BTR-22 or BTR-82A (improved)

BTR-82 (advanced) / BTR-22 on "Army-2023". Photo bmpd.livejouenal.com

At the last military-technical forum "Army-2023", the Russian "Military Industrial Company" presented its new initiative development - the armored personnel carrier "BTR-82A (advanced)" or BTR-22. This machine has been developed using production units and features a number of significant innovations aimed at improving all the main characteristics. The appearance of such an armored personnel carrier was formed taking into account the experience of using equipment in the Special Operation.

Proactively

The development of a new domestic armored personnel carrier first became known a few months ago. Then a prototype of this machine during transportation was noticed by bystanders. In addition, in June, the Military Industrial Company received a patent for a similar machine. However, detailed and official information about the new sample did not appear then.

The official "premiere" of the new project took place during the recent Army-2023 forum. An armored vehicle with working designations BTR-22 and BTR-82A (advanced) along with other equipment from the military-industrial complex was shown at one of the exhibition parking lots. A new domestic development in the field of armored personnel carriers predictably attracted the attention of visitors.

General view of the armored personnel carrier, graphics from the patent

Reportedly, the BTR-22 was developed using units of the serial BTR-82A, as well as taking into account the experience of its operation, incl. during the special operation. At the same time, only a part of the elements and ideas are borrowed, and the main units are developed from scratch. Due to this, increased performance characteristics are provided and advantages are achieved over the "normal" BTR-82A.

To date, the BTR-82A (advanced) project has reached the stage of construction and testing of experimental equipment. Several prototypes have already been tested at the test site and are now being tested in the armed forces. Probably, after trial operation in the army, the army will decide whether it needs such machines. A positive answer to this question will allow "VPK" to establish mass production.

At the moment, we are talking only about a wheeled armored personnel carrier, in the future capable of supplementing or replacing the current BTR-80/82. In the future, if the customer has the appropriate plans, a whole family of equipment for various purposes can be made on the basis of the BTR-22 - as was done with the existing platform.

New solutions

In terms of overall architecture and key design elements, the new BTR-22 is similar to the serial BTR-82A. In addition, there is a clear similarity and borrowing of ideas from the promising Boomerang project. At the same time, "BTR-82A (improved)" occupies an intermediate position between these two developments, which makes it possible to obtain an advantageous ratio of performance characteristics and cost.

Armored personnel carrier with combat module "Boomerang". Graphics from the patent

Like its predecessor, taken as a basis, the BTR-22 is an armored combat vehicle on a four-axle wheeled chassis. The armored personnel carrier was built in the original armored hull, which is radically different from the serial hull for the BTR-82A. The contours have been changed and the layout has been revised - in accordance with current trends, the engine compartment has been moved to the front, and the troop compartment has been placed in the stern.

The hull has spaced armor with improved performance. Declared ballistic protection against armor-piercing 12,7-mm bullets and fragments with similar energy at all angles. A V-shaped hull bottom is provided, due to which mine protection is improved. The crew and troops are protected from undermining 2 kg of TNT under the wheel or bottom.

A diesel engine of an unnamed model with an HP 330 power is placed in the forward engine compartment. A five-speed manual transmission is used; transmission distributes torque to all wheels. The four-axle chassis has an individual torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers, borrowed from the BTR-82A.

"BTR-82A (advanced)" is floating. Probably, in order to cross water obstacles, an appropriate mover or movers must be present on it. However, the sample from the Army-2023 exhibition did not have such devices.

Chassis and suspension are built on BTR-82A units. Photo Vitalykuzmin.net

BTR-22 can be equipped with different weapon systems. The exhibition sample received a standard BPPU turret with a 30 mm 2A72 automatic cannon and a 7,62 mm machine gun, as well as a day-night sight. The promotional materials for the project feature the Ballista combat module, which was first shown last year. In this case, the armored personnel carrier becomes the carrier of the 2A42 gun, the PKT machine gun and the Konkurs-M missile system.

The crew of the "BTR-82A (advanced)" includes the driver, commander and gunner. The driver and commander work in the control compartment to the left of the engine; the operator is under the tower. The troop compartment received eight seats located near the sides of the hull. Disembarkation is carried out through the aft swing door.

