Heavy armored vehicle battalion

Currently, the Ground Forces has three main classes of armored vehicles to support infantry.

Tracked vehicles with a combat weight of 13-15 tons, representing the BMP class.

Armored personnel carriers on a wheeled chassis, whose appearance and layout go back to a single ancestor - the BTR-60.

Over time, the designations changed (60, 70, 80) and the characteristics grew. But in fact, since 1960, the same type of wheeled armored personnel carrier has been in service, with the same set of advantages and disadvantages.

The third and most numerous class is represented by armored and armed all-terrain vehicles MT-LB, which receive much less attention when covering issues related to armored vehicles.

Within the framework of the Soviet military doctrine

Based on the existing ideas about the "big war" in the European theater of operations, priority was given to mobility and firepower. With similar requirements and indicators of combat weight, all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles received the same level of security. The observed differences in the protection of individual projections do not allow us to assert the clear advantages of one or sometimes a class of armored vehicles.

With the exception of the frontal projection, their cases provide reliable protection only against shots from a hand-held rifle. weapons.

In the technical appearance of the Soviet armored personnel carriers, the possibility of conducting a firefight on the move, without dismounting the landing force, was initially laid down. This requirement is emphasized by the choice of layout - with the placement of the crew and troops in front of the vehicle. To the detriment of security and ease of dismounting - a key requirement for vehicles of the "armored personnel carrier" class. It follows from the observed that instead of a vehicle for delivering infantry to the front line, domestic designers saw an armored personnel carrier, primarily as an analogue of infantry fighting vehicles.

At present, the use of identical combat modules has completely erased the boundaries between classes and the purpose of lightly armored vehicles. Priority is given to combat modules with 30 mm automatic cannons with a reduced recoil force. Such weapons can be equipped not only with armored personnel carriers, but even with light combat vehicles using the chassis of the "Tiger" (BRSHM) or "Kamaz-Shot" (with the combat module "Spoke").

In practical terms, in reports from the combat zone, all models of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and MT-LB transporters constantly duplicate each other's tasks. They are found everywhere - on the roads as part of marching columns, in battle in urban areas and on rough terrain.

BTR-82A provides powerful fire support (Mariupol)

Wheeled armored personnel carriers have better mobility and are able to move along roads without damaging the roadway.

Tracked vehicles retain their advantage off-road.

"Peaceful Soviet tractor" MT-LB is still an indispensable assistant in the rear and on the front lines.

"Kalashnikov assault rifle" among tracked vehicles

For sixty years, motorcycle leagues have made their way onto the battlefield. On the basis of tracked all-terrain vehicles, dozens of variants of combat vehicles for various purposes were created. From medical evacuators and scouts to artillery Gvozdik and Shturm-S and Kornet self-propelled anti-tank systems.

A fresh modification of the MT-LBM 6MB with a turret similar to the BTR-82A with a 30mm automatic cannon. February 2022. Photo by the Russian Ministry of Defense

Proposed for half a century, other options for placing and dismounting troops (side exits of armored personnel carriers, a passageway above the BMP-3 engine) could not surpass the simplest design solutions of the "motorized league" in terms of convenience. Transport compartment for 11 people, with swing doors in the aft of this armed and protected "all-terrain vehicle".

Whether in deep snow or heavily swampy terrain, this nimble and passable machine is unrivaled. Vivid evidence is provided by the examples of motorized rifle divisions of the Leningrad Military District (54th, 64th, 11th and 131st), which, due to the specifics of the terrain, were equipped with MT-LB as the main combat vehicles.

“According to the integral indicator “efficiency-cost”, there are no transporters equal to MT-LB in the world”
(V. Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine).

At present, the main advantage of "moto-leagues", armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles of the Soviet model is their very presence in the troops.

The second important factor is their light weight. Extremely profitable vehicles in terms of army logistics.

For example, the BMP-2 has half the fuel consumption compared to any of the proposed options for promising infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers (Kurganets-25, Boomerang). Not to mention the 55-ton infantry fighting vehicle based on the "Armata" (T-15). How many extra tankers will need to be purchased for the army if motorized riflemen switch to such heavy and "gluttonous" infantry fighting vehicles? This will force a change in the entire supply structure.

Almost any truck tractor is suitable for transporting light armored vehicles. And for towing - a light tow truck (BREM), created on the basis of the same armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

Armored recovery vehicle BREM-K has a mass of 13,6 tons.

Savings also has a downside.

A gap in fifty meters of a 152-mm projectile. A burst of DShK machine guns. Shells of small-caliber guns hitting the armor. On the footage from the war zone, it is noticeable that all light armored vehicles are “flashed” with bullets and shrapnel in the same way as ordinary trucks.

V stands for explosion protection

Many modern models of trucks, created in the interests of the Armed Forces, are superior in security to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. As an example, the Typhoon family of armored vehicles with a combat weight reaching 22 tons (6x6 option).

According to open sources, the body and glazing of the cabin of such a machine “hold” fragments of a 152-mm projectile when it is detonated at a distance of 25 meters. The Typhoon has all-round protection against shots from a 14,5-mm KPV machine gun and, according to military correspondents, is able to withstand a direct hit from a 120-mm mine.

The reality differs from the conditions of the test site, but the presence of 130-mm armored glass with a weight of 22 tons is more likely to confirm the data from the manufacturer and military correspondents.

"Typhoon" turned out to be one and a half times heavier than the BTR-82A. And this is without the presence of water cannons or combat modules. The solid weight of the car is given by the thickness of the metal that enveloped the fighting compartment and the cockpit.

Collaboration tanks and armored vehicles of the Typhoon family (Kamaz-53949) in the Kursk region, a few days before the start of the NWO.

With regard to MRAP equipment (literally - mine-resistant and protected from ambushes), there was a prejudice as about limited combat-ready vehicles, effective only when carrying out counter-terrorism measures.

Various measures to protect vehicles have always been applied. The military from South Africa achieved the most serious successes in this area. But the real "epidemic" of MRAPs occurred at the beginning of the XNUMXst century.

The armies of Western countries, which possessed thousands of units of very advanced military equipment, suddenly moved to protected trucks. Instead of predatory squat armored personnel carriers, clumsy-looking structures with thick armored glass flashed everywhere.

What happened? The logical conclusion: full-time army armored vehicles suddenly turned out to be ineffective in the face of the widespread distribution of weapons that posed a threat to these armored vehicles.

What does ineffective mean? Too heavy? Or is it too expensive to patrol the area?

The light armored vehicles created in the last century turned out to be insufficiently protected. The main Stryker armored personnel carrier (17 tons), even with mounted kits and anti-cumulative grilles, could not provide the protection that the Cougar armored car or its British version of the Mastiff with a mass of 22–23 tons provided.

Replacing conventional automotive technology with MRAP is even easier to explain. Where even Strykers with M1117 combat vehicles (outwardly resembling BRDMs) were considered vulnerable, no one would dare to leave the base gates on the iconic Hammer.

The observed number of protective elements, their type, thickness and location allow us to conclude that MRAP-type armored cars are less vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire. And, probably, they are able to withstand shots from more serious weapons, not only in frontal projection, but also from any other angle.

The declared resistance to explosive devices filled with from 6 to 14 kg of explosives also indicates that MCIs are absolutely in the lead and are superior in security to all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles created in the last century.

Another modern representative of the MRAP is the MaxxPro armored car with the Frag Kit 6 installed KDZ. Compact dimensions and only two axles, with a total weight of the “van” over 15 tons

Foreign variants of MRAPs, due to their tasks and needs, are equipped with manual or automatic turrets with 50-caliber Brownings. Domestic armored cars are increasingly demonstrating the presence of heavy weapons. Including combat modules with automatic guns.

Let me remind you that there are no loud calls to abandon armored personnel carriers in favor of armored trucks. But the facts show the obvious. MRAP-type vehicles allow the crew to survive a close explosion of a six-inch projectile or MLRS rocket. A death sentence for armored personnel carriers from the last century.

High security is able to outweigh all other, real or imagined shortcomings. Less cross-country vehicle chassis or a higher silhouette of the truck (the presence of a v-shaped bottom and greater ground clearance is an inevitable consequence of anti-explosive measures).

Interest in MCI is based on a simple calculation. The use of elements from an automobile truck chassis, combined with the rejection of some of the harsh conditions imposed on traditional armored vehicles, makes it possible to get as much as possible for a lower price. And most importantly, save the time needed to saturate the army with new equipment.

The Stryker killer?

Specially designed military vehicles, such as the VPK-7829 Boomerang, are undoubtedly more preferable and have all the necessary characteristics. There is only one problem with them, and everyone knows what it is about.

At the turn of the 1990-2000s, there was a similar project, known under the designation BTR-90, which had the most important quality. The increase in combat weight to a value of 21 tons (seven tons heavier than the BMP-2) meant a revision of all established canons when creating domestic light armored vehicles.

It was this model of the armored personnel carrier that first had a v-shaped bottom.

The BTR-90 was an interesting and fresh development, ready to replace the BTR-80. Twice as small turning radius, turns on the "tank" due to the difference in the speed of rotation of the wheels on the sides, even higher mobility. A variety of detection tools and a wide selection of combat modules (BMP-2 tower, Bakhcha-U, Berezhok).

BTR-90 and BTR-82

A true "Stryker Killer" with light tank armament and protection that no other light armored vehicle has known.

The BTR-90 was taken to exhibitions for ten years, until in 2006 a decision was made to close the project.

It was the abandonment of the BTR-90 that caused the appearance of the BTR-82A super-armored personnel carrier.

Watching the development stories around the BTR-90, the army clearly understood that there would be no new armored personnel carrier either by 2015 or 2022. The prospect of remaining in the 70st century was threatened only with the obsolete BTR-80 and BTR-XNUMX.

