate on which infantry fighting vehicle and which armored personnel carrier?

        The modern BMP (including our troika) is a replacement for the WWII medium tank in the squad. Take out the wounded, bring ammunition, ride back and forth with the breeze. Support the attack with fire.
        1. 0
          7 September 2022 08: 42
          in more detail, in which infantry fighting vehicle and in which armored personnel carrier?

          in Chechnya and other conflicts, they used the BTR-70/80, and the BMP-1/2, statistics on them.
      3. 0
        6 September 2022 19: 33
        Quote: glory1974
        According to statistics, when an infantry fighting vehicle is destroyed, the crew dies in 45% of cases, when an armored personnel carrier is destroyed, the crew dies in 15% of cases.
        The situations when the crew dies should be different for the BMP and the armored personnel carrier. It was one thing that something serious flew in when an infantry fighting vehicle was following the tanks on the attack, and another thing was when an armored personnel carrier fired on the enemy’s DRG on the march.
        1. 0
          7 September 2022 08: 44
          The situations may be different, but the statistics are for the 90-2000s, when there were no full-scale conflicts, so most likely single defeats from artillery, the main defeats from RPGs and ATGMs, and mine explosions.
          And if something serious arrives, such as a shot from a tank, then the infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, together with the entire crew and the landing force, are shattered.
  5. +1
    6 September 2022 07: 41
    In any case, the remaining groundwork and R&D data on the machine will be applied and taken into account in the further development of our military-industrial complex .. hi
  6. 0
    6 September 2022 07: 58
    I think I did not go into the series because of the price. BMP 3 somehow looks more logical in battle. And I think the price is comparable. One transmission is worth something.
  7. +11
    6 September 2022 08: 27
    The armored personnel carrier suffered from mine explosions just less than the infantry fighting vehicle or infantry fighting vehicle, its bottom is further away, and it still rides without one wheel. Infantry rides on armor so as not to burn out in this armor after being hit by RPGs or ATGMs (especially since they still cannot shoot up "mountains" with closed hatches). Reinforced bulletproof armor does nothing here, especially since there were a lot of DShK-ZGU in Afghanistan, and in a "normal combined arms" battle everyone has already forgotten what it is. It is difficult to protect even a tank from a shaped charge on board. Not to mention the roof.
    Equipment with a front engine does not swim well (this also applies to the BMP-1/2). Everyone can see what pontoon crossings are worth now. However, for the ground forces, perhaps, it would have worked out that way.
    The BTR-152 had good cross-country ability - 9 tons per three axles, for the BTR-60/70/80 - 12-13 tons per 4 axles. If the axle load is much more than 4-5 tons, this chariot will not keep up with the tanks through the mud. Even the Mi-26 will not raise it, the average military-technical cooperation will not raise it. The units must be from commercial trucks, otherwise a car with a tank engine will cost like a tank. So shrink down to 19 tons, like a BMP-3, and everything else - as God sends.
    1. +4
      6 September 2022 18: 54
      By the way, landing through the rear ramp is ambiguous .. If, of course, landing troops under head-on fire, then yes, but if, for example, they covered the road with shelling? The ability to go to the unfired side can be extremely useful. And so - hit the stern, and who the hell will come out ..
      1. 0
        7 September 2022 10: 32
        hmm...didn't think about that. what
    2. 0
      7 September 2022 03: 43
      you don’t have to shrink anywhere in your ideas of the last century, in Western countries everyone has long had modular armor, the main thing is that the running base holds the weight, how much armor is needed and fastened, it’s not needed, I removed one module. set with lightweight protection
      1. -1
        7 September 2022 07: 59
        I don't understand one thing. No, it's definitely never too late to learn. And the smart ones learn from the mistakes of others. But this is still a big question - in the production of armored vehicles. Do we really need to look at the "countries of the West"? It's like teaching the British to build battleships, and the Americans to build aircraft carriers.
        Modular armor looks attractive, but in fact it is not on the BMP-3. Although it should have been. It's just not clear who and when in combat conditions, especially now, when the concept of "rear" begins somewhere in the km. 500 from the LBS, he will take it off and hang it up, and on what to carry it all sorts of different things for howling armored vehicles. We have fewer trucks in the army than some.
        And 25-30 tons, even with modular armor, even without - these are the same 25-30 tons on the same four axles. In terms of cross-country ability, it will be far from the BTR-70, miracles do not happen. Power does not compensate for axle load. And the grenade launcher will still not care.
  8. +13
    6 September 2022 08: 34
    They thought about protecting the crew from head-on shooting, but about how the landing force would leave the car under the same fire through the side ramps and upper hatches, no.

    At one time, Deputy Minister of Defense V. A. Popovkin criticized the BTR-90 precisely for such a placement of hatches, which was one of the reasons for the refusal to purchase. Say, he "cannot imagine how the soldier will run out of the armored personnel carrier through the side hatch on the move."


    Mr. Popovkin, like Mr. Serdyukov, did a lot of "useful" things to our army. Under Serdyukov, they put an end to almost finished tanks, Omsk, object 640 ("Black Eagle"), and, from UVZ, object 195 (T-95). These were the masterpieces of the Soviet school of tank building. But, in those days, everything Soviet was poured with mud, including the T-90, they were preparing to buy almost "Leopards" for Italian armored cars and French helicopter carriers.

    Fans of the "anus" still interfere with everything in a heap, not understanding a damn thing in a combat situation.

    The concept of an armored personnel carrier with a rear exit for motorized riflemen significantly limits the tactics of its combat use. Exit back is justified only in the event of a head-on combat collision between two opposing groups - then the armored personnel carrier is located frontally to the enemy, and the landing force can leave the vehicle under the protection of the hull.

