Simplified "Boomerang": a new armored personnel carrier from Arzamas

Model of an armored personnel carrier from the Arzamas Machine-Building Plant. Source: new.fips.ru

New reality

The first object to undergo modernization in connection with the realities of the special operation was the 3-STS Akhmat armored car. In comparison with the older brothers of the Typhoon series, the new armored car is devoid of a lot of imported equipment. The second most important advantage of Akhmat is a much shorter production time. According to Igor Zarakhovich, the chief designer of Remdizel, it takes 7-10 times less time to assemble one simplified armored personnel carrier than the Typhoon-K.

Regarding the fate of the Typhoons of the K and U series stuffed with the most sophisticated equipment, we can say for sure that they will no longer appear in production in their pre-war form. Technical luxuries like adjustable hydropneumatic suspension and automatic transmission are now either unavailable due to sanctions or not needed at all at the front. The main MRAP of the special operation will be Akhmat and the similar VPK-Ural.

Model of an armored personnel carrier with a combat module "BTR-BM" from the "Arzamas Machine-Building Plant". Source: new.fips.ru

For comparison: BTR "Boomerang"

The rest of the technique is similarly transformed. Unnecessary complications that increase cost and reduce production rates are naturally sacrificed. So it was in the Great Patriotic War, so it happens during the special operation. Another example is a simplified version of the Boomerang armored personnel carrier, the patent for which was published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property in early June.

Interestingly, the authors of the patent from Arzamas Machine-Building Plant applied for an industrial design on March 1, 2023. That is, for the needs of the special operation, the equipment was finalized only on the anniversary of the conflict. This is largely due to the well-established production of the BTR-82, which is widely used in the special operation.

At the same time, it is high time to send this car into retirement - there is weak armor, an outdated layout with landing troops on the sides of the hull and the impossibility of fighting tanks enemy. Partially, these problems were solved by the Boomerang platform, which for several years could not come to the troops. There is hope for an industrial prototype of a new armored personnel carrier developed in Arzamas.

The BTR-BM module first appeared on the BTR-82AT in 2020. Source: anna-news.info

The first thing that catches your eye is the absence of jet propulsion in the stern of the armored personnel carrier. Also, there is no wave reflector on the upper frontal part of the machine. Fair improvements that save the weight of the armored personnel carrier, as well as simplify operation. The ability of domestic technology to overcome water obstacles by swimming has long been called into question. Buoyancy requirements did not allow the creation of equipment with a decent level of protection. Understanding came only with a special operation.

At the same time, one cannot unequivocally speak of a purely land-based profile of a patented industrial design. But if the ability to swim is present, then without a water cannon, a heavy armored personnel carrier will be very difficult to get out of the water ashore. You will have to look for sandy beaches of the highest category. Walking on rivers and lakes due to the rotation of the wheels is also not the best solution - here is low speed, poor handling, and excessive fuel consumption.

In general, if the modernized "Boomerang" can swim, then it is completely symbolic.

Better is simpler, but better

The patent images clearly show that the shape of the machine body has changed. It doesn’t matter, but it is clearly visible when compared with the pre-war Boomerang. Whether improvements have been made to increase internal volume, mine resistance, and simply for the sake of manufacturability, is not completely known. From the side of the driver, a characteristic sloping cheekbone appeared, which improves visibility. On the Boomerangs, a box for spare parts was placed between the second and third pair of wheels - now at the stern. In the case of mounting on-board anti-cumulative screens, such an improvement seems to be successful.

Otherwise, the layout has not changed - ahead of the MTO and the control compartment, then the combat and landing in the stern. Embarkation / disembarkation is carried out through swing doors, while the Boomerang also had a ramp. It is also possible to leave the car through hatches in the roof of the troop compartment.

Interestingly, for the commander of the car, located behind the driver, they provided their own hatch. The original "Boomerang" was deprived of this luxury, and the commander with the gunner-operator were forced to get to their places through the landing hatches.

Model of an armored personnel carrier with a combat module BTR-82A. Source: new.fips.ru

Judging by the patent images, the armored personnel carrier suspension came from the BRT-80 series. Given the much increased mass of the machine, it is impossible to talk about the blind transfer of nodes - most likely, individual elements will be strengthened. The characteristic shape of the bottom of the previous "Boomerang" was calculated, among other things, for the installation of an adjustable hydropneumatic suspension. Obviously, on the new version this is not provided even in the options.

Probably the first photo of a simplified "Boomerang"

The armored personnel carrier is presented in two versions.

The first one has a proven fighting compartment from the BTR-82A. And it's rather good news. The turret with a 30 mm cannon and a 7,62 mm machine gun has been mastered in production, and there will be no problems with it in the troops. Recall that initially the Boomerang in one of the K-16 variants was offered with one 12,7-mm machine gun, which was completely unsuitable for modern warfare.

The second version, presented in the patent images, is a "heavy" version with a combat module "BTR-BM". It was first introduced in 2020 on the basis of the BTR-82AT armored personnel carrier.

The main advantage of the combat module is the 30-mm 2A45 cannon, which, in comparison with the similar 2A72 cannon in the BTR-82A, is more accurate and quick-firing. The food is two-ribbon, selective - armor-piercing shells in one tape, high-explosive fragmentation shells in the other. The combat module is equipped with a gunner's multi-channel thermal imaging sight with independent line-of-sight stabilization with television, thermal imaging, laser ranging channels and an ATGM control channel.

Unlike the original Boomerang, the anti-tank capabilities of the module are not represented by four Kornet-M launchers, but by only two Konkurs-M. This is an unconditional simplification, which cannot but affect the combat power of the armored personnel carrier - the Kornet is much more effective not only against tanks, but also against enemy fortifications.

It is noteworthy that the original Boomerang with a similar module was positioned as a K-17 infantry fighting vehicle. On patents from Arzamas, the car is already presented in the rank of an armored personnel carrier. It can be assumed that the simplified "Boomerang" can, if necessary, be equipped with combat modules "Berezhok", "Epoch" and others.

BTR-87. Source: zavodkorpusov.ru

If the presented armored personnel carrier goes into series, then it will become a kind of golden mean between two conceptual vehicles - the Boomerang armored personnel carrier and the already forgotten BTR-87. The latter was developed for foreign markets and differed from the classic BTR-80/82 in the front location of the MTO and the control compartment. The realities of a special operation force designers to simplify military equipment while increasing firepower and security.

It is possible to create ultramodern machines only with a developed production and component base. It should not only ensure the production of equipment, but also quickly increase the volumes in special conditions. In the absence of this, one has to resort to the simplifications described above.

Comments

[Thrifty]

That's exactly it, "if it goes into production". Too many different concepts and little actually goes into production. But they just needed to start producing the BTR90 Rostock a year ago. Compared to the BTR82, it is better protected and the same with the weapons.

