Landing on the armor. Why no one trusts domestic BTR?
“BMD-4 is a BMP-3 version, no protection, again everything is above, but it costs more tank. We didn’t look at this car, we don’t look at it ”
Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Army General N.Ye. Makarov
What was and what came to
Thirty-fours are rushing on the frames of the military newsreel, ruddy submachine guns are sitting thick on the armor. In the most terrible heat and the most severe frost, the Soviet soldiers went into battle, leaning their shoulders to the tank's massive tower, despising the thought that at any second a stray German bullet would “knock off” them from the armor under the tracks of a madly racing car.
It was not possible to cover the Soviet soldiers with armor - the extremely loaded industry had no reserves for the release of armored personnel carriers. There was not even any concept of the use of such machines. Lend-lease deliveries failed to rectify the situation: for example, from 1200 American semi-tracked armored personnel carriers (М3, М5, М9), transferred in 1942, only 118 machines got into the mechanized units, the rest were used as artillery tractors. So our soldiers rode on armor right up to Berlin.
The Cold War set new standards: for the breakthrough to the English Channel through the submerged * and burned by nuclear fire Europe, armored personnel carriers were created - tracked BTR-50P and later wheeled BTR-60. Terrible machines, which were not inferior in tank maneuverability, could overcome water obstacles by swimming, and reliably protected the crew from the damaging factors of nuclear weapons.
* A group of Soviet troops in Germany (GSVG), consisting of 5 combined arms, 4 tank and 3 air armies, was able to break through to the English Channel in a couple of weeks. According to one of the legends, NATO humanists have laid nuclear bombs under dams and dams in order to flood Europe’s floor in the event of a conflict and slow down the advancement of tank columns. By the way, strange concrete wells were actually found under bridges, forks, and hydraulic structures in Europe.
In 1966, the USSR once again surprised the world by creating a fundamentally new model of armored vehicles. The light tank was transformed into an infantry fighting vehicle — an extremely mobile floating armored vehicle for transporting personnel to the front line and conducting combat operations together with tanks.
Television footage chronicles. Caucasus. Our days. Another counter-terrorist operation - armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles rush along a broken highway, rosy OMON fighters are sitting thick on the armor. But let me, what the hell? Why are soldiers afraid to descend into the combat compartment of our armored vehicles, preferring to serve as targets for snipers?
The paratroopers equally do not trust the elderly BTR-70, nor the more recent BTR-80, nor even the modern BMP-3. The reason is simple and obvious - domestic armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are in fact not armored vehicles. They can be categorized as you like - fire support vehicles, tracked high-terrain vehicles, excellent tractors or swimming equipment. But they do not and cannot, in principle, fulfill their Main Purpose. It makes no sense to expect high security from a large combat vehicle weighing just 10 - 15 tons.
The 7-mm sides of the BTR-80 armored personnel carrier hardly keep shots even with handguns. The DShK machine gun is guaranteed to penetrate such “armor” from a distance of half a kilometer. A similar result awaits the BMP-2 infantry combat vehicle: frontal armor, as thick as 16 mm, installed at a rational angle, will not protect the crew in case of a mine exploding or an RPG shot - quite “domestic” troubles in modern conflicts.
Soldiers prefer to sit astride armor, hoping that a bullet-fool will whistle past them than to be guaranteed to be killed in the fighting compartment in the event of a vehicle being blown up on the most primitive explosive device.
The creators of the BMP-3 stubbornly insist on the correctness of their approach and pay attention to the powerful armament of the machine: a combat module with a 100 mm semi-automatic gun and an automatic 30 mm caliber automatic gun coupled with it — a seemingly formidable force.
Alas, the extremely weak booking levels the remaining advantages of the BMP-3. Film shots with paratroopers riding on armor serve as a silent reproach to the designers - why should all the efforts be made if the soldiers are afraid to sit inside? Is it not easier then to cut off the roof altogether and weld more armor plates on the sides and bottom?