    However, in combat operations in a city or mountainous terrain, when attacking a car from an ambush, when a mine is blown up, such an application can hardly be called optimal. In these cases, it will be safest to exit the car in the direction opposite to the main fire effect, and this is most often the other side, and not the feed.

    They don’t understand a damn thing, even those who stubbornly believe that the landing force must always sit under the armor, and not on top (when moving in a marching column, when a sudden attack is possible and you need to quickly dismount).

    They condemned an excellent, promising car, with great potential, the BTR-90 "Rostok". Everyone can’t wait for a two-story misunderstanding, with a rear exit, but the Boomerang has so far only lit up at parades, like the T-14, T-15, where they decided to make a “platform” on an expensive and complex base, ala “Armata” instead of a supertank gain T-95. Here already money is not a pity.

    Such is our bourgeois concept of buy-sell and dough, which must be mastered. About the BTR-90, one can only sadly say in the end that this "Rostok" did not break through the asphalt of stupidity, short-sightedness, and maybe outright betrayal.
    1. +3
      6 September 2022 09: 58
      Quote: Per se.
      Mr. Popovkin, like Mr. Serdyukov, did a lot of "useful" things to our army.

      Precisely useful. If Kuzhugetych had not come, we would already have had Armata with Afganit and Boomerangs in the troops. And yes, we are fighting on the T-72, BTR-82 and BMP-2. And that's even better.
      1. 0
        6 September 2022 10: 53

        Precisely useful. If Kuzhugetych had not come, we would already have had Armata with Afganit and Boomerangs in the troops. And yes, we are fighting on the T-72, BTR-82 and BMP-2. And that's even better.

        Yes, of course they would, but if Yeltsin had remained in power, a snowstorm would have been erected wassat lol
        1. +1
          6 September 2022 11: 00
          Quote from: User_neydobniu
          Yes, of course they would, but if Yeltsin had remained in power, a snowstorm would have been erected

          Are you talking about?
      2. -1
        7 September 2022 10: 35
        Yes, we cannot mass-produce either Armata or T-95. The Black Eagle is basically a T-80U with a turret similar to the Proryva turret. And personally, I don’t seem to be a supporter of shove ammunition into this niche. In addition to sub-caliber.
        1. +1
          7 September 2022 10: 59
          Quote: Dimax-Nemo
          Yes, we cannot mass-produce either Armata or T-95.

          What do you mean we can't? This is not an interstellar space cruiser, this is an armored tractor with a gun. Can. According to the plan of the Serdyukov times, the serial production of the Armata was supposed to begin around 2015. And if this had been systematically worked on, it would have been adjusted, perhaps by a year or two. But Shoigu came, and the priorities completely changed. Armata remained for parades. The troops were told: the latest model of armored vehicles is the T-72B3, get it and rejoice. And the money that could have been invested in technologies for the production of Armats and other qualitatively new equipment went to the construction site so kind to the new minister.
    2. +10
      6 September 2022 11: 34
      Quote: Per se.
      But, in those days, everything Soviet was poured with mud, including the T-90, they were preparing to buy almost "Leopards" for Italian armored cars and French helicopter carriers.

      Yes, yes, yes, the nasty Minister of Defense did not want to pump the budget into the pocket of domestic oligarchs. Which raised the price of the T-90 by 70% in a year - in full accordance with the growth of the army's budget. After which, by the way, Postnikov blurted out in his hearts that it was cheaper to buy "Leopards" over the hill than seventeenth modification of the T-72 © in our industry.
      If Serdyukov continued the work of his predecessors in feeding at the expense of the budget of our defense industry, then we would still be proud of 60 new tanks a year. Just enough to rearm the Arbat district. And the rest ... the rest would have gone to the T-72A and B, produced even under Mechen and did not know the overhaul from the same time.
      Just to get a feel for the pace of BTV furniture reforms:
      ... in 1998-2010. about 150 T-72B and T-80U tanks were updated to the level of T-72BA and T-80UE-1, then in 2011-2020. deliveries to the troops amounted to more than 600 T-72B3 tanks, more than 300 T-72B3M tanks and more than 60 T-80BVM tanks

      Quote: Per se.
      They condemned an excellent, promising car, with great potential, the BTR-90 "Rostok".

      Great looking car with great potential in translation means raw product with an unfinished engine. Which, by the way, is directly written in the article.
      1. +2
        6 September 2022 12: 37
        Quote: Alexey RA
        An excellent promising machine with great potential in translation means a raw product with an unfinished engine. Which, by the way, is directly written in the article.

        There is a good phrase that the one who wants is looking for opportunities, and not the one who wants reasons. All equipment, in fact, is "not finished". Improvements and modernization continue throughout the entire period of its production. From UVZ T-95 also had to be brought up, making a third copy for the final tests. It was necessary to bring the "Black Eagle" too, but where "take it out and put it in" ready, where the same "Armata" has been tormented for years, and everything is "according to plan." It took a little to fine-tune the T-95 with a 152 mm gun (the remaining 700 million in the project would be enough), but 64 billion were spent on the "platform", only on R&D and R&D. They made a simplified version of the T-95 for a 125 mm gun and crossed the tank with an infantry fighting vehicle to turn the hull, the engine in front, the engine in the back ...

        Very wise, and, of course, the "Boomerang" and "Armata" have everything already "finished". Thanks also to Serdyukov, the great helmsman of cash flows, as well as to his faithful henchmen, Popovkin and Postnikov, who were ready to put our army on everything imported, under the most good pretexts. Maybe we should blame capitalism here, which gave rise to dependent oligarchs, corrupt officials, the destruction of industry and the military-industrial complex itself?