Thus, a decision was made to modernize the BTR-80 in order to bring its characteristics up to modern requirements and extend its service life. The hull remained unchanged, instead of mine protection - an energy-absorbing mat. But the armament of the BTR-82A received the highest marks.

A similar situation has developed with infantry fighting vehicles. With the difference that until recently there was simply no real alternative for the BMP-1/2. The BMP-3, which is considered a new and modern model of the BMP, will soon celebrate its 50th anniversary (I think many will have a “silent scene” at this place).

In view of the many times higher cost of the BMP-3, the reason for the interest in resuming serial deliveries of the BMP-1 (Basurmanin modification, 2018) becomes clear.

The BMP-3 undoubtedly surpasses its predecessors in terms of the sum of combat qualities. But its design does not answer the main question - ensuring security in modern conflicts.

BMP-3 corresponds to the typical for the 1970s. ideas about the infantry fighting vehicle. Aluminum (combined) bulletproof armor with an infantry fighting vehicle mass of about 19 tons.

The side of the BMP is protected by a 43-mm ABT-102 alloy sheet, which, at a meeting angle of about 70 degrees, gives the equivalent of ~ 21 mm of BT-70-Sh steel armor and a 25% weight gain. This solution provides effective protection for the BMP-3 in a frontal attack, when fired from heading angles. But with a direct shot at the side, the protection loses a significant part of its properties.

The illustration shows the results of the shelling of the American M113 armored personnel carrier from a 12,7 mm machine gun. The testers "overdid it" a little, but the result is obvious. The 44 mm thick aluminum armor was pierced through, all the bullets left deep marks in the opposite side of the M113.

The armament of the BMP-3 includes a very unusual 100 mm cannon with a low impulse value. It is not an analogue of tank guns of the same caliber, which were popular in the middle of the twentieth century. The initial velocity of the projectile is only 250 m / s. But there is also a significant advantage.

The lower the pressure in the bore, the thinner the walls can be for an HE projectile and the more it is filled with explosives. Self-propelled assault gun! On the other hand, the 100-mm cannon ammunition is a source of special risks for the landing force, in the event of an armored vehicle being hit.

Main road - on which the tank rides

Modern models of infantry fighting vehicles ("Kurganets-25", СV90, Korean K21) demonstrate the following trends.

The classic idea of ​​the BMP, which is the basis of this class of armored vehicles, has now become irrelevant. No one is counting on combat on the move and the targeted work of motorized riflemen through loopholes, from inside the fighting compartment of the vehicle.

Modern infantry fighting vehicles are, first of all, well-protected vehicles on a cross-country tracked chassis. To deliver infantry to the "hell". Able to also provide convenience and safety when dismounting troops.

The weight and dimensions of such vehicles (from 25 to 40+ tons!) make it possible to have a turret with a small-caliber automatic gun, without compromising the performance of the main task.

To accommodate heavier weapons, special modifications are used. Light tank or fire support vehicle. The creativity of the designers is facilitated by a significant mass of the “base” chassis. For example - the Swedish light tank CV90120T with a 120-mm gun or its further development, the Polish PL-01.

On the "hottest" sectors of the front

A separate topic is related to the creation of heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank chassis. The transformation of a tank into an armored personnel carrier is mainly associated with the arrangement of the fighting compartment and ways out of the vehicle. The problem has three solutions.

The first, and the simplest, in the liberated turret space, an airborne squad is organized, accommodating 7-8 infantrymen. On top, instead of a tank turret, there is an armor plate.

The key disadvantage of such a solution is an inconvenient and dangerous exit - through the upper hatches. The paratroopers have to cross the roof of the engine compartment under fire before jumping to the ground.

Examples are the Israeli armored personnel carriers "Puma", "Nagmashot" and "Nakhmagon" (all three were created on the basis of the obsolete tank "Centurion"), the project of a heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T (based on the T-55) or the BMO-T flamethrower fighting vehicle ( based on the T-72).

The inconvenient exit from the cars was, in part, leveled by the tactics of their use. "Puma" was positioned as a special equipment for engineering units, with a slightly different range of tasks from the armored personnel carrier. "Nahmagon" were more used as self-propelled "forts", from which sorties were infrequently made in the direction of the enemy.

As for the 44-ton BMO-T, who would show such unexpected concern for seven soldiers? If not for one "but". 30 sets of RPO "Bumblebee", which should have been delivered safe and sound to the place of contact with the enemy. BMO-T is primarily a highly protected weapons transport.

Above was an evil irony. You know, it boils when you start counting and comparing facts.

The next option for turning a tank into an armored personnel carrier captivates with its ingenuity. Turn the tank back to front, and here is the desired layout with the placement of the MTO in the front. Instead of the upper armor part, there is a convenient aft ramp for dismounting troops.

The daring idea has its skeptics. Tank roller mounts are designed to move forward. If you constantly run into obstacles in reverse, especially at high speed, the suspension will end too quickly.

Eliminating the problem requires significant intervention in the design of the tank. Shred the entire hull (not counting the replacement of the turret with the troop compartment and other necessary changes). Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a new armored vehicle?

Examples of the Jordanian armored personnel carrier "Temsakh" (based on the same "Centurion") or the experimental Kharkiv BMP-55 prove that a focus with a 180 ° turn of the tank is technically feasible. And it can even be justified in small-scale production.

The third transformation option is considered more effective. From the very beginning, this path scares you with its high cost, but it guarantees a 100% result.

Complete replacement of the engine compartment, with the equipment of a narrow passage leading to the aft ramp. This is what the Israelis did when creating the most massive heavy armored personnel carrier "Ahzarit".

As for the cyclopean armored personnel carrier "Namer", the layout of the "Merkava" with a front-mounted MTO disposed of its creation.

At this point, we cross the 60-ton mass limit, and then the fighting fantasy begins. Project of the 82-ton Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). And other Mouses.

It is much more important to understand what and when will come to replace the extremely light domestic BMP-1 and BTR-82A.

Future will tell.

Comments

[Monster_Fat]

Like the Israeli "Azarkhit"? It is high time. In general, in this sense, the Merkava is what you need. The Israelis have long understood what is required on a modern battlefield for the secure transportation of fighters who are needed in different cases.

[Vladimir_2U]

In general, in this sense, the Merkava is what you need.

Merkava does not carry troops.

[Civil]

The only question is money and production capacity.

[Barberry25]

the question is in the terms of reference. BMP-87 or BMP-3 dragoons + assault infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank, something like BMO-T with a combat module. Those. you need to do it on a proven chassis, this is a lot of money saved and industry opportunities

[Materialist]

Highly mobile machines for extremely fast death?
Why re-armor the BMP-3 if its chassis can withstand a little more than the estimated stock weight?
Any re-booking of an already created vehicle that does not protect against massive (!) Means of destruction is nonsense
If we are talking solely about mobility, then why modernize anything, if the BTR-60-80 should suit, and there is no need to build Typhoons of all stripes and other disposable thin-walled mines so desired by the military-industrial complex capitalists

[Barberry25]

Do you need non-mobile vehicles for quick death? Wheeled vehicles, unlike tracked vehicles, allow you to make large forced marches without losing vehicles on the march and a long process "you need to check everything, how it is there."

About rebooking the BMP-3: i.e. hinged armor packages that are now offered can no longer be installed on the BMP-3? and yes, what does "from mass means of destruction" mean, what kind of term?

About "only about mobility and the BTR-60" .. please, you can carry your carcass yourself in a box that has an armor thickness of 7 mm, and let other soldiers ride KAMAZ Shot / Bulat, which has an armor thickness of 16 mm. Although it’s not for you to sit under armor .. it’s softer on the couch

[Materialist]

Highly mobile vehicles in the context of your comment imply an imbalance towards mobility, if the losses of tracked vehicles in the troops on the marches are commensurate with their losses of wheeled vehicles on the battlefield, then something in these troops is not something, or they mixed up who should drive across the battlefield , and someone along the routes in supply, or they cannot provide quality service

There is a constructive calculation for that extra. weight mounted dz for her? Mass means of destruction - statistically the most damaging military equipment weapons on the battlefield (in particular, RPGs, ptura)

The armored personnel carrier 60 and Kamaz, regardless of their armor, will most likely be hit in the same way as tanks if they are rolled out onto the battlefield, especially since their armor somehow implies protection against small arms, the "all or nothing" principle works here "and mediocre options will not even go beyond half measure, they do not satisfy any of the requirements with either armor or mobility, this is only an assessment of their combat "effectiveness"
The variety of light armored vehicles in itself is due to their ease of manufacture and adaptability to mass production, which means that it is easier to get a defense order for them and, naturally, the desire of each office will differ in the form and not the essence of their production (Shot, Tiger, Typhoon (two-axle), abundance armored Urals and Kamaz)

[Barberry25]

but nothing that we have that BMP-2, that BTR-82/87, Shot, Bulat have a similar level of booking? By the way, tell me how you will act on tanks after breaking through the front? Or do you think there were fools in the USSR, so they made wheeled vehicles instead tanks? and yes, here we have 300 K troops formed .. how is it easier and faster to equip them: wheeled mrap / armored personnel carriers or some heavy tracked armored personnel carriers?