Until the first meeting with RPG
To avoid accusations of bias and non-patriotic sentiments, I suggest looking at foreign armored vehicles designed to transport personnel. There are similar problems: the main American armored personnel carrier M113, which sold around the world in 85 thousands of vehicles, had a thickness of aluminum armor in 40 mm - in the 60s it seemed sufficient to protect the crew from small arms bullets and artillery fragments. But with the evolution of anti-tank weapons and methods of fighting armored vehicles, American GIs are not in a hurry to get inside their armored vehicles - the red-hot cumulative jet breaks the M113 armor like a tin can opener, turning those sitting inside into a baked vinaigrette. No less disastrous for the well-being of the crew of the American armored personnel carrier is the impact of a mine blast: all those sitting inside will, at best, get off with a heavy contusion.
M113 in Lebanon. Any means are used to increase security.
This begs a simple question: why do we need such “armored vehicles” if they do not protect the crew from even the most primitive means of destruction? After all, a shot from an RPG or a queue of large-scale DShK is the simplest one to be encountered in modern combat. But what about, for example, an anti-tank missile system or an improvised high-explosive missile from a pair of three 152 mm fragmentation shells lying on the side? - Practice shows that such things are much more common than the creators of the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles planned.
The shell of 16 mm steel, as well as of 44 mm aluminum armor, is powerless here. For reliable protection of the crew requires a radically different solution.
M113 in a heavy body kit. Temporary solution
An infantry fighting vehicle is no ordinary light tank. Inside it, by definition, must be a large number of personnel. And if the crew of a tank of three or four tankers requires protection similar to 500-1000 mm of homogeneous steel armor, what was the fault of the 10 man of the BMP crew who were asked to go into the thick under the cover of its “cardboard” walls?
Recently, a clear trend has emerged in foreign tank building to increase the protection of combat vehicles. Designers ruthlessly delete from the list any minor options: heavy weapons, air transportability, positive buoyancy - such moments, most often, are ignored. The main thing - to provide reliable protection of the combat vehicle. Indeed, why BMP any swimming skills, thermal imagers and guns, if on the modern battlefield, it can not crawl and meter?
In the continuation of this conversation, I propose to get acquainted with the most successful models of foreign armored vehicles that have the greatest security:
The most formidable. "Stridsfordon-90"
Combat weight 35 tons. Crew 3 people., Landing 8 people. Body armor: steel spaced armor + modular protection. Armament: 40 mm automatic gun "Bofors". Speed up to 70 km / h. Produced from 1993, built more than 1000 machines.
The Swedish infantry fighting vehicle, according to the formal performance characteristics (gun caliber / mm of armor), is the undisputed leader in the BMP class. Firepower, booking, mobility. Multi-toned hinged passive armor sets provide the crew with a full range of protection against 30 mm projectiles, increasing the resistance of the BMP to ammunition from the upper hemisphere. There is an anti-splinter podboy combat compartment.
The BMP bottom mine protection protects the crew from explosions of explosive devices with power up to 10 kg of TNT. The assault force is placed in separate cushioned seats, which increases the chance of avoiding serious injuries when a mine is detonated.
Most of the machines are equipped with a Barracuda mobile camouflage system (IR and RL range) and an opto-electronic suppression system (equipment depends on the specific customer).
The most advanced export version of the CV-90 Mk.III is equipped with a bikaliber 30 / 50 mm automatic cannon with a modular ammunition programmer, as well as a SAAB UTAAS fire control system with day and night sights.
In addition to the base case, the command and staff vehicle, the BREM, self-propelled anti-aircraft gun and light tank destroyer with 90 mm guns are manufactured on the CV-120 BMP chassis.
Disadvantages of the machine in theory? CV-90 cannot swim.
Disadvantages of a car in practice? In 2009, in Afghanistan, the CV-90 BMP from the mechanized Telemark battalion of the Norwegian Armed Forces was undermined by a powerful self-made VU. The car was seriously damaged, the driver was killed. It turned out that all the measures taken are not enough to ensure the survival of the crew of infantry fighting vehicles in contemporary conflicts. Need something else.
Ultimate protection "Ahzarit"
Combat weight 44 tons. Crew 3 people., Landing 7 people. Body armor: steel homogeneous armor thickness up to 200 mm + hinged armor and dynamic protection. Armament: several 7,62 mm machine guns. Speed up to 50 km / h. Produced from 1988, built around 500 machines.