        Where did those in power look when they slandered promising developments, slaughtered the fleet, when they bankrupted the same Omsk tank, and now in Perm there are problems with the Motovilikhinsky factories, where our artillery is made? Effective managers miraculously did not enlarge the army warehouses, such as one "hypermarket" for each military district. It will also be more convenient to serve everything, more economical.

        Now, when such effective fools are kicked in the ass with a dusty boot, and the government will be popular, the economy will be planned, everything will fall into place.
        1. +4
          6 September 2022 15: 15
          Quote: Per se.
          Thanks also to Serdyukov, the great helmsman of cash flows, as well as to his faithful henchmen, Popovkin and Postnikov, who were ready to put our army on everything imported, under the most good pretexts.

          Reciprocal thanks to the native industry, which spit on all the requirements of the army for UKN on manufactured equipment and pushed samples of the 80s under the brand name unparalleled in the world. Oh yes, and leading R&D for years without any real results.
          Diesel engines on a corvette 6 years after delivery continue to break down and burn? Hay Palae ©, Russian Railways still pays more.
          A tactical UAV with a radius of 40 km, a flight time of 2 hours and a horizontal camera, requiring 4 Kamaz for 6 UAVs? And what, they will still buy it - there is no alternative.
          Quote: Per se.
          Where did those in power look when they spread rot on promising developments, slaughtered the fleet, when they bankrupted the same Omsk tank

          Mwa-ha-ha... so it wasn't the authorities that bankrupted Omsk, but that very poor, unfortunate UVZ, rotten by the authorities.
          By the way, the Omsk plant itself has not disappeared - after UVZ made it offer impossible to refuse, Omsk became UVZ's platform for the modernization of the T-80 and T-72B3.
          Quote: Per se.
          Effective managers miraculously did not enlarge the army warehouses, such as one "hypermarket" for each military district.

          EMNIP, it was about large warehouses of the first category. So they used to be 1-2 per district.
      2. -1
        7 September 2022 10: 46
        Stop it. Serdyukov now feeds himself perfectly in the same industry. So what are we doing with these same Leoperds now? What about the Mistrals?
        1. +3
          7 September 2022 15: 47
          Quote: Dimax-Nemo
          Stop it. Serdyukov now feeds himself perfectly in the same industry. So what are we doing with these same Leoperds now? What about the Mistrals?

          Let me just remind you that it was not the furniture maker Shpak who spoke about the Leopards, but Postnikov, a career officer, commander-in-chief of the Ground Forces. And no one was going to buy Leo. They were cited as a comparison, for an example of how much the shores of the military-industrial complex lost. The result of the discussion about the prices for BTTs was the order for a "tank for 52 million" - the first version of the T-72B3.
          And as for the Mistrals ... are there really still people who believe that the Minister of Defense could independently purchase aircraft carriers of the first rank from the NATO camp? wink "Mistrals" from the very beginning were France's payment for help on 08.08.08, when Sarkozy, with his unhurried diplomacy, gave our army time to thoroughly beat up the Georgians.
          1. 0
            14 September 2022 11: 25
            I remember this. And I know very well about the dissatisfaction with the military price tags of the Russian oligarchs (a separate conversation why the Russian business does not want to do this at prices more acceptable to the Moscow Region, and why now Rostec has to deal with this with far from always positive results). Mistrals were bought because the fleet wanted them (he still wanted them even in 2014) and because foreign experience was needed in creating such ships. There was no one to choose here, except for the French. But that doesn't change the fact that we would be in the deepest ass with them right now. As with "foreign long-range high-precision artillery", which at about the same time someone from the Moscow Region wanted. If only because the shells for her would be a cat crying. Add Iveco to this batch. Yes, they needed something too. But not in service as state-established samples. So the trend was there. And this trend was interrupted only with the change of the Minister of Defense, which occurred for reasons very far from military-technical policy.
            1. 0
              14 September 2022 15: 49
              Quote: Dimax-Nemo
              Mistrals were bought because the fleet wanted them (he still wanted them even in 2014) and because foreign experience was needed in creating such ships. There was no one to choose here, except for the French.

              I'll tell you more - the general director of the Nevsky Design Bureau said in an interview that at about the same time his design bureau was considering the possibility of building a UDC of a domestic project at domestic shipyards. The result is negative: either the shipyard cannot, or the construction sites are occupied for a long time with orders.
              Quote: Dimax-Nemo
              As with "foreign long-range high-precision artillery", which at about the same time someone from the Moscow Region wanted. If only because the shells for her would be a cat crying.

              Most likely, the story would have been like with snipers: a kick to the domestic industry, and the purchased would have been reduced to a few separate units.
              Quote: Dimax-Nemo
              Add Iveco to this batch. Yes, they needed something too. But not in service as state-established samples.

              But what can you do - if the domestic military-industrial complex cannot make a mine-protected machine of such a mass?
              1. 0
                15 September 2022 07: 46
                Ha. I wonder what "orders" they were busy with in Kaliningrad? BMW, right? We still built the stern for the Mistrals. However, giraffes know better.
                I have my own opinion about MRAP (however, like UDC - a hybrid of a hedgehog with a snake, which the American staff officers came up with, it seems, mainly out of laziness). In any case, it was necessary to buy technologies, not finished machines. What is the point now of Typhoons on Irish and American boxes and bridges?
                There are no options here. Either we fit into this very "civilized community" and do not show off, or we do everything ourselves, sometimes with the Chinese and Indians, when they want it. What we cannot do ourselves - we steal technology. Either remove the cross, or put on shorts.
                1. 0
                  15 September 2022 10: 13
                  Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                  Ha. I wonder what "orders" they were busy with in Kaliningrad?