The length of the BTR-22 does not exceed 7,6 m with a width of less than 3 m and a height of just over 3 m. The combat weight is declared at the level of 20 tons. The speed on the highway reaches 80 km; high driving characteristics on off-road and rough terrain are provided. Parameters on the water are not disclosed.

Landing squad. In the distance, the turret part of the BPPU installation is visible. Photo bmpd.livejournal.com

From generation to generation

Thus, the Military Industrial Company offers a new version of an armored personnel carrier for the Russian army. She studied the experience of operating equipment of this class in the troops, incl. combat use within the framework of the Special Operation, and also took into account the wishes and needs of the army. As a result, the current BTR-22 / "BTR-82A (improved)" appeared, which has characteristic features and features, and also compares favorably with other modern models.

First of all, the new armored hull attracts attention. It compares favorably with the armor of previous production vehicles, including the latest BTR-82A. During its development, modern technical and layout solutions were used, aimed at a significant increase in ballistic and mine protection. The loss of unification of the new BTR-22 with the existing model was considered acceptable.

An important advantage of the new machine is the fundamental possibility of installing different combat compartments and modules, provided already at the design stage. The exhibition sample is equipped with a serial product BPPU and the possibility of mounting the Ballista module with machine guns, cannons and missiles is shown. At the same time, the Russian industry offers a number of other combat modules, and almost any of them can be mounted on the BTR-22, determining its fire capabilities.

Flyer for the BTR-22 project. The photo shows an armored personnel carrier with a combat module "Ballista"

It should be noted that the new "BTR-82A (improved)" in terms of general characteristics and potential is inferior to the promising product "Boomerang". This difference is due to the use of simpler solutions and components. At the same time, it is precisely due to this that the BTR-22 is easier and cheaper to manufacture and operate.

An armored vehicle with such a combination of technical, combat and economic characteristics may be of interest to the army. With its help, it is possible to replace the aging BTR-80/82, which have almost exhausted their modernization potential. In addition, the BTR-22 can become a kind of temporary measure in anticipation of a sufficient number of more advanced Boomerangs and ensure a smooth transition from one generation of equipment to another.

At the exhibition and on trials

According to known data, "BTR-82A (advanced)" or BTR-22 already exists in several copies and is undergoing various tests. It is reported about sending equipment to the troops for verification and evaluation in real operation. After such events, the Ministry of Defense will be able to fully assess the initiative development of the "VPK" and determine its future fate.

The proposed BTR-22 has a special appearance and is noticeably different from the existing BTR-82A or the promising Boomerang. At the same time, such differences are due to the accumulated experience in development and operation, and are also aimed at improving the design and improving its characteristics. How successful were all these solutions and whether they coped with the tasks set, the current tests will show.

Comments

[Scipio]

Not an expert, but I think the decision is correct. Improved the old platform. Yes, and in terms of production time, it is likely to spank faster than a boomerang. Boomerang, all the same, it will be more expensive.

[bayard]

About buoyancy, the author himself came up with, this armored personnel carrier will not swim, and it does not have a water-reflecting shield. As there are no water cannons. But on the standard chassis, they finally made a sane armored personnel carrier with a stern door and an engine in front. And the rejection of waterfowl made it possible to strengthen the reservation to acceptable values. It is precisely such an armored personnel carrier that should now be launched into the widest series, because its production is possible with virtually no buildup and in the same volumes as the BTR-82A.
Good security, convenient landing and dismounting through the aft door, as well as a fairly budget price due to the use of serial components - what is needed for the warring Army and domestic industry to provide it in sufficient quantities.

[Materialist]

What is the "acceptability" of armor resistance values?

[bayard]

Holds 12,7mm. bullets and fragments with the same energy into the side, convenient landing and dismounting through the stern doors. Compare with the durability of the BTR-82A. The main advantage is that it holds fragments. Quite heavy.