[Materialist]

Tanks after breaking through the front completely lose the ability to move?
The USSR counted on the wrong war to cite them as an example, by the way, all the wheeled vehicles of the USSR did not begin with military vehicles, but became such only after the "evolution" in the latter from armored vehicles
If you have 300k troops suddenly formed and you want to equip them with mrap for combat, prepare the next few 300k
The inability of capitalist industry to ensure the proper qualitative and quantitative state of the machines produced, and the military theory of their concept, wars will continue to be wasteful, as they are beneficial to the holders of the mentioned military-industrial complex

[Barberry25]

1) tanks have a very limited offensive resource i.e. using them to develop an offensive after a breakthrough is still a perversion .. Your problem is stupid idealism .. Can you now put 300 thousand infantry on tanks? No, you can provide them with heavy armored infantry fighting vehicles based on tanks in the RIGHT time? you can build a particularly developed communist out of yourself as much as you like, but you CANNOT give birth to the REQUIRED number of heavy armored personnel carriers during the REQUIRED period. it’s normal, but it’s necessary to provide the mobilized with heavy tank armored personnel carriers, which no one has seen in the eye .. So your Wishlist will lead to the fact that our mobilized ones will not have armored vehicles AT ALL .. well, who are you after that?
You are not even an enemy, you are worse than an enemy.

[Materialist]

Apparently, none of the readers realized that I was not talking about the possibility of their production, especially in a short time, but about the need
You have already accurately described the current state of the weakness of the industry, the military use what they have, relying for the most part on nominal armor
Once again, if suddenly (!), You have 300 thousand soldiers, and you stupidly shrug your shoulders regarding their proper provision with proper (!) Equipment in the right time, this is a failure
You apparently didn’t understand me, I don’t mean “tanks” as actually available equipment as the only correct ones, I wrote about the need to use only highly protected and only equipment on the front end, their technical and tactical capabilities are another matter
The use in combat conditions of vehicles with armor of 7, 20,30 or at least 50 mm, in any projections, will have no difference, all other things being equal, since now equipment is knocked out with ATGMs, RPGs, crowbars (from which cash tanks turn out to be useless), artillery, and even re-booking the car to any level that does not protect against all of the above - consider time and effort down the drain
I, therefore, am worse than the enemy, but here’s the question of why the military-industrial complex cannot provide the proper number of heavy vehicles, you don’t put it and talk about its absurdity, presenting the forcedly used technique as the only true tactical one, and not how it really is -financial plan

[Barberry25]

Well then, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. On the question of why the military-industrial complex does not supply the required number of heavy vehicles: everything is simple, the task is not set, at least 2 samples of the BTR-T and BMO-T were presented for the Moscow Region at one time, but apart from the purchase of a limited series for chemists / flamethrowers, there was no progress .In fact, the main ground forces should be heavy armored personnel carriers based on the T-72/90 with KAZ systems and an uninhabited combat module, which should be supported by heavy infantry fighting vehicles (infantry support combat vehicles), and in fact a tank with a Bakhcha combat module and a turret mounted AGS for example ... but this is all from the category of dreaming in the future ... I automatically look at what needs to be done now .. although I would convert a limited series of, say, old t-55 / t-62 into support vehicles by installing either Troychatka in the tower, or stuffing from Berezhka in the manner of the Algerians, but only by installing weapons and FCS on the base tower, but these are mri and half-solutions for testing the approach itself

[Materialist]

In theory, for all front-line combat vehicles, one base is advisable, and as the vehicles themselves there will be something resembling an existing one, the tank itself in its classic form, BMPT (in theory, the most versatile vehicle with a 30-mm long-barreled and ATGM) and infantry fighting vehicles, like an operator and transport vehicle (it is unlikely that in this perspective the infantry will have any important role as an independent branch of the armed forces, so their direct support will not be needed and it will be, rather, an armored personnel carrier without serious weapons, and even more so combat modules
I won’t guess what it is possible to do now, but I doubt very much that in real realities it is in principle possible to change the approach to the method of warfare (the reasons for this are at the root of the capitalist system, and not specifically the Russian military-industrial complex), therefore I didn’t write about urgent needs, but only about failures and prospects
By promising front-line combat vehicles, I do not mean existing ones, it is only possible that they will very vaguely resemble them (for a speculative picture, the same BMPT will have to lose its combat module in the form in which it now takes place on the Terminators, and tanks , inevitably, will have to lose that "classic" inhabited tower, but their successor will kind of resemble both predecessors at the same time

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Civil

The only question is money and production capacity.

It will no longer be a Merkava.

[user]

The only question is money and production capacity.

No, you are deeply mistaken. The soil in the same Donbass varies greatly and makes it impossible for the normal combat use of such modernized vehicles, during rainy weather or in autumn, without special equipment. Operation of Merkava-type monsters only in local conditions, as in Israel. By the way, there are not many places on the territory of Russia for the use of this kind of combat vehicles year-round.

[Materialist]

And the special equipment, then, hovers above the ground?
The issue of all-terrain combat vehicles is the issue of their specific weight and power plants

[user]

And the special equipment, then, hovers above the ground?

No, it's just that there is a chance to quickly pull out the technique if it lies on the belly.

[GAndr]

In general, it carries ... there is a small compartment for landing at the back.

[Vladimir_2U]

It was still somehow possible with a 105 mm gun, but with a 120 mm gun, everything, only laying and an evacuation corridor, narrow and short.

[Dmitry Tsarevich]

If the film "Lebanon" does not lie to us, it carries.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Dmitry Tsarevich

If the film "Lebanon" does not lie to us, it carries.

Is this the film where the Jewish modernization of the Centurion is in the lead role and the interior seems to be in the main turret of a light cruiser, no less? Of course he doesn't lie...

[insafufa]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In general, in this sense, the Merkava is what you need.

Merkava does not carry troops.

It can evacuate up to two people except for the crew there are seats in the back.

[futurohunter]

Vladimir_2U
Merkava does not carry troops

Carries. Google it. 6 people landing

[Atlas]

there is room for several infantrymen in it

[Shark Lover]

Probably the same way the Nazis prayed for the royal tigers and ferdinands. However, they are burning. There will be opposition to any equipment that massively participates in the war. Merkava is good, good until he takes part in the war. What he is doing now is not a war, so a child prodigy. With such a task, and 72 ka to cope, with proper application.

[Sith]

At the time when the Nazis made the ferdinant, the royal tiger and the jagdtiger ... the allies had not only tanks already, but also attack aircraft ... ptabs and bunks ... that is, a heavy and not agile tank without proper artillery cover was carried also from the air
and if it didn’t break, then it was damaged ... and pulling a heavy colossus for repairs was also not easy

[Kusja]

Duc instructions for undermining were available in case of impossibility of evacuation. In short, it was easier for the Hans to rush the tiger than to carry out the evacuation of a heavy, huge colossus ...

[Santa Fe]

Probably the same way the Nazis prayed for the royal tigers and ferdinands

The Nazis prayed for 90 thousand units of armored vehicles in the Wehrmacht

Our figures are 112 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns (combat-ready on June 22, released during the war, lend-lease)

Yes, there were periods the Germans actively fought on two fronts. But their repair capabilities exceeded ours by an order of magnitude. So 90 thousand may well be 180, the damaged MTO tanks were changed in the field

Tigers and Ferdinands are the tip of the iceberg, it’s just that people don’t know other names, they aren’t interested. "Top" equipment for the most important tasks, such equipment was and is part of any army. What questions to them were first-class cars

Where did 90 thousand units of BTT come from?

For example, the Wehrmacht industry produced ... 8500 chassis of the PzKpfw II tank. 2000 of them became PzKpfw II tanks. But what happened to the rest? Rotted in a warehouse?

On the chassis of the T-II tank, Marder II anti-tank self-propelled guns, Vespe self-propelled field howitzers, assault guns with 150 mm Sturmpanzer II howitzers were produced.
This is literally 1500 machines. But where did the rest of the chassis of the PzKpfw II tank go?

The rest were used as armored ammunition carriers, armored medical evacuators, ARVs, engineering tanks, mail armored vehicles, cable layers, fire spotters, light reconnaissance vehicles, military tractors ... And this equipment is almost NEVER taken into account

Although such ammunition carriers radically increased the effectiveness of armored units and artillery batteries. Armored medical evacuators helped save the lives of experienced crews

Or 15 "light and obsolete" armored personnel carriers and vehicles of special modifications SdKfz 000, weighing 251 tons with a variety of weapons

One fact that he was the 251st in the through numbering of the military industry says a lot

[Vladimir Yurievich]

Yes, you are just a fan of the "Wehrmacht industry"
90 thousand armored vehicles... 112 thousand armored vehicles...
How do you do it this way, from what sources does the data add up like that?

[Santa Fe]

How do you do it this way, from what sources does the data add up like that?

“An amazing story is connected with the armored vehicles of the Wehrmacht - an extraordinary variety of designs, the fantastic performance and resourcefulness of the workers of the German industry, the prudent use of all resources that fell into the hands of the Germans, including captured armored vehicles - all this made counting the number of German tanks an almost impossible task.

This circumstance is shamelessly used by the authors of the bestsellers "Tank Pogrom of 1941", "Where 28 Soviet Tanks Disappeared", "Icebreaker", "Day "M", "Who Fought in Numbers, and Who - in Skill". In each of the "revealing" books there is a deafening comparison ... "

https://topwar.ru/25238-skolko-tankov-bylo-u-gitlera-otkroveniya-viktora-suvorova.html

10 years ago, while still very young then, I became interested and collected material on this topic. I consider it one of my best articles.

An estimate of ~90 was given here on the site by one modeler and fan of armored vehicles (nickname Kars). I didn’t believe it, we argued with him, he showed the direction where to look, what to watch and where to look

After counting the German menagerie, I no longer have reason to doubt that the Germans had no less tanks and armored vehicles than we did. And everyone was smashed to smithereens, defeated, captured, capitulated, the rest - 0.