                  What does what mean? 11356, of course - then there were a lot of plans for these FRs.
                  Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                  In any case, it was necessary to buy technologies, not finished machines. What is the point now of Typhoons on Irish and American boxes and bridges?

                  Then it was necessary to buy both technologies and machines. Because you can’t cover the infantry with papers, and the domestic industry is famous for its slowness. How many of our military-industrial complex gives birth to a light mine-protected BA?
                  1. 0
                    15 September 2022 11: 07
                    "Gag" to the Gorshkovs, which then had to be replaced almost with "Karakurts"? Let's say, although in Soviet times they built three "rhinos" and a dozen "frigates", and did not even choke.
                    You know, a light mine-protected BA is an almost spherical horse ...... you can lay at least two pounds of saltpeter, then the tank will fall apart. Not to mention that the more "serious" guys can have anti-aircraft, anti-bottom, or even hitting from above, against which all the fuss with MRAP is generally useless. We have somewhat absolutized the very specific experience of the United States in Afghanistan.
                    1. 0
                      15 September 2022 12: 05
                      Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                      "Gag" to the Gorshkovs, which then had to be replaced almost with "Karakurts"?

                      Tit in the hands. ©
                      At the time of the decision to build them, the Black Sea Fleet surface ships brigade was a floating museum - a collection of various types of ancient ships, including such rarities as project 61 and project 1135 "clean". On the other hand, with project 22350 at that time everything was very sad - "Polyment-Redut" not only did not work, but it was even not clear whether it would work at all.
                      If Saturn with the GTE localization project had been listened to 10 years earlier, then the Black Sea Fleet would have had six 11356, and other fleets could have gotten it.
                      Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                      You know, a light mine-protected BA is an almost spherical horse ...... you can lay at least two pounds of saltpeter, then the tank will fall apart. Not to mention that the more "serious" guys can have anti-aircraft, anti-bottom, or even hitting from above, against which all the fuss with MRAP is generally useless.

                      They can. But they are complex and expensive. The task of MRAP is not to completely eliminate mines. Their task is to reduce their losses from mines and make mine warfare as difficult and costly as possible for the enemy. It's one thing to dig two or three kilograms of explosives, and another to drag and install a charge capable of destroying an MRAP.
                      1. 0
                        15 September 2022 12: 24
                        Interestingly, did Rybinsk hint at anything to Moscow about XNUMX years ago for Rotax? In general, this is all about the question "buy or suffer yourself."
                        This MRAP is very expensive, which, by and large, can only "not quite" be blown up by a mine. We, sorry, still do not have a new armored personnel carrier in fact. I can understand the desire of the infantry to feel confident in technology, but everyone wants this. And helicopter pilots, and airplanes, and even tankers. Nothing is guaranteed to the latter for a long time even from the face.
                      2. 0
                        15 September 2022 16: 00
                        Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                        This MRAP is very expensive, which, by and large, can only "not quite" be blown up by a mine.

                        So at the time of its purchase, the calculation was for small wars. In which the mine danger comes first. In the same Syria, "Lynxes" showed themselves very well.
                        Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                        We, sorry, still do not have a new armored personnel carrier in fact.

                        It seems to me that in the foreseeable future it will not happen: until the vehicles based on the BTR-80 finally show their unsuitability, they will not be changed. Look, the Yankees "one hundred and thirteenth" have only recently begun to change - and moreover, only at the brigade level.
                      3. 0
                        16 September 2022 07: 42
                        Then I don't know what they were thinking there for the last 8 years. It doesn't seem to be about what's going on right now.
                        Those. all the fuss with the Boomerang - exclusively for parades and cutting?
                        The Yankees have half of the infantry from our point of view - DShBr. Application specifics.
    3. +7
      6 September 2022 12: 57
      Quote: Per se.
      They thought about protecting the crew from head-on shooting, but about how the landing force would leave the car under the same fire through the side ramps and upper hatches, no.

      At one time, Deputy Minister of Defense V. A. Popovkin criticized the BTR-90 precisely for such a placement of hatches, which was one of the reasons for the refusal to purchase. Say, he "cannot imagine how the soldier will run out of the armored personnel carrier through the side hatch on the move."


      Mr. Popovkin, like Mr. Serdyukov, did a lot of "useful" things to our army. Under Serdyukov, they put an end to almost finished tanks, Omsk, object 640 ("Black Eagle"), and, from UVZ, object 195 (T-95). These were the masterpieces of the Soviet school of tank building. But, in those days, everything Soviet was poured with mud, including the T-90, they were preparing to buy almost "Leopards" for Italian armored cars and French helicopter carriers.

      Fans of the "anus" still interfere with everything in a heap, not understanding a damn thing in a combat situation.

      The concept of an armored personnel carrier with a rear exit for motorized riflemen significantly limits the tactics of its combat use. Exit back is justified only in the event of a head-on combat collision between two opposing groups - then the armored personnel carrier is located frontally to the enemy, and the landing force can leave the vehicle under the protection of the hull.

      However, in combat operations in a city or mountainous terrain, when attacking a car from an ambush, when a mine is blown up, such an application can hardly be called optimal. In these cases, it will be safest to exit the car in the direction opposite to the main fire effect, and this is most often the other side, and not the feed.

      They don’t understand a damn thing, even those who stubbornly believe that the landing force must always sit under the armor, and not on top (when moving in a marching column, when a sudden attack is possible and you need to quickly dismount).