[alexmach]

But on the standard chassis they finally made a sane armored personnel carrier

So I look at this sane armored personnel carrier on the old chassis and think, how sane is he?
On the one hand, it should not be difficult to overpower its production on the old chassis, as even its name hints at.
On the other hand, on the same old chassis, the mass increased by a third. And the power of the old engine has increased by as much as 10%. As a result, he got fewer "Horses per ton" than the BTR-60. So the question that torments me is whether it will go. And if not on the roads but on the black soil and in not ideal weather? All purely observations of the theorist from the couch.

[bayard]

Quote: alexmach

on the same old chassis, the mass increased by a third. And the power of the old engine has increased by as much as 10%. As a result, he got fewer "Horses per ton" than the BTR-60. So the question that torments me is whether it will go. And if not on the roads but on the black soil and in not ideal weather? All purely observations of the theorist from the couch.

Of course he will go, the BTR-60 and walked in deep snow on one engine (on Damansky). In general, this armored personnel carrier is an initiative development of the manufacturer based on feedback and wishes from the NWO. If the engine power is not enough, you can use the engine from the BMP-3 \\ 3M with a capacity of 450 and 500 l \ s. The engine is quite compact and there is definitely enough power.

[alexmach]

you can use the engine from BMP-3 \ 3M with a capacity of 450 and 500 l \ s

Somewhere information slipped that 82a had one of the typical breakdowns - a rupture of the cardan shaft, this is still with the old engine. Again, what is the specific load on the ground then using the same chassis and increased mass. And we still didn’t remember that the engine was moved forward and the balancing changed.

But in general, we will hope that the designers knew what they were doing. Here they write about the vaunted Stryker that the mass in the base is up to 25 tons and the engine power is only 350.

[bayard]

Quote: alexmach

Here they write about the vaunted Stryker that the base weight is up to 25 tons and the engine power is only 350.

This means that the BTR-22 will have a thrust-to-weight ratio even slightly higher than that of the Stryker, which means both cross-country ability and speed will not be lower than its level.

Quote: alexmach

, and what is the specific load on the ground using the same chassis and increased mass.

Look at the wheels of the Stryker, Boomerang and BTR-22. The latter has wider wheels, and they can be lowered on muddy ground or snow. I think that the permeability will be at an acceptable level. The SVO has shown the critical importance of containing heavy fragments and large caliber bullets. As well as the categorical desirability of having a stern door and convenient loading and disembarking of troops. And this is more important than the lost opportunity to swim.
If this armored personnel carrier confirms its characteristics, on its basis it will be possible to create a whole line of different vehicles, from self-propelled guns and wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, to CVS, ambulance and wheeled tanks, mortars, self-propelled guns, tactical-level air defense systems...

Quote: alexmach

cardan shaft rupture is still with the old engine

The cardan shaft can be made stronger.

[Victor Tsenin]

It is not a refinement of the old platform. It is a new platform, with elements of borrowing from the 80s.

[TheWatcher]

This armored personnel carrier -22 can in no way be such a cheaper alternative to the Boomerang.
Because Boomerang is a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, not an armored personnel carrier. It is much more powerful and heavier than the armored personnel carrier and, of course, is better protected.
And this BTR-22 is another attempt by the captain Serezha Shoigu to make the BTR-82A more attractive (like modernized) out of shit, but everything is also shit - just not to spend money on a better product of the military-industrial complex. He obviously does everything; spends money modernizing any old soviet rubbish, which proved to be ineffective back in Afghanistan and Chechnya, where it burned like sparklers. But it just does not buy new equipment, which is initially laid down taking into account the operation and shortcomings of the old one.
And he, by his huckster nature, wants it to be of high quality and cheap, but this does not happen, everything of high quality is not cheap. You can’t make candy out of old shit - it will still be shit, but just in a beautiful wrapper))

[bayard]

Quote from The Watcher

And this BTR-22 is another attempt by the captain Serezha Shoigu to make the BTR-82A more attractive out of shit

This is not his merit, not an order from the Moscow Region, but an initiative development. Initiative from the bottom. And a very successful initiative.

Quote from The Watcher

. Boomerang is a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, not an armored personnel carrier.