[IVZ]

But you just had to start producing the BTR90 Rostock a year ago. Compared to the BTR82, it is better protected and the same with weapons.

The 90th is structurally very complex and expensive machine of an "unfashionable" layout. On the solution of wartime does not pull.

[ramzay21]

The boomerang should have long been put into production and delivered to the troops instead of the ancient but well-mastered BTR-82. What they propose to simplify is absolutely true, with the exception of the ramp, it must be left in any case.
And the BTR-82 should be done ONLY when repairing and modernizing the remaining BTR-80s, and in the current conditions, this should be done at repair plants that need to be nationalized and withdrawn from Rostec, if they have not yet been demolished and sold by the Chemezov gang.

[Dante Alighieri]

The 90th is structurally very complex and expensive machine of an "unfashionable" layout. On the solution of wartime does not pull.

But the 90th, unlike Boomerang, went through all the state. tested and adopted.
As for the "unfashionable" layout - I still don't understand why it was impossible to follow the path of the Ukrainian BTR-4 and not place the MTO in the center, between the second and third wheelset, just where the landing hatches are, using them as technical holes for engine maintenance and thereby completely freeing the stern for the landing. Yes, it is understood that the weight distribution of the car would still change, but much less if, following the example of Western models, we simply moved the engine to the bow (project of the armored personnel carrier "Gilza"), which is already sufficiently weighted by the existing armor and weapons. Add here the MTO and the car will inevitably "peck" with its nose. But in the variant with the engine placed in the center, we would not only be able to avoid this problem, but we would not even have to significantly redo the project. Both YaMZ and UTD (if we are talking about the unification of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles) have rather modest dimensions, it is not problematic to place them in the middle of the hull. Moreover, most likely there would be a sufficient passage between the bow and stern, allowing the crew to move freely inside the hull, which, while maintaining one landing hatch on the left or right side, could make life easier for the soldiers inside the BTR-90.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Indeed, "..as you call it, so you will swim!" - revolves like a boomerang in the Augean archives "the best is the enemy of the good."

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

The BTR-90 had to be built either almost 20 years ago, when it was developed, and put into mass production more than 10 years ago or not touched.
The car is very cool, he is a fan himself, but now during the war there is no point in complex equipment that has not been mastered either in production or in the army, and even more so after the war.

[George Sviridov]

A year ago it’s very late, production should start in 2008 at the latest, and wisely even before that, adopt it and start producing... Minimum 600 cars a year... Better 1000.

[hikker]

I looked at the BTR 90, it's already outdated in terms of protection and this one will be better

[fa2998]

They were so proud of the Boomerang, they dragged it along the parades. How much money they mastered, a lot. They collected it from imported equipment.

[Alekseev]

"Assembled their imported equipment."
And what is there specifically from the import? And who controlled those. conditions for this car? Is it a foreign agent in uniform?
Or repetition after those who say so?
In general, there is a lot of truth in the article
Military equipment should be as simple as possible.
And if an air defense system or even a tank control system is not so easy to simplify without a significant reduction in performance characteristics, then why do army trucks have ZF gearboxes, albeit licensed and common rail fuel systems? And all this is applied, for example, to KamAZ - 5350 and others. More expensive truck and more profit for the plant?
As for the possibility of overcoming water obstacles by technology.
After all, for the smart guys who deny this necessity, I would like to remind you that such obstacles are encountered in the European theater of military operations every 20-25 km and during a major offensive off-road, which has not yet been carried out during the SVO, equipment capable of swimming or crossing rivers at a deep ford or under water is needed. Let it be with the use of additional equipment and some engineering equipment, if required, of the river formation section (not a sea strait, the marines need their own vehicles). If the troops are not prepared to use all the qualities of their equipment and cannot force a water obstacle without sufficiently vulnerable pontoon and other crossings, that is, say, to seize a bridgehead, then this is a lack of combat training, not equipment.
Another thing is that, as has been written many times, the armored vehicles should be different. Both heavy infantry fighting vehicles (APCs), and light ones, and transport and combat vehicles, and vehicles based on quad bikes. According to the tasks.

[Konnick]

why do army trucks need ZF gearboxes, albeit licensed and common rail fuel systems? And all this is applied, for example, to KamAZ - 5350 and others. More expensive truck and more profit for the plant?

It would be better if they installed Allison automatic transmissions, I would help, a friend works there, everything is cooler...
I remembered, a long time ago, after graduating from the institute, I came to the plant, there they just stuck a used annealing furnace on malleable cast iron from the USA, Holcroft brand. I was surprised, why? Malleable? The whole world is switching to high-strength. Then I realized, officials from the Ministry of Automobile Industry, the director and chief engineer were traveling for free back and forth to the States ... to buy what the Americans wanted to send to scrap metal. They sent it to scrap metal here.

[Konnick]

Another thing is that, as it has been written more than once, BTT should be different. And heavy infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers), and light, and TPK, and vehicles based on ATVs. By tasks.

As a mechanic, I disagree. The Wehrmacht ran into different equipment from all over Europe, as did the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There must be UNIFICATION of both armor and any equipment and weapons. When we began to receive various equipment from the allies under Lend-Lease, Stalin refused many brands of trucks and chose Studebaker on the advice of specialists. And this car also became a symbol of Victory along with the T-34 tank. The combat readiness of the army directly depends on the convenience of providing spare parts. And this will never happen like in car sharing, today I want a quad bike, tomorrow a pickup truck, and the day after tomorrow a Typhoon.

[bayard]

Quote: Konnick

I want to drive a quad today, pickup tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow a Typhoon.

It's not about that. Our belligerent army needs highly protected armored vehicles for infantry like air. We already have a waterfowl - all the storage bases are full, and there are a lot of BTR-82A, BMP-1 \ 2 in the ranks. But we need armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles capable of holding fragments of heavy (6 ") shells, large-caliber bullets and shells 20, 25 and preferably 30 mm. If the presented armored personnel carrier has protection approximately at the level of the BMP-3 and at the same time it is simpler, cheaper, more technologically advanced (in production and service), then they need to be put into series as soon as possible... And to make them as simple as possible for the sake of mass production and ease of maintenance and repair.
Precisely because we already have so many light armored vehicles, the emphasis in the release should be on the release of heavy and highly protected.
So the BMP-3M, the BTR-3 based on it, has already gone into the series, and this is GOOD.
It’s bad that at the same plant they launched into the series and frankly d.ur @ tsky "Octopus-SDM", having taken up a whole line with its release. And they want to organize the production of self-propelled guns on the BMP-3M chassis with flawed characteristics. And all this is done at the expense of the release of the BMP-3M, which is sorely needed in the troops.
And if the need for such an ACS (still 152 mm., albeit with a range of "Carnations") can still be somehow justified, then .... "Sprut-SDM" is an outright sabotage, a waste of funds and production resources and, as a result, an undermining of the combat capability of our infantry units.
Therefore, it is now necessary to produce at all available capacities exactly the BMP-3M, BTR-3, heavy wheeled armored personnel carriers, if these are not just "pictures from the exhibition", as well as organize production on the basis of the hulls of old TBTR tanks with a tank level of protection for assault infantry.
And light armored vehicles ... to be removed from storage, restored, modernized if possible and - to the troops, let them float.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