      They condemned an excellent, promising car, with great potential, the BTR-90 "Rostok". Everyone can’t wait for a two-story misunderstanding, with a rear exit, but the Boomerang has so far only lit up at parades, like the T-14, T-15, where they decided to make a “platform” on an expensive and complex base, ala “Armata” instead of a supertank gain T-95. Here already money is not a pity.

      Such is our bourgeois concept of buy-sell and dough, which must be mastered. About the BTR-90, one can only sadly say in the end that this "Rostok" did not break through the asphalt of stupidity, short-sightedness, and maybe outright betrayal.

      I understand that under the current head of the Moscow Region, they are throwing mud at the predecessor (in our country it is often like this, the receiver is throwing mud at the deceased), but shouting that he buried everything is stupid.
      Let's start with the fact that the "t-95" and "black eagle" were never prodigies, as you write. There is generally little information in open sources, but from what is available: for some reason, they planned to stuff a bunch of weapons (152 mm, 30 mm, 12.7 mm, 7.62 mm) into the first one with a crew of 2 people. Why so many and how to use it all together is a question, hello from land-based battleships of the 20-30s. Again, the idea with a cardboard turret (the most affected part of the tank) is not particularly encouraging, the “eagle” is generally a tank based on the T-80 (not the best tank in our history, by the way). And yes, both tanks did not go beyond the prototype stage (moreover, a demonstration one), so calling them the pinnacle of engineering is an extra cry “everything is gone” and no more. Regarding the T-90, it was originally a modification of the T-72, and the idea of ​​​​upgrading the existing T72 to its level instead of building new machines is quite good, but the implementation let us down (but this is a completely different story, not done with a furniture maker, by the way).
      Regarding the ride “on the armor” or the exit “from the other side” - when you drive in the “belly” of an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier, you don’t really understand the position of the car in space at all ... and if you are ambushed from which side it flies less, you won’t understand at all, respectively it’s more a question of luck, whether you crawl out to the right side (if we talk about the BTR-80) ... although this doesn’t matter - during an ambush, the enemy has complete superiority in initiative and awareness, a surprise factor, it will not play a role which side the exit from the car, whether you are lucky or not (especially if the enemy has superiority in the form of a hill) ... riding on armor is generally a brilliant decision, especially when you consider that the competent work of a GP or a machine gun can mow down half of the landing even before they understand about the attack (but the game is forced, since even armor-piercing cartridges 7.62x39 our light equipment does not hold very well) ...
      To avoid ambushes, it is better to equip the vehicles with normal surveillance equipment (thermal imagers) and accompany the columns with at least copters (or better, helicopters), all with the same thermal imagers ...
      1. +3
        6 September 2022 14: 32
        Quote: parma
        Let's start with the fact that the "t-95" and "black eagle" were never prodigies, as you write.
        Firstly, I don’t write like that, I have them masterpieces of the Soviet school of tank building, two of the most iconic projects, where on one they used the most powerful 152 mm cannon in an uninhabited tower, and on the second, they carried out an automatic loader with part of the ammunition in the aft niche.

        About 2 crew members ... Apparently, you really don’t have much information, it’s good that you don’t confuse the T-95 with the Black Eagle and don’t call one or the other Armata.

        In the image of the T-14 of the Armata platform (left) and the T-95 (right), both vehicles initially with 3 crew members, which were located in a separate armored capsule. Moreover, the T-14 is the "budget version" of the T-95, it was from him that the crew was placed linearly, shoulder to shoulder. On the left is the driver, in the middle is the commander, and on the right is the gunner. The commander and driver could replace one another. The crew sat as if on a sofa (ergonomic chairs), very freely, there was still a distance of up to 20 centimeters between the elbows.

        Everything is lost, leave it, everything will be lost when the capitalists bring civilization to the handle. Hooray-patriotism from network bots is not interesting to me either. We shit on the T-95 and immediately sing the Hosannas of the T-14, although it was taken in a simplified form from the T-95.

        The "Black Eagle" was a further development of all the best from the T-80, only this is actually a new tank on a seven-wheeled chassis.

        There was information that the documentation for the tank was bought by the Chinese.

        I don’t even want to comment on your denunciations of the T-90, while it is generally one of our best tanks. If the gentlemen had destroyed all the T-72 stocks in order to make thousands of "Armata", one can only imagine what would happen to our army, with actually one tank building center and "piece" assembly. In our country, the menagers like to break down the old house first, and then they are not able to build a new one. Now we are in the second half of 2022, and the Armata, even from the parade in 2015, was left far behind, not to mention the stop in 2010 of the almost finished T-95.

        Lastly, do not confuse the tasks of an infantry fighting vehicle and a wheeled armored personnel carrier, but where and how to ride in a convoy of troops, life taught me, believe me.
        1. +1
          7 September 2022 11: 23
          Armata may be a "simplified" T-95, but we cannot mass-produce such a "starship" either. And I strongly doubt that it would be possible to "exploit" it normally in the troops. Yes, our managers like to sell first, and then they can’t do anything new. So after all, there is no money either for a new one or for maintaining the old one, and even if you don’t steal, they still won’t be enough.
  9. -2
    6 September 2022 08: 39
    Despite the conceptual similarity with its predecessor, the "ninetieth" armored personnel carrier has a completely unique design. First of all, it is noticeably larger - a height of 3 meters

    From such a height, the landing on the armor, in full, and also weighted with additional ammo, to jump to the ground, oh, how traumatic it will be, as they say, "the spine will fall into trukhany"
    1. +3
      6 September 2022 12: 22
      Quote: Gvardeetz77
      From such a height, the landing on the armor, in full, and also weighted with additional ammo, to jump to the ground, oh, how traumatic it will be, as they say, "the spine will fall into trukhany"

      Jumping from the tower to the ground is not the best idea. Although folding (or retractable) handrails-steps on the side "shelves" would not interfere with the BTR-80 either. And it is more convenient to climb, and not so high to jump.
  10. -4
    6 September 2022 08: 48
    Kirill Ryabov - 80-lvl necromancer.
  11. +4
    6 September 2022 09: 20
    Unfortunately, the author "forgot" to say that they tried to "reconstruct" the BTR-90 (Rostok ROC) after the BTR was "reproached" that there was no landing exit "in the back"! That is why the BTR-90 (ROC "Gilza") appeared with the installation of an engine from the BMP-3 and a landing exit in the stern ... Alas, this did not help either! "Thank you" Serdyukov!