Heavy tracked armored personnel carrier of the Israel Defense Forces. Life on the front line forced the Israelis to violate all the established canons of tank building, the military was tired of dying in the M113 armored personnel carriers from the first hit of a cumulative grenade. The original solution was the Akhazarit armored personnel carrier on the chassis of the Soviet T-55 tank.
The T-55 hull mass with the 27 tower removed is tons, the Ahzarit mass is 44 tons — a significant difference in 17 tons is due to the installation of an additional reservation. The 200 mm armor of the Soviet tank was reinforced with invoice steel and carbon fiber armor plates, and a dynamic protection kit was installed outside. All these factors, combined with the low silhouette of the armored car, allowed for an exceptionally high level of crew protection. In total, this upgrade has undergone about 500 T-54 / 55, captured from Arab countries.
In! Another conversation! - you say. This is not the 16 mm shell of the BMP-2. Where the corps of the domestic infantry fighting vehicle will burst along the welds from the blast wave, the Akhazrit armored personnel carrier will only get rid of with scratches.
To accomplish the task of transporting personnel, the internal layout of the T-55 also underwent changes: the Soviet engine was replaced with a more compact General Motors 8-cylinder diesel engine, which made it possible to equip a corridor along the starboard side of the armored personnel carrier leading from the troop compartment to the stern security door.
Armored personnel carriers "Ahzarit" preparing for the invasion of Gaza
The armored personnel carrier is equipped with a remote-controlled OWS (Overhead Weapon Station) machine-gun mount; a pair of 7,62-mm machine guns on the pivot bolts can be installed as additional weapons at the hatches on the roof of the hull. Also, as an embrasure for observing and covering the “dead zone” behind the machine, a slightly opened feed door can be used, which is a reclining ramp.
Disadvantages armored? The Akhzarit cannot swim at all. "Specialists" will certainly note the weakness of defensive weapons - just a few rifle-caliber machine guns. Heavy BTR will not fit in the cargo compartment of a military transport aircraft. It is more expensive to operate than conventional armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
But "Ahzarit" is not afraid of shots at the focus of any weapons that are in service with the militants of Hamas and Hezbollah. Small arms of all calibers, automatic cannons, single shots from anti-tank rocket launchers - all this is powerless against the Israeli Israeli 44-ton monster.
The idea of the ultra-protected armored personnel carrier was so much liked by the military that the Israeli designers began to re-equip everything that came to their hands in heavy armored personnel carriers: the 50-ton BTR "Puma" based on the British tank "Centurion" or the super-BTR "Namer" based on the main battle tank " Merkava "Mk.4. Today, the 60-ton “Namer” is the most highly armored troop-carrier in the world.
Heavy BTR "Puma"
Heavy BTR "Timer" on trials in the US (2012 year)
Do you want scrambled eggs - break eggs
Of course, invulnerable technology does not happen - even the most "impenetrable" tanks are killed in battles. Each design has its own vulnerabilities - a case of penetration of the British Challenger-2, one of the best protected tanks in the world (the fatal grenade accidentally fell into the most weakened place) was registered from the RPG frontal armor detail.
12 June 2006 of the tank Merkava Mk.2 of the Alef company of the 82 battalion of the 7 armored brigade advanced to Lebanese territory with the task of occupying the dominant height in Ayta Hashab village. The task could not be completed - a land mine explosion, with a capacity of more than a ton of TNT, stopped the tank forever. The ammunition charge rushed, the detached tower sank into the withered ground at a distance of 100 meters from the tank hull, smaller fragments were later found in Israel. The crew died in full force: Alexey Kushnirsky, Gadi Mosaev, Shlomi Irmiyagu and Yaniv Bar-On.
Such cases can not serve as a reliable argument for assessing the protection of combat vehicles - modern technology is not able to effectively withstand such powerful explosive devices. Unfortunately, such "gifts of fate" are inevitable - despite all measures to improve security, the bloody harvest of war will surely require sacrifices.
Much more indicative is another plot that occurred in the same June 2006 - the main battle tank “Merkava” Mk.4 was blown up on a bomb, containing 300 kg of explosives. The explosion tore off the entire nose section together with the engine, and then three ATVM “Malyutka” were fired at the inverted tank. Result: out of seven people who were in the tank (crew, combat, staff officers), six survived.