The octopus is not sabotage, it is a necessity. Anti-tank artillery is represented by ancient rapiers, towed, with a short range, 40 years old as non-penetrating tanks. Acacias, revenges and hyacinths will still serve in the army for many decades, but rapiers had to be changed back in the 80s. And replacing them with octopuses is generally the best that can be. A mobile, powerful anti-tank weapon, for destroying mounts, 125 mm high explosives and cumulatives are much more powerful than 100 mm shells.
A long-range towed gun, the same msta-b or hyacinth-b, is one thing, towed front-line guns are. The copter directs mortars at them and the whole calculation is carried out with a load of 200 ... But maneuverable, fast self-propelled guns, including floating ones, will be effective. At least they cannot do without an exact hit by a mine, but this is difficult to do, and it is much easier for them to change positions.

[bayard]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

The octopus is not sabotage, it is a necessity.

Seriously ?
More expensive than MBT?

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

Anti-tank artillery is represented by ancient rapiers, towed, with a short range, 40 years old as non-penetrating tanks.

Don't buy into the name. If we need to strengthen the anti-tank capabilities and firepower of infantry units / units / formations, then for this it IS ENOUGH to remove the good old T-55 and T-62 from storage (which is already being done) and we will get in one bottle a self-propelled armored anti-tank self-propelled gun and a decent fire reinforcement of infantry units. It is an order of magnitude cheaper and more efficient. Simply because THEY ALREADY HAVE and they have MBT armor, and not aluminum "foil".
"Octopus" pushed through and continues to push through the headless "airborne lobby", which once went crazy to get an airborne "tank" and they, like a bull on a red rag, are rushing towards the desired goal.
It's worse than a crime, it's a MISTAKE.
A "tank" with a parachute in the rear is almost useless on the battlefield, it will be hit by any small-caliber artillery, heavy fragments and even large-caliber machine guns in the side. And this at a price of one and a half MBT ... in any case, not lower than the cost of the T-90M. This is not just a waste of funds, it is also the occupation of capacities to the detriment of the production of a really effective and very necessary BMP-3M and BTR-3.
Towed guns today are an anachronism, but they need to be changed at the forefront and in the near rear to ... the old tanks available in warehouses, which have better guns than the Rapiers, and the armor and patency on the tracks are excellent, and they cost the military budget only for the price of their restoration from storage and, in extreme cases, a small modernization.

At the same time, I do not consider the idea of ​​a "light tank" with a 125 mm gun. completely failed, but it must be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MACHINE.
Firstly, it is necessary to get rid of the idea of ​​\u25b\u3ba parachute in s @ Dnitse, that is, from parachute landing. It should be a light tank weighing about 3 tons (basic) based on the chassis and hull of the BMP-4M (not the BMP-XNUMX (!) and even more so not the BMD-XNUMX !!). With a tower from "Octopus", but somewhat reinforced in booking. So much so that modern dynamic protection can be installed.
In the BMP-3M, despite the aluminum body, the armor in the forehead holds 30 mm. projectile, and when using (they are regular) side screens with composite filling from "Kurganets", it also holds 30 mm in the sides. And consequently, heavy fragments from large shells. Moreover, these side screens also increase the buoyancy of the BMP, because their buoyancy is positive.
A tank based on the BMP-3M, of course, will be heavier - 25 tons versus 21 tons, so it’s hardly worth talking about its buoyancy. But it will be a LIGHT tank, which can go into service with the Airborne Forces, as well as with the MP of the Russian Navy. When airborne, one Il-76MD90A will be able to take on board two such tanks at once. Or one tank, a support vehicle with a supply of ammunition and spare parts, as well as a supply of fuel. And all this on one side.
For the MP, such a tank will also be interesting and useful, because one landing ship will be able to take twice as many tanks at a time.
Ida - it can still be made floating. Thanks to the very side screens with positive buoyancy.
By the way, the first "Octopus" was made precisely on the basis of the BMP-3, and it swam quite well. This one will be heavier, but the side screens/floats can make up for the weight gain.
Such light tanks can also be useful for the ground formations of our Army. For example, it would not be bad at all to have a company of such FLOATING tanks with an MBT gun as part of the avant-garde units as part of each tank and motorized rifle division. For forcing water barriers on the move, capturing and holding bridgeheads until the main forces approach.
And the Indians for their highlands would have chosen our light tank if we had it (and not the Octopus), and not the light tank proposed by South Korea.
But now, when every tank, every gun counts, when every combat vehicle produced by the industry matters, Kurganskmashzavod must and is obliged to produce BMP-3M and BTR-3 on all its lines !! And not a crude misunderstanding with the MBT gun, their aluminum "foil" armor and ... a parachute in the s @ Dnitsa.
Moreover, the BMP-3M also has 100 mm. a gun (capable of conducting mounted fire, even along a mortar trajectory), and 30 mm. guns, machine guns, waterfowl and good security for the crew and troops.

Regarding self-propelled guns based on the BMP-3M with a range of up to 15 km. , a moot point, but if such are in demand in the NWO, then why not. If the interest and request is really justified.
But I have never heard that any of the commanders would like to be at the forefront ... "Octopus-SDM". Especially if it is possible to get a normal T-62M instead ... or even more so T-72 even without modernization.

[Eule]

Quote: bayard

Towed guns today are an anachronism, but they need to be changed

For some reason, everyone else, from Europe to China, makes self-propelled guns with a 45-caliber barrel length in order to "get" the enemy from a range that is inaccessible to any self-propelled guns with short stubs. "Denel" from a distance of 45 km will be able to hit a self-propelled gun, which still has to travel 25 km under fire to have enough range.