    Estimated view of the BTR-90 (ROC "Sleeve")
    1. 0
      6 September 2022 10: 05
      And what is there to assume - the car is not even a drawing, it’s still a coffin - an exit between the wheels that the troops don’t like - a huge body that can’t normally be booked with a mass of up to 20 tons - you can’t put a normal gun - another miscarriage, which is worse than the familiar armored personnel carrier -80
  12. 0
    6 September 2022 10: 12
    The BTR 80 is an excellent vehicle, its task is to deliver soldiers to the battlefield, and not to fight, putting a cannon on an armored personnel carrier is not just stupid, it is sending soldiers to their death, making a monster with an incomprehensible purpose.
    1. +3
      6 September 2022 11: 12
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      BTR 80 is an excellent vehicle, its task is to deliver soldiers to the battlefield

      The BTR-80 makes the delivery of soldiers to the battlefield even worse than fighting. The soldiers do not ride in it, but on it, which completely makes the idea of ​​​​an armored personnel carrier meaningless.
      1. 0
        7 September 2022 12: 52
        Yes, this idea itself now ...... in short, not on wheels. If in it.
    2. 0
      7 September 2022 12: 50
      There is such a gun .... which is just right for an armored personnel carrier.
  13. +1
    6 September 2022 10: 51
    Once again, I was convinced that Serdyukov is the best defense minister in almost the last half century (for all the antipathy that he arouses for his human qualities). If not for him, they would have turned into Papuans riding Soviet antiques.
    1. +2
      6 September 2022 11: 06
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      Once again I was convinced that Serdyukov is the best defense minister in almost the last half century (for all the antipathy that he arouses for his human qualities).

      He messed up a lot too. But the course for qualitative rearmament was taken under him, and after his departure it was practically rejected, this is true.
      1. +5
        6 September 2022 11: 11
        In addition to rearmament, there were a lot of good ideas. For example, the formation of a professional sergeant corps. Or the reduction of all sorts of orchestras and ensembles of songs and dances. Rigid attitude to any "analogues".
        Strictly speaking, this was the only real attempt at army reform.
        1. +2
          6 September 2022 11: 17
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          Strictly speaking, this was the only real attempt at army reform.

          I agree with this.
        2. +11
          6 September 2022 11: 42
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          Or the reduction of all sorts of orchestras and ensembles of songs and dances.

          And headquarters of paper connections. When the army has long shrunk to a cropped division or BKhVT, but its headquarters structures are alive and well.
          Arriving in the troops, I found 256 bayonets, 28 guns and with them the 2 division headquarters and the 1 corps headquarters, fully equipped!
          © Slashchev - Wrangel
          1. +2
            6 September 2022 13: 52
            Headquarters - sacred! Who wants to knead shit in the line? There are a lot of relatives and other protégés ....
            1. +4
              6 September 2022 15: 19
              Quote: frog
              Headquarters - sacred! Who wants to knead shit in the line? There are a lot of relatives and other protégés ....

              Mwa-ha-ha... at the height of the reform on the VIF-2NE forum, they posted a cry from the soul of a major who was transferred from headquarters to a position in a battalion, while maintaining his rank and salary. The meaning of the cry was exactly this - how can you throw a living person from the office into the field? laughing
              1. +1
                6 September 2022 16: 18
                What am I talking about? Moreover, there were enough similar stories in the union, and only after ......
                There are a couple of things I remember at this point...
                It is not uncommon for conscripts to serve in enlisted and even officer positions in the troops (even under the USSR). If they were. Most often unofficially)) But I don’t remember why there weren’t enough people at the headquarters. Razi that in the newly organized formations, not for long.
                Well, and so - to see what is happening in any regional department of internal affairs and "on the ground" ... Nothing changes .....
                1. +3
                  7 September 2022 10: 29
                  Quote: frog
                  It is not uncommon for conscripts to serve in enlisted and even officer positions in the troops (even under the USSR). If they were. Most often unofficially

                  In the first half of the 90s, I saw an interview with the commander of one of the court divisions. So he complained that even at the level of the battalion and below, officer positions are XNUMX% occupied by two-gadushniks and wreeds from sergeants and foremen.
                  Quote: frog
                  But I don’t remember if there were not enough people at the headquarters. Razi that in the newly organized formations, not for long.

                  This, perhaps, was only in the late 30s - early 40s, during the explosive growth of the army. Then even the operations department of the headquarters of a tank division of one person did not cause any surprise. smile
                  1. -1
                    7 September 2022 10: 33
                    Namely.
                    Only I'm not talking about zero, in those years everything was clear. But when back in the USSR a conscript sits in five positions ....
                    Or, in the first half of the 90s, a conscript at the database sits in the captain's position (according to the state - 5 "crosses" and 3 conscripts, in fact - 2 conscripts) .... And this is even before the general numbness ....
        3. +1
          7 September 2022 13: 05
          Ensigns, bastard, reduced!
  14. 0
    6 September 2022 13: 10
    Quote: fiberboard
    I wonder why they are not developing a 45mm automatic gun.