Yes, you're just a fan of the "Wehrmacht industry" lol

Read the article, it contains all the theses

You will no longer want to draw laughing emoticons

[Materialist]

The task is to make it impossible to defeat front-line combat vehicles from weapons carried by infantry (that is, from the most massive), almost no modern tank is an impressively protected vehicle, even from the largest projection-sides, no one this is not necessary, given that all destroyed tanks are a new defense order

[SergioPetrov]

The Germans liked the Tiger1 more than the second.

[PROXOR]

I would look at your merkava on the chernozem of the NWO. And who and what will pull out this 70 ton colossus.

[Zaurbek]

This is a modern device for its functions. There is also a compromise. and a common cart for a heavy armored personnel carrier. In view of the assault operations, a heavy armored personnel carrier is much more important to us than new tanks. We have failed in terms of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

[Santa Fe]

I would look at your merkava on the chernozem of the NWO. And who and what will pull out this 70 ton colossus.

Ground Pressure
for T-90M, 0,98 kg / cm2 is indicated
for Merkava-4, 1,12 kg / cm2 is indicated

Such a difference is hardly significant. For comparison, tanks of past generations (T-62) have a ground pressure of 0,75 kg / cm2, modern T-90Ms have much more, but this does not prevent them from being used in NWO

The main problem of the Merkava is the consequences of breaking through the frontal armor. Behind her immediately MTO, And in which case you have to sort out the engine?

In our country, such a solution was used in the BMP-1,2 and was abandoned, in the BMP-3 they did the right thing, they moved the engine back. Too expensive unit to lose it every time you break through the armor

[PROXOR]

However, the first time you don’t get it, plus you’re still trying to pull an owl on the globe with your laughs. In addition to black soil, there are limit loads on public roads and bridges. Permissible load on the pontoon bridge.
Merkava has never taken part in hostilities with an equal enemy and only a complete amateur or a kosher comrade can fap to the front location of the MTO (these foaming at the mouth will prove that their merkava is the most)

[WapentakeLokki]

yes, but what can you say for Abrash with his ~ 65 tons and a goose with rubber bast shoes (Schaub not to spoil the asphalt) .. and in your opinion the Leopard M2 is also somewhere close to 70 tons .. this is a hallmark of ALL NATO equipment, although ..our already failed star named ARMATA also rolled out beyond 40 tons (T-64..T-72..T-80..T-90..)

[PROXOR]

You are not writing to me.
As for 40 tons, then you, my friend, are lost somewhere. Russian tanks have long approached 50k.
And I agree with NATO tanks. These are autobahn tanks.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

Yeah. Especially when you consider that the super-heavy tank "Merkava" was created for the rocky Nagev desert, and not for the mud and rivers of the Eastern European theater of operations.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5

Especially when you consider that the super-heavy tank "Merkava" was created for the rocky Nagev desert, and not for the mud and rivers of the Eastern European theater of operations.

But the dirt is there too, it comes across

[APASUS]

Quote: Bad_gr

But the dirt is there too, it comes across

It is worth paying attention to what kind of dirt is there. Very liquid and the equipment just sits on the belly. Chernozem in Ukraine would have scored all the skating rinks and the Merkava most likely would not have rolled there, from the word at all

[Aaron Zawi]

The Namer column impresses with its power.

[PROXOR]

Yeah. The guys in the NWO do not have enough of such a machine. T-15 is expensive, HIGH with him. Well, do it on the basis of 72ek. What is the problem? 72k in storage seemed to be DOSHISH.

[fighter angel]

Let them run in battles, take part, then it will be possible to say something about "power".
So far, apart from beautiful pictures, there is nothing to talk about.

[Santa Fe]

The development of armored vehicles in the period 1930-1940s. and in our time

[Vladimir_2U]

And what do you mean by that? T-62 started to produce? The rest, except for the T-14, was used initially and is being used intensively, the T-90Ms go to the troops, the modernized T-72s go to the troops. T-62 in the second line of our troops.

[Rome]

This is a hint among the bourgeois that in the victorious war against the Nazis, Soviet tanks were developing from light to heavy, and in the war against "democratic" Ukraine, degradation is taking place, due to losses from promising and modern to obsolete!

[WapentakeLokki]

well, just like in a joke .. for not having the duchess's estate, we'll have a miner ... but the fact that Europe has exhausted everything that the USSR threw draping (at the suggestion of the MSG) and the T-55 from Africa was used .. and M-113 (greetings from Vietnam )..it’s not up to fat, but ANY armor is better than its absence is not ???

[Rome]

Of course any armor is better than nothing! As they say, it's better to go badly than to go well.
The West can turn up its nose for now, based on the fact: the Armed Forces of Ukraine are fighting with us on used equipment, and we use the best we have, and the result, let’s say, is not at all what we expected! Somehow, our modern technology does not demonstrate obvious superiority on the battlefield over their junk!

[Barberry25]

here, the picture is clearly not the topic .. if you don’t remember how at certain moments of the Second World War they made absolute ersatz to cover the needs of the front ... the same su-76

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

the same su-76

You haven’t remembered the T-60 yet. )))

[Barberry25]

in, exactly, absolutely right. so the quantity is very important

[Bayun]

Have you seen a NATO wedge size T26 in the Baltics? With an ambush approach, this "trifle" with anti-tank systems can burn 3-4 serious cars.

[karabas-barabas]

This is a German Wiesel, a very cool armored personnel carrier, the base one has a 20mm cannon, on a 1000m squirrel it hits a point and is more powerful than 2A42 due to BOPS. Very nimble and fast machine. Moreover, the armor is better than that of the BMD, it holds fragments and 7,62B3. There are options with ATGMs, and for the US Army there are 120mm mortars on Wiesels, probably the most interesting Wiesels. Just reconnaissance groups on such "wedges" move around and can quite ambush a convoy of motorized riflemen and beat it up badly.

[demiurg]

I understand that Kaptsov and here sketches are simply mandatory, but still.
Max is full of videos where they dug up to their nostrils in soft soil. Gravity and its daughter, ground pressure are heartless. Two axles will in no way replace four with increased mass. All these jeeps, no matter how much armor you put on them, are not suitable for attacking actions. And if you can agree with mine protection in the realities of the NWO, then why armor the sides in the same way as the forehead? Differentiated armor was introduced during the Second World War. Remind me why?
No need to pump on the BTR-80 and its derivatives. First you need to read the statutes. An armored personnel carrier is needed to deliver soldiers to the battlefield. The armored personnel carrier should not accompany the columns in the rear (this is precisely the task of the jeeps with machine guns). The armored personnel carrier should not go on the attack. And it suddenly turns out that the armored personnel carrier we have is quite good for ourselves (by the way, this also applies to the MTLB, which was generally born as an artillery tractor). BMP-1 and 2 should be replaced by a troika, but this is a matter of time, which simply was not enough.

Why did they remember Rostock, why did you like this freak? The armor is worse, the size is larger than that of the BMP-3. The weight is comparable to the BMP-3, if you hang additional armor on the BMP. There are 4 tons more in stock.

T14 and T-15 will never become massive.

I used to come here to learn something new, to communicate with those who, at least from afar, touched this new thing.
Now I read Mitrofanov and am happy with Kaptsova (Oleg, though a snowstorm, writes interestingly).

[Rome]

With the accuracy of modern artillery, all the same, the armored personnel carrier must keep fragments from 155mm at a fairly close distance, even when performing a transport task.
And apparently, active protection against ATGMs should probably be provided as long as it moves in the "risk zone" (and given the increase in the firing range of ATGMs by tens of kilometers and their launch from UAVs, the risk zone is everywhere along the way! Where possible, AZ works in combat mode, and where not, with the automatic use of "smoke" and optical interference (Shtora) and electronic warfare against the Radar seeker.
Within the framework of a network-centric war, perhaps it should be a relay of the "combat Internet" or I don't know in what capacity, but the machine should be an element of the "combat control system of the troops", namely, to support this system and be its user.
Again, the machine must, within the framework of a network-centric war, have a good set of lighting conditions, and in automatic mode! (Thermal imagers, active protection radar, which at the same time works as a ground and air reconnaissance radar, detect quadrocopters).
The presence of electronic warfare is mandatory, against shells with a radio fuse and the ability to jam UAVs at some distance!
Like it or not, modern technology should be stuffed with electronics

[demiurg]

All the stuffing that you propose to shove into the cardboard? Sew a shirt to a button? Berezhok or Bakhcha costs twice as much as an infantry fighting vehicle. And you offer much more advanced functionality. An armored personnel carrier, by definition, should be cheap.

[Rome]

If we agree with the fact that network-centric warfare is the future, then the army needs to be equipped with "cheap" equipment, but capable of being used effectively in modern warfare!
Fantasy is possible, but if all combat vehicles and military vehicles are equipped with reception-transmission complexes and, most importantly, data transmission, then from such machines it is possible to create a system similar to Starlink, only ground-based! And if you add a little brains to the machines, then you can form a combat neural network from them which, independently relying on its own sensors, which all machines are equipped with, will be able to instantly assess the situation at the front and issue recommendations to the command with ready-made solutions. What does this mean: a conditional armored personnel carrier detects thermal targets with its thermal imager, there is no previous mention of this target in the memory of the neural network. There is an automatic notification of the crew and troops about a possible ambush and an exact indication of its position, as well as a request to identify the target (enemy, civilian, stray cow), in parallel, a free means of destruction is already being determined (Msta S, or T62 that crawls past from the rembase) information automatically displayed at the command responsible for the area! And all this happens in seconds!
And such a reaction to any changes, all calculations are made automatically anticipating the development of events, the commander only needs to say: "At the target!" and that's it!
What are the chances of cheap armored personnel carriers against such an army? This war of a blind cripple with a sighted and healthy enemy!
You need to save, but not at the expense of combat capability

[Just a guest]

Why the crew? Dozens of operators are sitting in a bunker somewhere a thousand kilometers away, drinking tea, and in this situation, the equipment itself drives across the battlefield, destroying the enemy. Large-scale need to think. What are you limiting the flight of your thought?