[Nordsc0l]

You are mistaken in some points. If you meant the BMP-3M, and not the Dragoon, then the difference from the standard 12.7 is in the side screens, new fire control system, new engine and that's it. Otherwise, it's a regular 19. By the way, it has regular steel screens, not the composite ones from the Kurganets. Thanks to which, it can withstand 4 armor-piercing rounds in the side. At the same time, it CAN float, and the suspension seems to have remained the same. In total, the regular one weighs 23 tons + 55 tons if you attach screens and grilles, a total of 62 tons. Regarding the T-62 and 1, I agree that the armor is clearly better there. It can withstand shrapnel, small-caliber artillery and all that jazz, but the armor level, even the T-70M7, has remained at the level of the 64s. It can withstand the British L62. That's all. Anything more modern turns it into a sieve. And yes, the first Soviet MBT is the T-55. Not the 64 or 90. So, if you hit them with the same Zakolka, they are corpses. But if you shoot at the same T-90B, nothing will happen to it. And the side, you can destroy any tank with whatever you want. If there is no dz, you can even use a fauspatrone. The idea of ​​your light tank looks interesting. But why it needs to float is not clear. And regarding the armored personnel carrier, I would make the BTR-XNUMX. Only with a central engine compartment. Then there would be an apar, and there would be room. But as it is, we really can make the BTR-XNUMX. Unlike the boomerang.

[bayard]

Quote from Nordsc0l

You are wrong on some points. If you meant BMP - 3M, not Dragoon

The fact is that initially the Dragoon appeared under the BMP-3M indices and it was its configuration, level of protection and the prospects for creating an armored personnel carrier on its basis (with a front MTO) that seem to me the most promising and, moreover, the only correct one in the current conditions.
And it is also most reasonable to make a light tank based on the Dragoon hull in terms of crew protection (and the engine at the front will also increase protection from the front projection.

Quote from Nordsc0l

there are ordinary steel screens, not composite ones from Kurganets. Thanks to this, it holds armor-piercing 12.7 on board. However, it CAN float, but the suspension seems to have remained the same. In total, a regular one weighs 19 tons + 4 tons, if you add screens and grilles, a total of 23 tons.

Yes, I've already figured that out. The confusion obviously arose because such a simple modernization... was also called BMP-3M. Although the "Dragoon" and "Manul" were previously known under the same name. In my opinion, the "Dragoon", an APC based on it, and possibly a light tank should have been launched into production.

Quote from Nordsc0l

Your light tank idea looks interesting. Just why he should swim is not clear.

This option is not at all mandatory, but it would not hurt for arming the Marine Infantry... and the Airborne Forces... and for vanguard units as part of tank and motorized rifle formations - for crossing water obstacles by swimming on the move, for capturing and holding bridgeheads until crossing the obstacle with the main forces along established crossings. The buoyancy of such a tank (so as not to disfigure its design for the sake of additional buoyancy) can be added with removable side floats.
In general, the idea of ​​a light tank with MBT armament is the ability to quickly transport such armored vehicles over long distances in fairly large quantities. After all, when one Il-76MD-90A takes on board two such tanks, or a landing ship takes on board twice as many tanks... albeit light, but with the same firepower... this can be very useful in many cases.

[Materialist]

It follows from your comment that you need all sorts of different things and more, measuring the security of the car by its mass
All the vehicles you listed, with enemy fire concentrated on them, are disposable carts with weapons that are excessively powerful relative to protection, they will still be easily hit by the same means that they use against tanks
What kind of protected vehicles can we talk about if even the most modern tanks are not able to install capital protection of the sides, and not tin rubbish, which loses all its "protective" functions when it meets a tree?
In order to continue the war without prospects with the same previous success, of course, it is necessary to produce the BMP-3, but not because it is good, but because neither the capabilities of the Russian industry nor the designers are enough for anything else
It is surprising how Ukrainian craftsmen in a dilapidated hangar were able to create a conceptually progressive machine of crappy performance, for the same reason, because there has never been a supply of a modified and serial version of the BMO-T or BTR-T of the RF Armed Forces, well, or it has never been advertised

[Vladimir_2U]

the assembly of one simplified armored personnel carrier takes 7-10 times less time than the Typhoon-K.

Even if the armored personnel carrier has become somewhat worse, it’s still very cool.

not four Kornet-M launchers, but only two Konkurs-M

Not very good, but you can always improve attachments, albeit later.

It is interesting that for the commander of the car, located behind the driver, they provided their own hatch.

Just right for the march.

During the Great Patriotic War, simplified but more powerful models were put into production in a matter of months (T-40, T-30, T-60, etc.), I hope the industry will not let us down with the Boomerang either.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

I can only add one thing to Vladimir's comment. On the BIR, it is necessary to install an automatic grenade launcher as an additional weapon.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

I completely agree. Without AGS, nowhere. Especially if 40 mm, with increased depth, so that you can cover the calculations of anti-aircraft guns. From maximum ranges, they still never work.

[Konnick]

Another example is a simplified version of the Boomerang armored personnel carrier, the patent for which was published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property in early June.

I wonder how they wrote down the patent for what, for a pregnant antelope or wildebeest antelope?

[Dante Alighieri]

I wonder how they wrote down the patent for what, for a pregnant antelope or wildebeest antelope?

By the way, yes, I also noticed this. The armored personnel carrier has obviously grown fat. It is even clearly seen that the dimensions of the hull have become larger, but the clearance has decreased, i.e. with the same overall height, the height of the hull has clearly grown. And this despite the fact that the Boomerang was very, very high in its first variation - the roof of its hull began at the height of the BTR-82 tower.
Image for comparison

Here, however, the Boomerang is not yet quite in the form in which we are accustomed to seeing it, but for the time being only its concept, but a general understanding of the dimensions still gives a sense. In reality, the differences look something like this:

[PROXOR]

What is the difference in height when the task of the armored personnel carrier is only the transportation of drugs to the LBS. No more. Delivery of BU, export of 300x and 200x. It’s not from a good life that armored personnel carriers begin to support infantry with fire on LBS.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: PROXOR

What is the difference in height when the task of the armored personnel carrier is only the transportation of drugs to the LBS. No more. Delivery of BU, export of 300x and 200x. It’s not from a good life that armored personnel carriers begin to support infantry with fire on LBS.

No. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Armored personnel carriers have ALWAYS been used for fire support. And not "from a good life", but because it was planned so from the beginning. And the statements "only transportation" are from the same opera as "tanks do not fight tanks" and "The Earth is flat!".

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

And where does tanks with tanks and the earth is flat. Even this campaign confirms that tanks do not fight. The main losses are artillery and mines, then tanks, for each tank duel, tanks fire hundreds of shots at fortifications, including from closed positions, and maybe even thousands ...

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

And where does tanks with tanks and the earth is flat. Even this campaign confirms that tanks do not fight. The main losses are artillery and mines, then tanks, for each tank duel, tanks fire hundreds of shots at fortifications, including from closed positions, and maybe even thousands ...

Read the comment carefully.