    Because the fire performance is declining. Therefore, there are no automatic belt-fed guns with a caliber of more than 35 mm. Therefore, stop broadcasting the nonsense that the Rostec sawmillers are pushing. -shot is very convenient, right?
    1. +1
      6 September 2022 13: 37
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      Therefore, automatic belt-fed guns with a caliber of more than 35 mm do not exist.

      Bushmaster XM913 - 50 mm.
      1. -2
        6 September 2022 15: 56
        And what does it change? The fact that American strippers are sawing loot is no secret to anyone.
        1. -1
          6 September 2022 17: 13
          Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
          And what does it change? The fact that American strippers are sawing loot is no secret to anyone.

          Ours are also sawing. I do not know what it changes, but such a gun is created and works. You can find videos on YouTube and watch.
          1. -2
            6 September 2022 19: 41
            Once again, what kind of ammunition supply do the Americans have? You were told precisely about the difficulty with ammunition supply, and there is such a good thing as the choice of the type of ammunition in 2A42, the supply is double.
            1. 0
              6 September 2022 19: 48
              Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
              Once again, what kind of ammunition do the Americans have?

              How many times do I tell you - they have different ammunition.

              Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
              And why is a 50 mm whistle better than 30 + 100 mm on the BMP-3?

              Is a 50 mm whistle better than 30 + 100 mm on the BMP-3?
      2. +1
        7 September 2022 10: 33
        Quote: DenVB
        Bushmaster XM913 - 50 mm.

        Until it becomes simply "M" from "XM" - this is not a gun, but a demonstration model. smile
        1. 0
          7 September 2022 11: 03
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Until it becomes simply "M" from "XM" - this is not a gun, but a demonstration model.

          Don't be like gifted people. This is a gun, it shoots. It was not accepted into service, but no one spoke about it. It was argued that such guns simply do not exist.
    2. +1
      7 September 2022 10: 38
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      Therefore, automatic belt-fed guns with a caliber of more than 35 mm do not exist.

      Vickers looks at you with disapproval. smile

      1. -1
        7 September 2022 11: 34
        Oh, but what about the dimensions of the cartridge (corresponds to the size of a shot to 2A42) and the installation itself, are you reluctant to look at it? The fact that the barrels are cooled by water is also not visible, no? So if Vickers looks at someone with condemnation, it’s on you. Cloth tape by the way.
        1. 0
          7 September 2022 19: 11
          Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
          Oh well, but are you reluctant to look at the dimensions of the cartridge (corresponds to the size of the shot to 2A42) and the installation itself?

          Just a photo with a clearly visible tape was only for an eight-barreled monster. And so - here's a standard pom-pom on the Oerlikon cabinet:

          Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
          Cloth tape by the way.

          This is in early versions. After the creation of multi-barrels for "pom-poms", a metal tape for 14 shots was developed with the possibility of connecting several tapes into one. In the second photo just these tapes.
          1. -2
            7 September 2022 19: 53
            Thanks for the photo. However, the tape is not loose, what will happen to it in the BO? Yes, the pom pom is a bit short, what about the rate of fire and water cooling?
            And the British, at the first opportunity, abandoned the pom-pom in favor of Bofors.
            1. 0
              8 September 2022 12: 32
              Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
              And the British, at the first opportunity, abandoned the pom-pom in favor of Bofors.

              Uh-huh ... they refused so much that more than seven and a half thousand pom-poms were produced during the war - twice as many as Bofors. smile
              By the way, the installation in the photo from the previous post was developed at the end of the war to replace the Oerlikons and was installed on the EM and KR that worked on the theater maintenance in 1945.
    3. 0
      7 September 2022 13: 08
      Che, really! And what caliber do Ukrainians have on an armored personnel carrier -4? Did you see the video, here on this site, how they smashed the behu into trash, did the ribbed one stand upright? And during the Great Patriotic War, did the pilots Yakov also insert cassettes?
    4. 0
      15 September 2022 11: 13
      https://topwar.ru/5760-zsu-37-2-enisey-ne-shilkoy-edinoy.html?ysclid=l82rshm5kh199116555
      By the way, tape is not the only option for "non-clip" power even of larger calibers. The A220 57mm uses auger feed.
  15. +1
    6 September 2022 13: 13
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Estimated view of the BTR-90 (ROC "Sleeve")

    An excellent base for many weapon systems - SAM TOR, self-propelled guns, BREM.
  16. +2
    6 September 2022 13: 16
    The rejection of the BTR-90 is stupidity, and comparing this car with the BTR-80 is stupidity, pushing through the Boomerang is cretinism. There are no protected armored personnel carriers with a front MTO.
    1. +1
      6 September 2022 13: 51
      One fig is a mechanical drive in front, and if they hit it, either take it off, or go where it will roll itself.
      But the engine in front, in theory, can take on fragments or a cumulative jet. Or "please" already with their fragments, who knows.

      In general, everyone drowns for unloading from behind, this is the front engine that allows.
      Although if it is in front (that is, in front of the tower or right next to it) - even if you put a thermal imager, it will be blinded from that side.
  17. 0
    6 September 2022 13: 47
    But are there a couple of thousand IS-3s left in the warehouses?
    I mean, send out two hundred to the cities, well, as monuments (at least it's beautiful).
    And the rest - having dismantled / welded the tower into heavy armored personnel carriers.