[Rome]

The essence of fantasy is not to create an army of cyborgs. The task of the neural network is to help the troops (the real task today). Those. AI independently, having its own communication channels parallel to the command systems, analyzes the situation using ALL the sensors available in the army, without affecting their use, having its own sensors mounted on equipment and informing everyone who is supposed to in a given situation about the enemy, about the state of emergency, about failure in actions (breakdown for example). This system does not issue orders, but only analyzes the situation and reports incidents in a timely manner, while simultaneously preparing orders to respond to the situation, and the commanders already decide to use the proposed solution, or decide for themselves what to do. This is the meaning of my fantasy and this is a very real task for the near future.

[Nordsc0l]

It's called BIUS. And such a thing has been put on tanks for 10 years already. True, tanks are not for you. For example, it is on Armata or K 2

[Glory1974]

An armored personnel carrier is needed to deliver soldiers to the battlefield. The armored personnel carrier should not accompany the columns in the rear (this is precisely the task of the jeeps with machine guns).

And if a company on an armored personnel carrier follows to the battlefield, should jeeps accompany it with machine guns? No. The armored personnel carrier is designed just for this, for transporting people under armor with the possibility of self-defense, and this is called column escort.

Why did they remember Rostock, why did you like this freak? The armor is worse, the size is larger than that of the BMP-3. The weight is comparable to the BMP-3, if you hang additional armor on the BMP. There are 4 tons more in stock.

Survival in an armored personnel carrier is three times better than in an infantry fighting vehicle. That's why he can't be ugly. From this point of view, the dead-end path is the BMP-2,3 and beyond.
BTR-80 is not bad, Rostock should be even better. Yes, it is heavier, but this is a price for security.

[demiurg]

For a long time, on the battlefield, the survival rate even in the BTR-80 has become better than in at least the second BMP?
When a mine explodes, the chance to survive is greater in an armored personnel carrier, but when shelling a 12.7 / 14.5 infantry fighting vehicle, it will be preferable.

[Glory1974]

There are no statistics on NMD, but all previous military operations show that armored personnel carriers are safer than infantry fighting vehicles. I’m not ready to give an alignment by type of defeat, the figures are general for all losses.

[cold wind]

The following stratification of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles is going on in the world:
Light wheeled up to 18-20 tons
Medium wheeled up to 25-30 tons
Caterpillar 35-45 tons

Of course, there are unicorns, but they are an exception.
For the gifted.
The armored personnel carrier stands for armored personnel carrier, i.e. armored vehicles, this includes anything that has armor and can carry people and / or cargo.
BMP - all the same but armed with a gun, guns start with a caliber of 20 mm.

[Glory1974]

so we have a BTR-82 is an infantry fighting vehicle? He is with a 30 mm cannon.

[cold wind]

Quote: glory1974

so we have a BTR-82 is an infantry fighting vehicle? He is with a 30 mm cannon.

Yes, sure. And they use it as an infantry fighting vehicle, video in the article.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: glory1974

so we have a BTR-82 is an infantry fighting vehicle? He is with a 30 mm cannon.

Domestic armored personnel carriers are a very strange thing. Officially, they are classified as armored personnel carriers, that is, vehicles designed to deliver infantry to the battlefield. And their protection corresponds to the armored personnel carrier.
But according to the method of application in accordance with the Charter and in terms of armament, they are more likely to refer to infantry fighting vehicles.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It was strange in the performance of the BTR-60/70/80 with a manual machine gun and a belt of 50 rounds. And now, in the performance of the BTR-82A with a 30-mm cannon, this is a very formidable combat vehicle.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It was strange in the performance of the BTR-60/70/80 with a manual machine gun and a belt of 50 rounds.

This was just the classic armored personnel carrier - an armored taxi for infantry and a platform for special vehicles.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And now, in the performance of the BTR-82A with a 30-mm cannon, this is a very formidable combat vehicle.

Without armor. Eggshell armed with mallets. ©
BTR and who joined them artillery tractors have nothing to do in infantry combat formations at all. But in our country, since Soviet times, any armor has been stubbornly shoved into the first line.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Here is just one point to continue the discussion. When ambushed, an outdated armored personnel carrier with a machine gun, a short belt and a manual drive is a victim, and a modern cannon armored personnel carrier is a formidable enemy, which is more expensive to mess with.
And idle arguments about the preference for an almost unarmed machine-gun armored taxi can be left for amateurs.
A good example of an armored personnel carrier as a platform is the mobile reconnaissance point PRP-5 "Mars-2000", where they were able to install a machine gun without compromising the main purpose of the vehicle. Armament is very important even on special vehicles.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Here is just one point to continue the discussion. When ambushed, an outdated armored personnel carrier with a machine gun, a short belt and a manual drive is a victim, and a modern cannon armored personnel carrier is a formidable enemy, which is more expensive to mess with.

So I don’t argue about the rear - there the enemy either has a portable rifle, or already an RPG, from which only tank armor with remote sensing will save. So the BTR-82A is more or less suitable for the rear. Although there is another question - is the protection of the infantry transported in this armored personnel carrier sufficient from the defeat of the GGE 155-mm projectiles with remote detonation, if the enemy decides to work out the column with artillery?
But in our country, the BTR-82A, tempted by powerful weapons, is constantly put in the first line, where the enemy has everything that can be carried away and taken away. And as a result, the armored personnel carrier most of the time is forced not to engage in fire support for the infantry, but to try to survive under fire and find shelter.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Do you even understand what you are writing? That someone, tempted by the powerful weapons of the BTR-82A, puts him in the front line. That is, to paraphrase, so that someone is not tempted by its combat use, the armored personnel carrier must be disarmed?
You have marshal's epaulettes for what merits?
ps I wonder if you started pushing ideas about the disarmament of the BTR-3 and BTR-4 in Ukraine, how much would you stretch there?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Do you even understand what you are writing? That someone, tempted by the powerful weapons of the BTR-82A, puts him in the front line. That is, to paraphrase, so that someone is not tempted by its combat use, the armored personnel carrier must be disarmed?

Skill "think up" - 146%.
I am writing that, despite the relatively powerful armament, the BTR-82A remains an armored personnel carrier. And they use it as an infantry fighting vehicle. It's like putting a Bushmaster module on the M113 and sending this miracle to the motorized infantry squads.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

ps I wonder if you started pushing ideas about the disarmament of the BTR-3 and BTR-4 in Ukraine, how much would you stretch there?

So on 404, no matter what they say, the school remained the same - Soviet. And they also fence cardboard boxes with guns, using them later as infantry fighting vehicles.
Although they have attempts to rectify the situation - the same BTR-4MV with its 25 tons, 4 of which were spent on additional booking.

[single-n]

The difference is in the method of application.
The task of the BRT is to bring the infantry to the front line, and then hide somewhere. It will of course be used as a mobile firing point, but this is an auxiliary function.
But the BMP is fighting along with the infantry. This is actually an infantry support tank, a sort of t-26. Hence the completely different requirements for weapons.
It's just that a wheeled chassis is cheaper to operate and the road network is very developed in the west. Hence a lot of so-called. wheeled tanks. Or heavy armored cars, whichever you prefer. According to our rams, you will even drown in a goose. :) Plus, it’s not very good with our car industry. Here are few suitable chassis.

[Alexander_Dneprovsky]

I think heavy infantry fighting vehicles should be created with protection from modern MANPADS, at least on heading courses.

[shikin]

MANPADS? Probably wanted to write anti-tank systems? And that's a little funny.

[Alexander_Dneprovsky]

According to the idea, an armored personnel carrier is created for military transportation. A BMP for landing, supporting infantry and tanks. The BTR-82 turns out to be overgrown in terms of armament, this was done in order to get cheap vehicles to replace full-fledged infantry fighting vehicles.

[Wildcat]

Can it be better about battleships, really? I remember there was a good article on April XNUMX ....

With regard to MRAP equipment (literally - mine-resistant and protected from ambushes), there was a prejudice as about limited combat-ready vehicles, effective only when carrying out counter-terrorism measures.
Various measures to protect vehicles have always been applied. The military from South Africa achieved the most serious successes in this area. But the real "epidemic" of MRAPs occurred at the beginning of the XNUMXst century.
The armies of Western countries, which possessed thousands of units of very advanced military equipment, suddenly moved to protected trucks. Instead of predatory squat armored personnel carriers, clumsy-looking structures with thick armored glass flashed everywhere.
What happened? The logical conclusion: full-time army armored vehicles suddenly turned out to be ineffective in the face of the widespread distribution of weapons that posed a threat to these armored vehicles.

Answers for curious readers.
While in the European theater the military was preparing to meet armored armies, South Africa was at war with "rebels" who liked to lay mines, and more. And so the South African MCIs were born.
When World War 3 did not happen, but the Global War on Terrorism (GVOT) happened, where improvised explosive devices suddenly became the main problem, NATO armies had a ready-made example of how to do it - you need to do MCI.
No one refuses from "predatory squat" armored personnel carriers because of MCIs, and from infantry fighting vehicles too. It's just that in terms of finances, it became possible to have in armor not only the "first" line, but also the "second" one too, up to armored trucks.
And MCIs, after some reduction in the GVOT front, began to be given "somewhere", because they are not particularly needed. "Somewhere" the Marders would like (armor and caterpillars, that's what you need to cut through the black soil), but they get Dingoes, which are for "patrol on a flat surface."