[PROXOR]

You are wrong. The armored personnel carriers were originally planned as the delivery of infantry to the LBS and as a mobile reserve of units. Direct fire contact with the enemy was carried out either by tanks or infantry fighting vehicles. And if you look at the military doctrine of the USSR, then tanuki, with the support of infantry fighting vehicles, at maximum speed approach the enemy at its advanced positions, in front of them the infantry leaves the infantry fighting vehicle and attacks along with tanks, preventing the enemy from using anti-tank weapons. Armored personnel carriers always had to be in the 3rd echelon to pull up infantry reserves to the forward positions. You yourself will remember the first armored personnel carriers of the USSR. BTR40, BTR50, BTR152, and even the initial BTR60 were not armed with anything larger than the DShK. Late BTR60, BTR70, BTR80 got KPVT (which crews don't like very much. Difficult to clean and maintain).

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: PROXOR

The armored personnel carriers were originally planned as the delivery of infantry to the LBS and as a mobile reserve of units. Direct fire contact with the enemy was carried out either by tanks or infantry fighting vehicles. And if you look at the military doctrine of the USSR, then tanuki, with the support of infantry fighting vehicles, at maximum speed bring together

To be precise and simple, they followed tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and provided fire support both in the offensive and in defense. This is precisely what the tactics taught, the combat regulations and, in fact, the history of the use of armored personnel carriers by both the Fritz and the Red Army speak of.

[Dimax-nemo]

Well, first of all, not always. Once there was nothing but SGM on them. Yes, and from the KPVT "support" insofar as. Secondly, this is the confusion between armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

[Dimax-nemo]

mine resistance requirements. And the fighters are now taller and more well-fed than in the 60s, not counting everything that is now loaded on them.

[leyurtim]

In the above diagram, BTR-80 (82, 70), Turkish (I don’t remember the name) and BTR-90. In my opinion, there is no Boomerang. Even as a concept.

[Graz]

The main thing is to start making this Boomerang, albeit a simplified version, but start doing it,
and not limited to projects and 2 samples, this is a disgrace, they have been worn with this Boomerang for 10 years, but they are not in the army, those who were involved in financing and putting into production must be given a deadline, either incompetence and squandering of funds or deliberate wrecking

[Konnick]

The combat module is equipped with a gunner's multi-channel thermal imaging sight with independent line-of-sight stabilization with television, thermal imaging, laser ranging channels and an ATGM control channel.

And it's not only the image stabilization in the sight that's weak, like everyone else has in a phone camera, but also the gun stabilized in two planes in Bradley? And the image quality is always better in an optical sight, not in a TV with pixels.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You can immediately see a "specialist" in military equipment.
Almost all cannon combat modules have gun stabilization in two planes, not only the much-loved Bradley.
And now additional stabilization is put on the sight. On older models, the sight wobbled and gun stabilization wasn't much use.

[optika20]

By the way, yes, I remember about three years ago somewhere (probably even here) I read, they say, "rya, the gun on the BTR-82 is badly fixed, look how it staggers when firing, they hit the white light like a pretty penny." Then I look at the footage from the front - it calmly puts (lays down?) Queues in the forest, with good accuracy from my couch point of view, and there is definitely stabilization there.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Here is an interesting question. As I understand it, one of the reasons for switching to 2A72 was less gas contamination from powder gases inside the machine, compared to 2A42. And yet, the gun began to be used on combat modules, where the issue of gas pollution is not worth it. And on the habitable module "Berezhok" they still put 2A42.

[IImonolitII]

The main reason is the reduced recoil momentum due to the long stroke of the barrel.

[tarakan]

If I'm not mistaken, there is synchronization of the shot and the "bend" of the barrel,

[Konnick]

Almost all cannon combat modules have gun stabilization in two planes, not only the much-loved Bradley.

As a specialist, you should name our weapon stabilization modules. A video would be helpful. So on which of our armored vehicles is a stabilized gun, and not a sight?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A response request to the "specialist", name at least one domestic serial cannon module or tower installation without stabilization.

[Konnick]

A response request to the "specialist", name at least one domestic serial cannon module or tower installation without stabilization.

I don’t know about serial cannon modules, but those developed and shown on TV for you -

Arbalet-DM - ​​not in the series.
AU220M - not in the series.
Bakhcha-U - 30 pieces were made.
Berezhok (combat module) - seen at the parade and in the cinema.
Boomerang-BM - not in the series.
Cleaver - not in the series.

"You see a gopher, so I don't see it, but it is there"

Alaverdi?

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

So on which of our armored vehicles is a stabilized gun, and not a sight?

Um. It's funny. It seems that you think that in nature there is a "stabilized sight", stabilized separately from the gun. I have a couple of questions right now:

Why is it needed, in your opinion?
- where you can see an example of such a "stabilized sight".

To avoid misunderstanding, I will explain: speaking about the sight, I mean the gunner's sight. And not anything else.

[Konnick]

- where you can see an example of such a "stabilized sight".

On your phone, when you shoot a video on the go, and the image does not jump or shake along with your hands. This is called stabilization, it can be optical or digital, even combined.
Satisfied Chicholina?

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

- where you can see an example of such a "stabilized sight".

On your phone, when you shoot a video on the go, and the image does not jump or shake along with your hands. This is called stabilization, it can be optical or digital, even combined

Umm ... what, excuse me, does your scream have to do with the sights of combat vehicles discussed here? Well, it has absolutely nothing.

Horseman.

[Sergey74]

Actually, it's been around for a long time. BTR-82A The twin armament is equipped with an electric drive and a digital two-plane stabilizer, a combined all-day gunner's sight TKN-4GA with day and night channels, with a stabilized field of view and a control channel for remote detonation of the projectile. On the modification of the TKN-4GA-03 sight, the night channel was replaced by a thermal imaging one.

[keleg]

It would be better if they put the AGS, bringing the armored personnel carrier to direct fire is another solution, you need something for firing from a closed firing position.
After all, there is such a module, the "spoke" is placed on the last "KAMAZ-shot".

[Bodipancher]

Well done in the "Berezhok" module. Cannon for direct fire and AGS for firing at squares and at closed positions.

[keleg]

In theory, wheeled APCs are not really needed, their functions have been taken over by MRAPs. But for a wheeled IFV, you can already take a module with 57mm low-ballistic LShO. Since there are cumulative ammunition for it, it will penetrate any light equipment even without ATGMs, so a simplified "era" with a 57 mm gun and machine gun will be quite appropriate - cheap, cheerful and universal, having landed infantry, it can support it with fire from a closed OP, similar in power to 81 mm mortar mines. And this is for each squad!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The module with 57mm LSHO low ballistics can be taken when it is completely ready. In addition to the gun itself, it was supposed to install new missiles on it. There can be many reasons for the delay with this module.

[Zaurbek]

It seems to me that now we should not bother with the military requirements - to swim, fly, etc., but use commercial units and make MRAP with the weapons of the BMP 6x6 and 8x8. For example, the same BM Tigr can be 6x6 ... and a normal module with weapons can already be installed. There is the same suspension of the BTR-80. I think the bogie from the Kamaz and Ural 8x8 can be used. BAZ in general, initially comes with independent suspension. There is a line of diesel engines now in civilian use up to 550 hp. Service is available in civilian use.