    Well, hang a remote sensing there, removing the gun and screw it onto the roof of the tower or the felling of the bank.
    If you manage to turn the engine in such a way that it would be possible to make an exit from the back, it may turn out not expensive and not bad.
  18. +3
    6 September 2022 13: 57
    Yes, there were other interesting options, for example BTR-87
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      15 September 2022 11: 28
      It's much more real than Boomerang. Although personally I have questions remain to the height as well.
      1. 0
        15 September 2022 17: 50
        what's wrong with height? The body has become taller, but not too
        1. 0
          16 September 2022 07: 38
          The radical reworking of the existing hull led to a noticeable change in the contours and an increase in the dimensions of the machine. The length of the BTR-87 has grown to 7,95 m, the width is slightly less than 3 m, and the height is more than 3 m.
          1. 0
            16 September 2022 10: 54
            well, judging by the previous picture, the height of the hull (compared to the BTR-82) has increased somewhere from 2 to 2.1-2.2m, the width has remained the same, and the length of the BTR-90 is even longer. Inclined sides, with an emphasis on the legs for riding, also remained
            There is an option in the BTR format
  19. -2
    6 September 2022 15: 18
    For me, robotics is the future. Infantry in conjunction with a group of ground robots, during a frontal assault. Control from the command vehicle. And then it turns out that people are storming pillboxes, firing points and trenches. On numerous shots, almost five meters away, a shooting battle occurs and people cannot approach the enemy because of the high risk of dying. The robot would simply jump out and mow down all the targets, and if it were hit, it could be assembled at the factory, but not a person.
  20. +1
    6 September 2022 15: 44
    WELL you give a pancake!!!!
    I have read all messages. This is tin.
    You all argue so much about the appointment of armored personnel carriers in the army ..
    And you know what, based on your messages, I came to the conclusion that in order to bring infantry (shooters) to the deployment line, an armored personnel carrier is not needed ... It's easier to put everyone on a bus and bring them !!!
    An airfield-type bus, so that the doors are on all sides, so that it can accommodate at least half of the platoon, so that it has armor from a revolver bullet, make the windows small, but they will help for better awareness.
    Or in KUNG on a truck ...

    Based on all the ideas, the question arises - why does the Armed Forces need an armored personnel carrier ???
    Well, apart from police and security measures, the armored personnel carrier is otherwise slavb.
    as a vehicle, it loses to both a truck and a bus ... although the vehicle has armor, but they write here that the armored personnel carrier does not even hold 7,62 * 39 ... that is, there will not be much difference in protection between a bus and an armored personnel carrier.
    The firepower of an armored personnel carrier is weaker than that of an infantry fighting vehicle ...
    1. -1
      6 September 2022 16: 20
      That's when the generals remember their own charter, then we'll talk
    2. 0
      6 September 2022 16: 58
      For example Typhoon-K or Typhoon-U.
    3. +1
      6 September 2022 19: 46
      Quote: Evgesha
      It's easier to put everyone on the bus and bring them!!!
      The bus is great, maybe then they will stop sitting on the armor. But what about the cross-country ability of the bus, will it pass through the ruins of cities, across the field? The bus also floats badly, only down. And this means that you are not only tied to bridges (which is fraught), but you will not be able to use streams instead of roads in difficult terrain. Well, and most importantly - how much will a decently booked (at least against 5.56) bus weigh (the area is very large)?
  21. -5
    6 September 2022 15: 54
    Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
    In general, everyone drowns for unloading from behind, this is the front engine that allows.

    Who is all this? All these sheds on wheels like a boxer-shit. The front MTO also increases the height of the car, and together with this the center of gravity + overload of the front wheels. All this together makes foreign coffins an unstable platform for shooting and reduces mobility-by crossroads and water.
  22. -3
    6 September 2022 16: 06
    Quote: DenVB
    Precisely useful. If Kuzhugetych had not come, we would already have had Armata with Afganit and Boomerangs in the troops.

    What are you talking about? The program for creating an engine for Almaty has long been closed. The money was disposed of accordingly https://lenta.ru/news/2020/02/06/t14/.
  23. +2
    6 September 2022 19: 47
    If the price of an armored personnel carrier is comparable to the price of an infantry fighting vehicle, then such an armored personnel carrier is not needed: an infantry fighting vehicle is better.
  24. -1
    6 September 2022 19: 48
    Quote: paul3390
    If, of course, to land troops under head-on fire

    The landing force is generally altered to attack in a deployed rifle chain, so if the enemy’s combat assets are not suppressed by artillery, it doesn’t matter where the motorized rifle came from. But the presence of enhanced armor protection, ATGM, a 2-seater tower with 2A2 stabilized in 42 planes can help the infantry survive.
  25. 0
    6 September 2022 20: 30
    why not just swap the engine and crew? I believe that the place of the engine in the armored personnel carrier should be in the middle, that is, immediately behind the control compartment and the fighting compartment, and the landing force can dismount through the stern and the weight distribution of the vehicle turns out to be balanced ...
    1. 0
      15 September 2022 12: 12
      On MTLB it is. But he's like a tractor laughing
  26. -1
    7 September 2022 14: 48
    Quote: fiberboard
    Che, really! And what caliber do the Ukrainians have on the BTR-4?

    Do you have sidelocks in the keyboard tangled? -See the discus from the very beginning.
  27. 0
    9 September 2022 22: 30
    A powerful civilian diesel engine is the main problem for such vehicles ... and the automatic transmission too ... .. our new BMPs have the same problems
  28. 0
    12 September 2022 15: 00
    Well, dear lovers of the chassis of a walking excavator for the construction of an armored personnel carrier. You can sum it up. He is the result of the Kharkov offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Which was mainly done on light armored vehicles or no armored vehicles at all. It's not about the thickness of the armor, but about the correct use. Using the advantages of technology in the place where they can be used to the maximum.