The classic idea of ​​the BMP, which is the basis of this class of armored vehicles, has now become irrelevant. No one is counting on combat on the move and the targeted work of motorized riflemen through loopholes, from inside the fighting compartment of the vehicle.
Modern infantry fighting vehicles are, first of all, well-protected vehicles on a cross-country tracked chassis. To deliver infantry to the "hell".

We carefully look at the panzergnenders on the Puma, who regularly stick their heads out of the hatches with machine guns


We are carefully watching the panzergrenadiers on Marder, who - a miracle unknown to Kaptsov - are also trained to fight without dismounting.


Yes, what is it! We are watching the infantry on the Strykers - they also stick out of the upper hatches with weapons! Do they not read Kaptsov?!


PS. There is such a thing as situational awareness. And "weapon reaction time". It is because of these things that good infantry tries to control the situation around with "heads and weapons" - even with good armor.

P.P.S. But riding "on armor", beautifully resting your foot somewhere, is a relic of the past, IMHO. It would be good for the "fathers-commanders" to work out such things with the infantry, and not the "tank ballet".

PPPS. Too lazy to comment on the whole article.

[Catfish]

You are evil, Kotyara, and malicious. So soon Kaptsov and kapets will come!

Rollers are good, thanks.

[Wildcat]

Well, Kaptsov also had creative success!

As I remember now, it was spring, the weather was lovely, and I just read an article about the modernization of Japanese battleships: "At an altitude of 100 meters above sea level, there are bridges of space communications on VHF frequencies, general detection radars and stabilized radar posts for target illumination. One of the main elements in the construction of the “pagoda” was the additional (seventh) tower of the main caliber, located in the middle part of the superstructure, between the bridges of electronic reconnaissance and signal stroboscopes."- ahhh, only then" caught up "!!!

Or here: "In previous years, the efforts of designers were aimed at reducing the upper stage of ICBMs and masking multiple warheads in a cloud of false targets on the descending trajectory. Now the situation has changed. In connection with the deployment of interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe, we have decided to completely abandon the upper stage and all the risks associated with the take-off of missiles. In exchange, we have created tracked missiles that will travel to designated targets on the ground, bypassing enemy missile defense lines. The purpose of the complex is reflected in its name - "Crawler", according to NATO classification - Point Blank ("shot at close range")"

Or, Kaptsov looked into the near future:
"- So you have mastered the funds, but did not do anything at all?
- All updated PGRKs are now equipped with a hydraulic booster for the ignition key.

[Catfish]

Yes, about Japanese battleships it’s just lovely, the face just blurred into a smile on its own.
Something so-so unimaginable.

[_palych_]

The "Pumas" broke down, 18 pieces during the exercises, all went out of order in 8 days. So, for a change, they could insert a video about it, such as "look carefully" where they are to the black earth, if they burn from training firing on their own.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: _palych_

The Pumas broke down, 18 pieces during the exercises, all were out of order in 8 days.

Yes, an interesting story, but it has nothing to do with reality. They put deer on these Cougars, which did not comply with a lot of operating rules, and in 2 weeks almost all the machines began to have "monstrous breakdowns", for example, the LED bulb burned out, the fuse was knocked out, the filter was clogged, or when loading the BC, they did not follow some procedures, etc. here are the journalists and wrote about 14 of the 16 Cougars killed in the trash. When the commission visited there, some were at a loss, many wondered why it was done. And one of the well-known 4-star generals of the Bundeswehr and NATO, after the scandal, repeated that the Puma is the best BMP in the world at the moment. There is a version that the German Defense Ministry needed a scandal when it was under pressure from arms supplies, it was about the Marders, in my opinion.

[Santa Fe]

We are carefully watching the panzergrenadiers on Marder, who - a miracle, unknown to Kaptsov - are also trained fight without dismounting.

We watch the infantry on the Strykers - too from the upper hatches with weapons stick out!

The idea of ​​​​the Soviet BMP actually consisted of something else

Do not crawl out from under the armor; for this, so many loopholes were equipped inside for firing from AK and PK

You wildcat argue with yourself

[Gippo]

It is much more important to understand what and when will come to replace the extremely light domestic BMP-1 and BTR-82A.

Blah la blah.
Useless chatter and then the same question.
For me, the meaning of this article is lost. Written for the sake of writing.
A set of common phrases, without analyzing the possibilities of the modern market with pricing.
We have nothing in Russia, from the word at all. Well, or "Kurganets" in a spherical vacuum.
We fight on the technology of the 80s of the last century. And there is no replacement. And it's not expected.
Or are you talking about ceremonial calculations and urya-urya? There is still no heavy infantry fighting vehicle in Russia.
We must face the truth, otherwise it is a betrayal and a lie.

[WapentakeLokki]

and what is there in Russia in general (at least from those 70% of new ones (in the Russian Armed Forces and the Aerospace Forces) what do we .. hm .. Shoigu broadcast with aplomb ??? ... no, there is something (yeah, not having a Taxes, but in one copy) but the price of the issue is such that ... the country has no money (well, it was 300M $$$ but ..) so it’s temporary (and what is constant than everything temporary huh ??) fight on .. that there is (more precisely, what is left of the USSR ... but there is a lot left) .. well, it saves Russia (and God loves our country in real life, because otherwise how have we survived so far with such ... effective .. managers at the helm) only that they (those who are on the other side) have also cut spending on the military-industrial complex since 1991 (well, there for social programs and other LBGT) and in the ranks are the same age as our old men and women (well + make-up upgrades, but the basis has remained since the 90s no ??)

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: WapentakeLokki

what did Shoigu tell us .. um .. with aplomb ???

The problem is not that Shoigu spoke with aplomb there, but that there is no demand. There is no feedback in the form of media, opposition, courts, elections. In the end, there is no audit by the FSB / Ministry of Internal Affairs, well, or the audits are done by Zakharchenko colonels. I remember how Shoigu said about 70% of modern technology, he thought this would at least provoke a discussion. But as he said and said. I think the majority are still under the impressions of TV Zvezda and so on, and are not particularly aware of how things are at the front, if this majority believes in what they say on federal channels. In May, there is again a parade, there again the Kurgans, Almaty and Boomerangs will ride, especially the T15 should raise questions for those who are at the front, or the only question is, where is IT here ???!!! when looking at the holey and crumpled Motolyga with a ship's turret, on which it will soon go into battle.

Quote: WapentakeLokki

the price of the issue is such that ... the country has no money

Does Russia have no money? Only the rearmament program of 2011 was heavy from $ 500 billion, this is in addition to the budget of the Moscow Region. After 2011, there were naturally other injections, so a trillion over 10 years was spent on rearmament, but apparently not quite on rearmament and not quite on the army in general. But here, as with Shoigu's stories about "70% of modern weapons in the RF Armed Forces", but who will ask?

Quote: WapentakeLokki

only the fact that they (those who are on the other side) have also cut spending on the military-industrial complex since 1991 (well, there for social programs and other LBGT) and the peers of our old men and old women are in the ranks (well + makeup upgrades, but the basis has remained with 90 -x no??)

No. Although the main armies of NATO were disarmed, reducing their active forces by several times, technical progress never stagnated. Almost all NATO armies have been re-equipped with modern MBTs, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, but there is still a lot of equipment in circulation, which was originally from the 80s and older, but due to modernization fits into STANAG standards, such as Marder1A5, which, thanks to high-quality armored steel, assembly, and lineup, is still the platform for modern technology also showed itself well in battle. But the Germans are switching to Puma, which of course has a much higher performance than everything. The Scandinavians have CV90s, the French, the Britons have their own heavy infantry fighting vehicles, and the tanks are all about the same level, Leo2A5 and Leo2A6 basically + 500 Leclercs with Challengers, in the future for rearmament by 130mm and a NATO MBT hybrid power plant, but so far they have no where to rush . The armored personnel carriers of all NATO armies are modern, Boxer, Patria, etc. That is the advantage of NATO over any other country, or military alliance, they do not need to separately have huge armies. Now the concept is like this - better less, but more professional, more technologically advanced, more precise, faster. So in the event of a war, paragraph 5, or something else, let's say 10 NATO countries can start marching 2500 MBTs, 5000 infantry fighting vehicles, 10000 armored personnel carriers and MCIs, 1000 helicopters, 150 frigates and destroyers, 1500 air forces even tomorrow. This is all modern technology, I will note even without the US Armed Forces. The total forces of NATO with the United States and allies, who will not be on the sidelines in a serious war, are an order of magnitude higher. Since armament processes have been launched in the West, in 10 years we can expect a significant qualitative and quantitative increase in forces in NATO. The fact that what is happening in Ukraine must be ended as quickly as possible, the RF Armed Forces are at an impasse, as Bakhmut shows, since it is nonsense to fight without the Air Force, and even if this unfortunate Bakhmut is pressed down .., then what then? In the same spirit further? Now, if the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation suddenly had many analogues of JDAM, heavy armored personnel carriers, means of communication and navigation, then the conversation would be different, but as a result, JDAMs and other modern equipment would receive the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

I still didn’t understand why the author liked the patrol car so much (and even created for the desert theater of operations) as an assault armored infantry escort car? An ordinary two-axle, well, let's say a three-axle, a jeep or a truck with dubious cross-country ability on European off-road, with a high center of gravity, hung with additional armor and a machine gun on the roof? Is this just the perfect option that is now getting stuck in the mud in Ukraine? The machine for counter-guerrilla operations suddenly turned out to be a prodigy of the front line? Not even funny. The fuss that is now going on at the front will have to end. Well, they don’t win major military conflicts on handfuls of shahidmobiles. Russia will be forced to launch a large-scale offensive involving large military formations, and the author proposes to conduct it in patrol jeeps?
The fact that the Americans have been preparing for the last decades for a war in the desert and against the Arab tumens does not mean that we need to step on their rake. You just need to study and put into practice the combat regulations and then everything will fall into place. In the meantime, the authors of VO are simply hyping on the psychosis of the masses and are engaged in nonsense reminiscent of the throwing of the 30s from multi-turreted super-heavy monster tanks to armored cars with removable tracks or super-jeeps with a machine gun to accompany infantry.