[Zufei]

8 years ago, these were called "a grenade launcher's dream."

[Vadim S]

So be it, the main thing is not to scratch with your tongue, but let them out so that they are everywhere. And then the lards go into the sand for mega-buildings, and the guys fight on junk. Technically, there is no difficulty in launching all this, there is bureaucracy and grabber officials.

[Dimax-nemo]

Judging by what we see now in Zaporozhye, heavy wheeled vehicles are generally unacceptable. They are too limited in maneuvering off-road, and the reinforced armor still does not save them from ATGMs, grenade launchers and artillery. shelling 152-155 mm caliber. A mass vehicle can only be produced on the basis of components and assemblies already mastered in production, and these are either those from the BTR-82, or from commercial trucks KamAZ and Ural. Under the conditions of "import substitution" these will be, incl. diesels up to 300 hp, which also imposes restrictions on the max. mass. Increased explosion resistance also does not pay for the greater mass and height of the car, you, maybe, after a mine explosion, will still have time to back up to carry your legs, but this is if you don’t get stuck in the mud and something cumulative doesn’t catch up with you. From the same point of view, landing from behind, and even through the ramp, and not the doors, can be a big minus, as we have just seen. It's not always necessary to step on.
And I wouldn't say no to buoyancy. It's still unknown whether we'll have to swim across the Dnieper or not, and the safety of pontoon crossings is even less credible now than in 2022. Although, of course, personnel should be able to use this buoyancy. The Marines used to be able to.

[Konnick]

From the same point of view, landing from behind, and even through the ramp, and not the doors, can be a big minus, as we have just seen. It's not always necessary to step on.

Yes, as in the video of Bradley's explosion, when the Vushniks crawled out of the armored car from behind right under the fire of our sniper in ambush

And on an ordinary armored personnel carrier, you could hide from a sniper, and maybe even left without a wheel.

[Dimax-nemo]

Mde. That's exactly what I meant, thanks. Well, here our BMPs and BMDs would hardly be any better. You have to choose. Either keep up with the tanks, or not keep up.

[ln_ln]

Suvorov correctly wrote that two exits to the armored personnel carrier are much better than one.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Quote from: ln_ln

Suvorov correctly wrote that two exits to the armored personnel carrier are much better than one.

And three is better than two.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Well then we need to make the APC like they did Ukrainians, with three inputs and outputs.
Armored personnel carrier "Varan".

[keleg]

As platforms for howitzer-mortar artillery, wheeled vehicles show themselves very well, they do not need to be dragged for direct fire. Therefore, the module with LShO-57 or "Nona-SVK" at a new level is our choice!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Something is not visible solutions against the kamikaze drones that have become the main threat. There are no attempts to adapt KAZ to combat drones and install something similar on armored personnel carriers.
Even if hunting shotguns were issued for shooting drones, we still don’t hear about it.

[Graz]

in theory, something stationary like an anti-drone gun could be installed on top of the equipment

[mildsar]

So, I summarize for myself the comparison with the BTR-82A and the pre-war Boomerang:

- easier to manufacture than Boomerang, partial interchangeability of parts with the previous generation of armored personnel carriers is possible

- more chances for the crew and landing force when a mine is blown up due to the V-shaped hull, the frontal location of the engine and the rear exit through the ramp

- more chances for landing during frontal shelling due to the exit from the rear through the ramp and the frontal location of the engine

- a more convenient troop compartment, allowing the transport of the wounded and cargo without gymnastic exercises

- "new-old" uninhabited combat module BTR-BM with a 30-mm cannon, thermal imager and ATGM "Konkurs-M"

Questions:

- the main problem is the ability of the crew to monitor the situation. For example, it’s not clear to me what the commander sees through surveillance devices while sitting at the mehan? The best solution is a UAV with cameras carried out from the stern of an armored personnel carrier to a height of 50-100 meters.

- were the identified problems with interaction with the landing force taken into account? landing through the stern, it would be logical to place a wired walkie-talkie at the stern of the armored personnel carrier so that the landing commander can, for example, issue target designations to the gunner to suppress enemy firing points in the city, or direct the advancement of the armored group

- Were the identified problems with the view in the rear sphere taken into account? for example, an armored personnel carrier is advanced to suppress a sniper in the city, and then must reverse into a narrow street. it would be logical to place rear-view cameras at the stern

[Materialist]

Another car with protection from 30 mm in the forehead and 12,7 on the sides?
Her fate will be the same as that of any other armored personnel carrier with only nominal armor, not only industry, but also the organization of social production in the Russian Federation is not designed for more

[mildsar]

On the battlefield, the fate of any armored personnel carrier is to be burned by ATGM or artillery fire. Therefore, they should be used to transport drugs to the red zone. The advantage of a wheeled armored personnel carrier is its mobility, so it must remain mobile. The main problem of the BTR-82A is the inconvenience of landing, the dimensions of the landing compartment and the lack of mine protection. If you look at the theater of operations in Zaporozhye, a simplified Boomerang could already save a lot of lives of Russian soldiers.

[Materialist]

It is armed in the same way as the BTR-82A and BMP-2 - it follows that it will be used in the same way, given the entire shortage of military equipment in the RF Armed Forces, and in this situation, everything that destroys the latter both will hit this Boomerang
Without going into details of the fundamentally flawed production of military equipment in the Russian Federation and the production and industry of Russia in general, the Russian Armed Forces lack heavy combat and cargo-transport vehicles for the front line, not light ones.

[opposite28]

I’m embarrassed to ask, for what purpose was the working prototype of the Boomerang armored personnel carrier demonstrated in the parade on Red Square ?! Not to mention the T-15 "Kurganets"

[Zaurbek]

There was a not bad Belarusian armored personnel carrier recently shown. Replace the Chinese MTO (For example, with a Kamaz diesel) and go ahead.

[Emperor_Alive]

The main advantage of the combat module is the 30-mm 2A45 cannon, which, in comparison with the similar 2A72 cannon in the BTR-82A, is more accurate and quick-firing.

What kind of gun is this "30-mm gun 2A45"?

Maybe 2A42?
It is faster-firing, but less accurate than 2A72

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from Emperor_Alive

It is faster-firing, but less accurate than 2A72

2A72 more accurately hits either in a pair with 100 mm 2A70, or in a "guiding truss structure", like in the BTR-4.

[Dimax-nemo]

Well, it depends on how the barrel is drilled;)

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Well, it depends on how the barrel is drilled;)

Not without it...

[Alexfly]

Put a 57 gun, there will be good power, only the barrel is longer and the optics are better .. It will chop all sorts of Bradleys with Pumas, like nuts ..