Next to the tanks "Merkava" up the tracks is a heavy armored personnel carrier "Puma"
Now imagine in place of the Merkava Mk.4 the heavy armored vehicle “Namer” created on its base - there is every reason to believe that the survivability of the armored personnel carrier would be at least as good as the main battle tank. A simple question: what would happen if they were in their place the domestic BMP-3? However, it is clear that - a tragedy.
For guaranteed destruction of such monsters as “Ahzarit” or “Inner”, exceptional conditions are required - massive shelling by modern ATGMs or improbable explosive devices. Alas, for the defeat of the national armored vehicles designed to transport personnel, the most primitive means are enough - up to several shots from a heavy machine gun.
The positive experience of the Israel Defense Forces is being carefully studied all over the world. In the US, announced the start of work on a promising infantry fighting vehicle to replace the Bradley M2. The project called “Ground Combat Vehicle” (GCV) involves the creation of a super-heavy tracked BMP with a mass from 58 to 76 tons (64-84 “short” US tons). The idea of the Americans is clear: the 10 man of the GCV crew requires no less protection than the 4 man of the crew of the M1 Abrams tank.
Direct comparison of the GCV with the German "Royal Tigers" and so on. "Vunderwafles" since the Second World War is incorrect. The fascists didn’t have the main thing - powerful enough engines, the strongest Maybach barely gave out 700 hp. Modern technologies allow you to create engines twice as powerful, coupled with a fairly efficient and reliable transmissions.
Impenetrable BMP Ground Combat Vehicle. Project
Heavy armored vehicles, similar to the GCV and Akhzarit, seem to be the most suitable means for future conflicts — such vehicles are effective for conducting combat operations both in open areas and in a dense urban area. The large mass of the GCV doesn’t worry too much about its creators - the weight and dimensions of the new BMP are generally consistent with the Abrams tank. The lack of buoyancy will have little effect on its mobility and combat effectiveness: infantry fighting vehicles rarely operate in isolation from tanks. And where are the tanks, there are always bridge laying and so on. Specialized equipment.
All other “advantages” of the promising American BMP (acoustic sensors of shots, thermal imagers, remotely controlled machine gun turrets) and “flaws” (frankly, poor aircraft transportability, negative buoyancy) fade against the background of the Main - ensuring high crew protection.
The Stryker family of American "light" armored vehicles should not be misleading - this technique is intended for low-intensity conflicts (Papuans and "police" operations) when the enemy’s use of powerful anti-tank weapons is unlikely. It is worth noting that the Stryker base 17-ton armored personnel carrier does not have a tower and any heavy weapons - all mass reserves went to armor protection (the most modern technologies, MEXAS mounted ceramic armor sets) - and, nevertheless, from Iraq comes the mass complaints about the poor security of the machine. The creators of "Stryker" clearly did not expect such a number of sophisticated anti-tank weapons, even in anti-terrorist operations.
Omsk armor
Work to improve the security of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are carried out even in Russia. In 1997, the Omsk designers presented their own modernization of the T-55 tank - a heavy BTR-T armored personnel carrier. The car embodied the best features of the national tank school: the designers limited themselves to minimal changes in the combat compartment - the modernization of the tank did not affect its main components; unlike the Israeli vehicle, the BTR-T retained solid armament — instead of a standard turret, a new low-profile turret was installed with an 30 mm automatic rifle and the Konkurs anti-tank missile system. Of course, the military was not satisfied with some technical shortcomings of the first domestic heavy armored personnel carrier - for example, an unsuccessful landing through roof hatches. In principle, all the problems were completely solvable - unfortunately, the well-known economic and political events of those years did not allow us to refine and launch a useful machine into the series.
There are even more interesting projects in this promising direction - heavy armored vehicles BMPV-64 and BMT-72 have already been created in Ukraine (as you might guess, based on the T-64 and T-72 tanks). What development awaits armored vehicles next? Progress moves in a spiral - maybe there will be “inadequate” 100-ton monsters, which at the new round of historical development will be replaced again by light armored vehicles. And the infantry will continue to ride armor.
Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T
Information