[Mustached Kok]

For so many years they have been saying that the security of domestic equipment is not enough for modern combat. They relied on the experience of Afghanistan (then it was logically justified by the fact that for the first time the Soviet army got into this type of warfare), and on the experience of Chechnya, and on the experience of Georgia, and on the experience of Syria. And even on the experience of Donbass until 2022.

But every time they explained to us "well, this is a very specific large-scale rifle, and therefore the experience is not correct. In a war with a large army, all these MCIs, reinforced infantry fighting vehicles, are from the evil one." When he almost showed on his fingers what advantages new schemes bring for the safety of soldiers. And in response, they pushed about .... but it’s really not clear what. Either about patriotism, or about the fact that our designers are smarter (although they constantly repeated that the claim was not against the designers, but about the fact that they created equipment MANY years ago according to PAST concepts).
And now, after more than six months from the beginning of the NWO, it suddenly starts to REACH that it turns out that everything that the same Americans did (although not only they, but also partners Chinese, Iranians, Japanese Europeans, etc.) turns out to be NEEDED.

For 20 years, the UAV trend has been developing. We were told "these are toys against the Papuans. We have a serious army, we have electronic warfare equipment, these drones simply will not start flying over us. And in the event of a war with the enemy, we have satellites and aircraft to conduct reconnaissance." And constantly, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, Libya - there were drones everywhere and each time there were more and more of them, and they performed more and more tasks. And we all continued to repeat that these are "toys". After Syria, at least they thought about their own developments. Although even after it, there was no talk of a full-fledged entry into the troops, judging by the SVO.

A trend was developing for information support of a soldier / detachment by equipping them with a whole range of electronic digital devices (from compact walkie-talkies with a protective communication channel and night vision devices, to having all GPS with monitoring the position of other detachments, small wheeled drones with cameras for checking angles and portable devices target designation). We talked and talked - but apart from talking, little has changed. Walkie-talkies "boxes" are still in large numbers in the army. Walkie-talkies and GPS are purchased by civilians with their own donations and sent to units.

But the most important trend of the last 30 years is a significant increase in the survival rate of soldiers. And this trend is manifested in innovation at MANY levels of the army. From the level of an individual soldier (providing the soldier with the most modern models of protective equipment, camouflage and medical care), the level of the detachment (development of medical support and tools for detachment doctors, the availability of always sending a seriously wounded person quickly to the rear) and up to the level of the entire army / separate division (well-adjusted systemic organization of the rotation of troops, not even for the seriously wounded, in order to speed up full recovery and reduce the chances of losing wounded soldiers in the near rear from attacks by enemy aircraft / artillery). And one of the important steps of this new concept was to increase the security and survival of soldiers in armored vehicles during shelling or knocking out.

Sophistication and "Has no analogues in the world" does not make sense in relation to army equipment if, when participating in battle, the crew of this complex equipment has little chance of surviving if they receive serious damage. Without an experienced crew, any equipment is just a bunch of expensive iron. And therefore, each experienced member of the crew or infantry from the squad on the BMP (and the ability to conduct combat operations interacting with my BMP is also an important skill acquired over the years) is worth its weight in gold. And the loss of each experienced fighter greatly weakens his squad / platoon / company, etc.

Technique is useless without soldiers who know how to use it. Therefore, an important modern requirement is the survival of the crew. Even at the cost of continuing to conduct hostilities by the machine itself.
When choosing between:
1. A vehicle with high protection for the crew and a system for increasing survival in case of a serious hit. But with weaker weapons and maneuverability / speed.
и
2. A vehicle with high firepower and maneuverability, but low protection and crew survival equipment

You need to choose the first one.

Americans switched to this concept not from a good life. And from high losses in modern conflicts. But they did not try to find an excuse for all the losses, so as not to expect anything. No, they calculated all the common risk factors and created equipment for actual threats on the battlefield. And now the percentage of soldiers' losses is lower precisely from the introduction of such a concept. And we COULD learn from their experience. Even if it's adapted for you. But instead of this, we constantly found reasons to explain "well, they suffer from garbage, ours are busy with business. That's why we still drive the BTR-80 and BMP-2." And the survivability of our crews, in comparison with the survivability of more modern tanks, leaves much to be desired.

[Dimax-nemo]

This is from poverty or from greed, and not from neglect of experience. The BMP-3 is not protected so much worse than Bradley or Warrior to sacrifice buoyancy for this (examples with crossings are all fresh). Moreover, additional armor kits were developed almost immediately. The layout, if desired, could also be redone a long time ago, if you really wanted to. As for MRAP, in the conditions of the Eastern European "off-season" they were especially "good" until recently. Miracles do not happen, with such an axle load, the car cannot be particularly passable. Yes, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The features of the theater of operations really need to be taken into account.

[Santa Fe]

BMP-3 is protected not so worse than Bradley or Warrior to sacrifice buoyancy for this

Bradley swims

examples with crossings are all fresh

There are no examples of independent crossing of rivers, when it was possible in combat conditions. Swampy shore, the problem of exit-exit, there are few such places. Infantry fighting vehicles cross water barriers on pontoons, mass of video

BMP-3 is protected not so worse than Bradley or Warrior

Modern Bradley 30 tons (floating A3). 1,5 times heavier, and all this indicates a difference in protection

[Dimax-nemo]

Bradley swims ..... they themselves are afraid along the way how she "floats". They sit on the armor in a "watercraft". BMP-3 in this sense is not much inferior to the PT-76.
BMP now, as a rule, does not cross anything, because these pontoons gouge very quickly. At least the Armed Forces of Ukraine are good at it, with us - sometimes. As a "penny" / "kopeck piece" - I can’t judge, they have an engine just in front too. And for the marines, the BTR-80/82 and BMP-3 perfectly crawl ashore from the recreation center. No extra frills, of course.
A large mass does not yet indicate an advantage in booking. Declared for Bradley forehead from 30-mm 2A42 and side from KPVT. The BMP-3 has a side of 12,7, which is generally enough, the forehead from the 30-mm gun is most likely also 2A42, but hardly sub-caliber. An ATGM or an RPG will fly to them all, and Bradley is unlikely to help here with the equivalent of a 100 mm even on the face. No one bothered to hang the DZ on the BMP-3 either. Everything is developed, but not purchased.

[Santa Fe]

The BMP-3 has a side of 12,7, which is generally enough

The article elaborated on this point.

12,7 keeps under a rare set of circumstances, which half a century ago was considered the main one when creating a car.

In those conditions in which they are used in practice, they fly on board without any conditions. And the board does not protect against 12,7 and fragments of artillery

the marines BTR-80/82 and BMP-3 perfectly crawl ashore from the recreation center

Regarding buoyancy - the only time a floating BTT showed advantages in battle was during the 1973 Doomsday War

The presence of floating armored vehicles for special forces, we can agree with this

For mass military equipment, this issue is in last place.

because these pontoons gouge very quickly.

Crossing water barriers under fire has never been easy. For the Dnieper issued the largest number of Stars of Heroes of the USSR

[Dimax-nemo]

In order to protect 6 "shells from fragments unequivocally, you need at least 1,5" steel, and preferably 40 mm that way. Bradley does not have this either. This is at Abrams in the MTO area. There is not much point in protecting against 12,7 at close range. At point-blank range, they pierced the side of both Abrams and the T-64 (according to rumors). Now we find a lot of holes from the M2 Browning, or from the NSV?
PT-76s were used in Vietnam not without some success. There is where to hang out.
It was on the basis of the experience of the Second World War that the requirement for buoyancy was put forward for all light armored vehicles. Because the absence of such led to the fact that the infantry found itself for a long time without any armor at all.

[Santa Fe]

In order to protect against fragments of 6 "shells unambiguously, you need at least 1,5" steel, and preferably 40 mm that way.

There are GOSTs in which protection levels, bullet caliber are prescribed and equivalent pieces of art, distance

https://files.stroyinf.ru/Data2/1/4293734/4293734465.pdf

Or NATO STANAG 4569

[Dimax-nemo]

Specifically, in what you sent, I didn’t find anything about fragments. Only bullets (and KPVT is not mentioned at all). I think that less than I wrote, 35-40 mm armor steel, for unambiguous protection against fragments of 152-155 mm will not work. What with GOST, what without.

[Antey]

Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5

I still didn’t understand why the author liked the patrol car so much (and even created for the desert theater of operations) as an assault armored infantry escort car? An ordinary two-axle, well, let's say a three-axle, a jeep or a truck with dubious cross-country ability on European off-road, with a high center of gravity, hung with additional armor and a machine gun on the roof? Is this just the perfect option that is now getting stuck in the mud in Ukraine? The machine for counter-guerrilla operations suddenly turned out to be a prodigy of the front line? Not even funny. The fuss that is now going on at the front will have to end. Well, they don’t win major military conflicts on handfuls of shahidmobiles. Russia will be forced to launch a large-scale offensive involving large military formations, and the author proposes to conduct it in patrol jeeps?
The fact that the Americans have been preparing for the last decades for a war in the desert and against the Arab tumens does not mean that we need to step on their rake. You just need to study and put into practice the combat regulations and then everything will fall into place. In the meantime, the authors of VO are simply hyping on the psychosis of the masses and are engaged in nonsense reminiscent of the throwing of the 30s from multi-turreted super-heavy monster tanks to armored cars with removable tracks or super-jeeps with a machine gun to accompany infantry.