[senima56]

Absolutely agree with you! But it seems that we have everything new only in single copies for parades and exhibitions! Where is the new AGS-40, which has been hoarded and tested for 20 years and will not be brought to mind in any way? But the enemy has long been armed with the UAG-40!

[Konnick]

Absolutely agree with you! But it seems that we have everything new only in single copies for parades and exhibitions! Where is the new AGS-40, which has been hoarded and tested for 20 years and will not be brought to mind in any way? But the enemy has long been armed with the UAG-40!

The Americans in Iraq used up more AGS grenades than small arms cartridges. They simply kept the Iraqi infantry at a distance of even machine-gun fire with grenade launchers.

[senima56]

This you know. I know this ..... But in our MO they know ?! There are two options: either there are "slow-witted people" sitting there, or "saboteurs"! Both have no place in MO!

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

Plus the armor like the Merkava and that's great. Stop making cardboard boxes in the hopes of landing amphibious assaults and forcing rivers. We don't cross them or land. Only the idiots, the Chinese, are planning to carry out amphibious assaults. We're smart, we sit in the trenches and ride around in Merkavas.

[senima56]

"If the presented armored personnel carrier goes into series ..." that says it all! "If..."
It seems that a "deeply controlled enemy" is sitting somewhere at the top and "inserts spokes into the wheels, and throws stones under the scythes"! How else to explain why we have all the new and modern weapons only at exhibitions and parades in single copies ?!

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

I don't get it, where is the 200 mm of armor and the 152 mm gun? They finally threw out the water cannons. We're not going to cross rivers and land troops like the Chinese! So where is the super armor and guns? What nonsense.

[bk0010]

Buoyancy requirements did not allow the creation of equipment with a decent level of protection.

So I have big suspicions that it's not about buoyancy, but about the engine and chassis. The fact is that you need a lot of armored personnel carriers, one for each motorized rifle squad (well, excluding those who got the BMP). And this means that a bunch of engines are required that will meet the requirements for cross-country ability (in the first place). You can’t use a tank engine here: there are few of them and they are expensive. And with affordable and inexpensive engines, booking will be what we have now. Previously, even two engines had to be installed on an armored personnel carrier, but it was very sad. This would be uncritical if the armored personnel carrier was used as an armored personnel carrier, but it is used as an infantry fighting vehicle. Hence all the problems.

[Herman 4223]

But the experience of the Great Patriotic War just says that when conducting active hostilities, the rapid capture and expansion of bridgeheads is a very urgent task. And as a result, it saves a lot of lives, because the battles on the bridgeheads are the bloodiest. I hope that this miracle will not go into series.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

We are not going to seize bridgeheads! We seized enough last year. Judging by what is happening now, we will stand and wait until Ukrainians will not end, and then we will roll to Kyiv. That is why we rush about building surrogates of not very good quality. And so the quality of weapons has fallen sharply. Soon we will be stamping out disposable ones under the guise of optimizing production, like in WWII.

[Herman 4223]

Yes, we are not going to capture bridgeheads!

Don't talk nonsense. As soon as active hostilities begin, and not marking time as it is now, the topic of quickly capturing and expanding bridgeheads will immediately become very relevant. This has been proven by hundreds of wars. The defense along the riverbed requires less forces, even a slight delay after reaching the river can lead to enemy units appearing on the adjacent bank and the offensive immediately ends there. This is not a theory, it has been tested in a huge number of wars.

[Andrey Far East]

Forced palliative in everything: air (Iranian shaheeds, for example), earth, water. Russian DARPA is needed, there are many open or not very open sources with developments. Companies of nerds in the Russian Army were not dispersed ?! Where is the exhaust with recommendations for the future?

[Konnick]

Quote: senima56

"If the presented armored personnel carrier goes into series ..." that says it all! "If..."
It seems that a "deeply controlled enemy" is sitting somewhere at the top and "inserts spokes into the wheels, and throws stones under the scythes"! How else to explain why we have all the new and modern weapons only at exhibitions and parades in single copies ?!

Because our defense industry is far behind the world level, our army uses the developments of the Soviet Union. All these "combat modules" have imported stabilization units. They destroyed their own enterprises at the time, there was a break in activity. A generation gap. In 2019, the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant "Kupol", part of Almaz-Antey, tried to master the solid-state wave gyroscope, but in my opinion there were many imported parts. I don't know how things are now, but there are no gyroscopes in the list of products on the official website.
Solid-state wave gyroscopes are made only in France and the USA. So all these our combat modules are zilch.

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

All these "combat modules" have imported stabilization units

More from now on. It is desirable, not only your impressions, but also their intelligible justification.

Quote: Konnick

but to my mind there were a lot of imported parts. How is this going on now? I do not know, but there are no gyroscopes on the official website in the list of products

In other words - you again do not pull in the subject, but stubbornly muddy the waters. Horseman.

[Konnick]

Quote: Repellent

Quote: Konnick

All these "combat modules" have imported stabilization units

More from now on. It is desirable, not only your impressions, but also their intelligible justification.

Quote: Konnick

but to my mind there were a lot of imported parts. How is this going on now? I do not know, but there are no gyroscopes on the official website in the list of products

In other words - you again do not pull in the subject, but stubbornly muddy the waters. Horseman.

Chicholina, somehow you are leading a discussion in a strange way, you are demanding answers without answering yourself. If in the subject, then write about the devices for stabilizing the gun on the Boomerang, Berezhok and other modules. Where we get and why we don't mass-produce modules, but only for exhibitions.

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

demand answers without answering yourself

I haven't claimed anything yet. You approved. For example, that the Berezhok module does not have a stabilizer. This is a false statement.

Quote: Konnick

write about devices for stabilizing the gun on the Boomerang, Berezhok and other modules. Where we get and why we do not mass-produce modules, but only for exhibitions

They say arrogance is the second happiness. But in this case it is clearly the first.

We took up the topic - take it. No luck - jump off. Harnessing others for oneself is not even impudence, it is super-impudent. Horseman.

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

Find where I stated that the Berezhok module does not have a stabilizer

According to you, all listed modules do not have a stabilizer. Horseman.

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

And where did I state that they are without a stabilizer?

This is called - look into the book, and see the fig. Once again the picture:

Question: give examples of modules without a stabilizer.
Answer: Yes, here they are. Without stabilizers.

Can you interpret this in some other way? I, knowing Russian well, can't.

[Konnick]

Quote: Repellent

Quote: Konnick

And where did I state that they are without a stabilizer?

This is called - look into the book, and see the fig. Once again the picture:

Question: give examples of modules without a stabilizer.
Answer: Yes, here they are. Without stabilizers.

Can you interpret this in some other way? I, knowing Russian well, can't.

It looks like Chicholina has 2 accounts on VO
Maybe at least the second one has its own comments, and not comments on comments.

[Repellent]

Quote: Konnick

It looks like Chicholina has 2 accounts on VO

Um ... the character first epic crap, and now rude. There is nothing new under the sun.

Horseman. Mom bought a horseman, and a horseman without a leg ...

[Konnick]

Quote: Repellent

Quote: Konnick

It looks like Chicholina has 2 accounts on VO

Um ... the character first epic crap, and now rude. There is nothing new under the sun.

Horseman. Mom bought a horseman, and a horseman without a leg ...

I wrote about a stabilized sight, where thanks? It's impolite of you...
Yes, I'm sorry I screwed you over...

[certero]

Quote: Alekseev

Military equipment should be as simple as possible.
And if an air defense system or even a tank control system is not so easy to simplify without a significant reduction in performance characteristics, then why do army trucks have ZF gearboxes, albeit licensed and common rail fuel systems? A

Military equipment must first of all perform combat missions.
If you think that an automatic transmission does not help them to do this, you are severely mistaken. Just like any other fuel system. Or do you think a truck driver should shift gears with a double clutch now? And how about tankers working on the T-34 with a force of 45 kg?

[Dimax-nemo]

Synchronizers have been on manual gearboxes for a long time. The benefits of machine guns in difficult off-road conditions, let's say, are not obvious. It is difficult for automation to explain that on the verge of slipping the wheels should spin.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Quote: Alekseev

"Assembled their imported equipment."
And what is there specifically from the import? And who controlled those. conditions for this car? Is it a foreign agent in uniform?
Or repetition after those who say so?
In general, there is a lot of truth in the article
Military equipment should be as simple as possible.
And if an air defense system or even a tank control system is not so easy to simplify without a significant reduction in performance characteristics, then why do army trucks have ZF gearboxes, albeit licensed and common rail fuel systems? And all this is applied, for example, to KamAZ - 5350 and others. More expensive truck and more profit for the plant?
As for the possibility of overcoming water obstacles by technology.
After all, for the smart guys who deny this necessity, I would like to remind you that such obstacles are encountered in the European theater of military operations every 20-25 km and during a major offensive off-road, which has not yet been carried out during the SVO, equipment capable of swimming or crossing rivers at a deep ford or under water is needed. Let it be with the use of additional equipment and some engineering equipment, if required, of the river formation section (not a sea strait, the marines need their own vehicles). If the troops are not prepared to use all the qualities of their equipment and cannot force a water obstacle without sufficiently vulnerable pontoon and other crossings, that is, say, to seize a bridgehead, then this is a lack of combat training, not equipment.
Another thing is that, as has been written many times, the armored vehicles should be different. Both heavy infantry fighting vehicles (APCs), and light ones, and transport and combat vehicles, and vehicles based on quad bikes. According to the tasks.

Dear, yes, couch experts will prove to you from a half-pink that building a pontoon crossing under dagger fire is like two fingers on asphalt, a trifling matter. And "Himers" will never hit a pontoon crossing, as well as guided artillery shells with GPS guidance.
And in general, all bridges will be captured by a dashing swoop.

[Sergei N 58912062]

The most important thing is that this simplified Boomerang should not be worse than the initial Boomerang.
Because the Z-STS Akhmat is inferior to Typhoon-K and Typhoon-U in its performance characteristics.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Recall that initially the Boomerang in one of the K-16 variants was offered with one 12,7-mm machine gun, which was completely unsuitable for modern warfare.

I do not agree !!!

Just an armored personnel carrier and should be just an armored vehicle for transporting infantry and its property.

And the fact that in the pictures with a 30-mm cannon these are wheeled infantry fighting vehicles.

We have perverted the concept of an armored personnel carrier, turning it into an under-infantry fighting vehicle (BTR-82) with a crooked cannon and poor placement of a small landing force (6 fighters in the landing compartment will climb only in theory, but in practice
now only 4)

And now the question is how to transport personnel on such equipment? How to evacuate bedridden wounded? Where to put the personnel at least some personal belongings? (At least one backpack for each).

Therefore, I am in favor of making not only wheeled infantry fighting vehicles with 30-mm cannons, but also simple armored personnel carriers where a 12,7-mm machine gun is enough from weapons, but troops can travel not only on armor, but also inside the vehicle, moreover, conveniently and safely .

[storm]

Therefore, I am in favor of making not only wheeled infantry fighting vehicles with 30-mm cannons, but also simple armored personnel carriers where a 12,7-mm machine gun is enough from weapons, but troops can travel not only on armor, but also inside the vehicle, moreover, conveniently and safely .

There is nothing stopping you from installing a remotely controlled combat module with a 30 mm cannon and an ATGM on an armored personnel carrier with a spacious fighting compartment for 8 paratroopers.
It is necessary to design the equipment that is needed by the troops, and not what is obtained by expensive but stupid conversion of old Soviet armored vehicles.

[d4rkmesa]

"Slanted cheekbone" - well, in this regard, the Boomerang is just an ugly stump, in the driver's seat of which nothing is visible (perhaps this is compensated by the cameras).

[storm]

What prevents modern designers from installing the KONKURS-M ATGM with 82-2 launchers on the combat MODULE of the ATGM "KONKURS-M" when carrying out repairs and modernization of the BTR-4A/AM.
Why is this only supposed to be used on new armored personnel carriers???
Would these anti-tank systems really be superfluous for modern combat operations.....

[_6]

The concept is already outdated, they will drive on armor. Armored vehicles in principle are going through hard times. A more or less viable option is a BMP with tank-level protection. As a temporary half-measure, a conversion of old T-55 and other tanks will do. Much has been written about this here. As an APC, an MRAP is optimal, and even cheaper and more practical is an armored capsule on the Ural body + suspension reinforcement and minimal armor of the cabin (glass and doors). With such a design, it should be possible to move the armored capsule in the field to any other Ural or Kamaz, using a crane or a winch. That is, a separate landing force, which immediately dismounts in a clash, and separate security means - a tank, Terminator or drones.
Modern combat has shown the long-standing problem of changing tactics, and technology too. For example, to understand that cavalry had outlived its usefulness, it took frontal attacks with sabers drawn on tanks. Now the cavalry is played by tanks, and the future enemy is robotic platforms with anti-tank systems. So, when the awareness of this immutable fact reaches our strategists with large shoulder straps, and the corresponding tactics are formed, then we will need ultra-protected infantry fighting vehicles weighing 50-60 tons without weapons with a retinue of ground and air drones. Future wars are drone battles. And they should be like the T-34: cheap and effective. Also, armor for personnel should be simple but reliable.

[Archon]

How realistic is it to make water jets detachable on mounts? In fact, all infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers do not need to overcome water obstacles, only a very small number.