What nonsense! Are you yourself not one of the generals for an hour? I wish you a month to ride an infantry fighting vehicle in an environment of active hostilities with strict adherence to the Charters. Your charter determines the survival rate, and not the combat qualities of equipment. So long as our commanders will think so, we will rake and bury the boys in the mass graves of the infantry!

[Dimax-nemo]

The author, it seems to me, "fantured" a little, including about Soviet armored personnel carriers. The most significant differences between the BTR-60 (in terms of capabilities) "in the original" from the BTR-152 were:
buoyancy;
the possibility of "moving" trenches and, in general, patency at the level of tanks (so that motorized riflemen do not lag behind tankers).
Therefore, the layout of the BTR-60 and its descendants is "tank". With a heavy "muzzle" it swims poorly, climbs poorly on the shore, climbs poorly on hills and hillocks.
A Czech armored personnel carrier is known with a layout similar to that of MTLB. But it turned out to be 1-2 tons heavier than the BTR-60PB with a similar level of security. In short, do not consider Soviet designers and specialists from specialized research institutes as fools. Not fools at all then did this.
In fact, the sides of the BMP-3 are protected to some extent from 12,7 mm, weight up to 19 tons, the author for some reason remembered it "later" when he scolded its layout.

[agond]

You can convert the T-72 into a heavy armored personnel carrier in a fairly simple way, for this you need to remove the gun, remove the ammunition, in the back of the tower (there is the thinnest armor) to cut the "door" into the entire height of the tower, in fact, that's all, the Tower turns in front of the enemy and the landing dismounts through the "door" at the back, if instead of the native 120mm barrel a wooden copy is installed, then the enemy will not be able to visually distinguish the converted armored personnel carrier from the real tank, this is a plus., of course, the door in the tower will be higher than in the stern, it is not clear how much it will be critical

[Dimax-nemo]

Our tank designers, starting at least with the T-34 and KV, have always done the maximum to reduce the internal volume. The crew sits essentially inside the loading mechanism. Much more than it already sits there, you won’t shove it there, even if you throw out the gun and all the ammunition.

[Santa Fe]

The most significant differences between the BTR-60 (in terms of capabilities) "in the original" from the BTR-152

The article did not compare with the BTR-152

[Dimax-nemo]

I just reminded why the engine on the BTR-60 actually turned out to be at the back, as a result of which the troops were forced to dismount through the side hatches. Not because the article says. But because it was necessary to climb through the trenches, swim and crawl out onto the shore.

[Santa Fe]

But because it was necessary to climb through the trenches, swim and crawl out onto the shore.

There are many models of 8x8 armored personnel carriers with a front-engine layout, from the M113 to the modern Boxer

Incl. floating - m113, AAV7, Patria / Rosomak

[agond]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Our tank designers, starting at least with the T-34 and KV, have always done the maximum to reduce the internal volume. The crew sits essentially inside the loading mechanism. Much more than it already sits there, you won’t shove it there, even if you throw out the gun and all the ammunition

However, the author writes
"First, and the simplest - in the liberated turret space, an airborne squad is organized, accommodating 7-8 infantrymen. On top, instead of a tank turret, there is an armor plate."
Since it fits without a tower (under the slab), then with a tower 7-8 people will definitely fit, as a result, the crew of the armored personnel carrier is the driver, commander and 7 people of the landing, only 9 people

[Santa Fe]

However, the author writes

Tth of real samples Puma, BMO, BTR-T

BMO still fits 30 RPO Bumblebee

BTR-T in addition to landing - a combat module with a 30 mm gun

[Dimax-nemo]

Only they swim badly, if at all (which is a rarity for NATO armored personnel carriers in principle) for a completely understandable reason, the muzzle pulls. For the same reason, BMP-1/2s do not swim so well. This affects the patency less, but it also affects (have you seen how the Zaparozhets drives through the mud?). What specific ditch in width can an armored personnel carrier -60/70 crawl over and the samples you mentioned - this still needs to be looked at. They are heavier even than the BTR-82A, the axle load is greater, and power is far from always deciding here.
Isn't the M113 tracked?
In short, don't take GAZ designers for fools. These engineers were in some ways not like the current ones. They were given TK with specific numbers, to fulfill this TK they used just such a design with such a layout. Not just like that.

[۩NRed۩]

Case article. But it requires a change in doctrine and retraining of officers, probably not in our life. And so the conclusion is simple, we lagged behind and got stuck in the years of the 80s. Where there is no effective and cheap air reconnaissance. Fast communication and more. Everyone who drowns for fast cars forgets one thing. How do you overcome "no man's land" in a fast typewriter. And the fact that the bridgehead is not engaged in technology but in fire control of the area. Fast technology is good where there is no communication, satellite and other intelligence where the enemy can be taken by surprise. The Israelis were the first to understand this, if you can’t advance in secret, then there’s no point in hiding. And the main danger now is not RPGs, but mortars and artillery. The close explosion of a mine brings our BMP / BTR to a bang. And if you choose what to ride slowly but securely and quickly but with the ability to fall asleep with the whole crowd from any sneeze. It's better to drive slowly.

[Roman Efremov]

Does Typhoon have all-round protection against CPV with a caliber of 14,5 ??? Very doubtful!

[savage3000]

Yes. it is covered with ceramics. there were videos of the downed ones, you can see the composition of the armor there.

[Vashek]

It is impossible to equal Israel - cars crawl slowly on the small theater of the VD. Their main goal is to save people. For an example, it is better to take the German Puma and Lynx, as well as the Swedish CV90 family with additional. booking. Weight 32-40 tons. Refusal of buoyancy.

[savage3000]

an urgent need for additional armor and replacement of weapons and sights for BMP-2 and 3. urgent launch of Manul with a 57mm cannon in a series. Implementation of dynamic and active protection on each machine. active at least in the form of UV sensors for detecting missiles and smoke grenades.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In general, in this sense, the Merkava is what you need.

Merkava does not carry troops.

Aha! Kaneshna! When necessary, the Merkava carries the wounded on stretchers! And everything is done through her ass. In a sense, both the stretcher is loaded and the BC is replenished. And the forehead is directed towards the enemy.

[AVESSALOM]

They write, they argue .. Some kind of Muradov and Lapin will collect your beautiful cars in a column and send them to the attack, as under Ugledar. That's all.)

[futurohunter]

The author does not seem to know that armored personnel carriers were created, in fact, as armored buses with self-defense capability. Nobody planned them as BMPs. And yet, modern armored vehicles were planned for use in a nuclear war. Plus, it was assumed that light armored vehicles would float. Hence its design. Now (pah-pah!), nuclear war is not relevant, like swimming. But sabotage groups and militants are relevant, hence the need for MRAP.
The use of combat modules, as well as combat vehicles for other purposes (MTLB universal transporter, like an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle) is not from a good life. This is an attempt to somehow adapt the huge mass of existing technology to new conditions.
We need equipment capable of fighting in new conditions. Hence all these MRAPs, Boomerangs, BMP-3, BMD-4, etc. A vehicle such as an infantry fighting vehicle based on the main tank is also needed, but it is for collisions with a strong enemy moving in armored vehicles. How will the MRAPs praised here fight against enemy troops supported by tanks?

[Santa Fe]

How will the MRAPs praised here fight against enemy troops supported by tanks?

The author did not claim that MRAP is better than BMP

The author directly pointed out that things like Kurganets and Boomerang are much more preferable

The Russian army will not see modern infantry fighting vehicles in commercial quantities in the near future, and this is obvious

BMP-1/2/3 are deprived of the main quality of armored vehicles - protection

In such conditions, MCI is seen as the best option:

- they have better protection than Soviet-style armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles

- any combat modules can also be installed on them

- and most importantly - they are cheaper, they use truck components and at least they can be produced and supplied to the army in dozens and, if you're lucky, even several hundred units

[AG-76]

40 years riding armor...
And apparently, the army will have to ride on the armor of ancient infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers for a long time to come. What towers and modules you do not put on them, they will not become more modern and more secure. The concept is outdated

[Glagol1]

The author has taken the trouble to write a serious article, as it were. Rave! And not an article, but a CVO clearly showed everyone, us, Ukrainians, Anglo-Saxons, natives, Martians, that everything that the Russian military-industrial complex offered the Army was financial marketing. Where have you seen Armata? Well! Well!? All these "innovations" are 90% crap, paid for in one year by the lives of tens of thousands of our soldiers and tremendous losses of territories. T-100 Proryv is a Soviet design. All the artillery that helps out is XNUMX% Soviet. Sailed. And Prigogine is being slandered. Why is this not being understood? Scary?

[Bayun]

Yes, well, at all! It's easier to control such radio-controlled "fools" without people from a quadric from 3-5 km away. Minimum armor and weapons. Stupidly "blank" from the series "ON FEAR" for opening the defense. Supports are fixed and hollowed out by aviation and artillery.

[storm]

For example, the BMP-2 has half the fuel consumption compared to any of the proposed options for promising infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers (Kurganets-25, Boomerang). Not to mention the 55-ton infantry fighting vehicle based on the "Armata" (T-15). How many extra tankers will need to be purchased for the army if motorized riflemen switch to such heavy and "gluttonous" infantry fighting vehicles? This will force a change in the entire supply structure.

And the fact that one heavy infantry fighting vehicle in terms of combat effectiveness and survival on the battlefield can easily replace three BMP-2 no one bothered to count .....
The fact that the regiment / brigade will have a single platform for a tank, heavy infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled guns, engineering equipment is a definite plus for personnel training, repair and maintenance of equipment, and provision of spare parts and consumables.
Accordingly, from such regiments / brigades, heavy divisions / breakthrough corps should be formed.