It all depends on the combat module. On the BTR-22, you can also put infantry fighting vehicles from infantry fighting vehicles, and even self-propelled guns and the Sprut tower.

Quote from The Watcher

It is much more powerful and heavier than the armored personnel carrier and, of course, is better protected.

As for more powerful ... its engine with a capacity of 700-800 l / s is still not ready, not reliable, like many other things. At the same time, the BTR-22 has a mass of 20 tons. And this is only one ton less than that of the BMP-3M ... which holds 30 mm with side screens. projectile in the forehead and sides. So I would ask you to be more respectful to this very interesting car.

Quote from The Watcher

where it blazed like sparklers.

Everything that comes under the fire of cumulative and thermite ammunition burns like sparklers. But you should not equate the BTR-80 and BTR-22, their level of protection differs very much.

Quote from The Watcher

I want it to be high quality and cheap,

Once again - the one you are talking about did not order this. This is an initiative development. But his level of security (BTR-22) is at the level of the first versions of the BMP-3. And that's a good level of protection.
And the main advantage is that it does not float.
Therefore, at a completely budget price, we got a good armored personnel carrier with mine protection and protection against heavy fragments.

Quote from The Watcher

from old shit

Quote from The Watcher

it's all shit too

Something you are fixated on this consistency ... Think about the good.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Taking into account modern realities, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and tanks should be equipped with an unmanned system. China is following this path, which has already presented an armored car of our Tiger class, which is equipped with launchers for drones. Soon, the cost of producing UAVs will drop significantly, and it is this weapon that will determine the result on the battlefield.

[Passing]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

Soon, the cost of producing UAVs will drop significantly, and it is this weapon that will determine the result on the battlefield.

Cheap compact combat drones based on civilian technologies will die out in the coming years, because their effectiveness will rush to zero. First of all, because of the electronic warfare. Already now they are jammed with "guns" at a time, and in the future the troops will have a continuous field of suppression of civilian GPS frequencies and communication channels.
Protected military communications and GPS are another matter, they will always be relevant, competing with electronic warfare, like projectile / armor. But it was always a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive. And it requires serious energy, which means mass / dimensions. The combat drone of the future will not be very compact, but certainly an expensive stealth device stuffed with advanced electronics. There will be no countless swarms of penny drones hanging over the battlefield.

[alexmach]

Grandma said in two.

Already now they are silenced by "guns" at a time

Provided that they were able to first find it at all.

and in the future, the troops will have a continuous field of suppression of civilian GPS frequencies and communication channels

Will not be. For the emitters of this "continuous field" will glow like a Christmas tree, and according to this glow, they will fly in the first place. There will also be an endless battle of sword and shield.

[Passing]

Quote: alexmach

For the emitters of this “continuous field” will glow like Christmas trees and, based on this glow, they will be the first to fly

There will not even be a thousand emitters, but more, and they will not cost very much, so even just knocking them out with himars, for example, will cost a pretty penny, because a rocket or excalibur will obviously be an order of magnitude more expensive. Let them destroy, we will rivet as much as necessary, the economy is in our favor. And this is without taking into account such an elementary thing as spacing a trailer with equipment and a diesel generator and a radiating antenna. In general, an empty idea to try to knock out the emitters.
In addition, according to the mind, it is necessary to make a network of emitters immediately according to the AFAR principle, and even better, the CAR. There is no chance at all to detect anything, except for one antenna the size of a fpont line. And the very possibilities to suppress anything will simply go off scale

[DenVB]

Quote: Passing by

Cheap compact combat drones based on civilian technologies will become extinct in the coming years, because their effectiveness will go to zero. First of all, due to electronic warfare.

In the coming years, cheap compact combat drones will learn to search for targets and aim at them without the participation of an operator. After which electronic warfare will be as interesting to them as the temperature on Mars.

[Passing]

The progress of AI is certainly amazing, but firstly, at the moment, pattern recognition is still far from perfect, and secondly and most importantly, not a single reasonable homo, exposed by the authorities, will entrust the microcircuit to decide who is here and who is a stranger. The decision will still be made by a person, which means that the radio channel with video and control will not go anywhere. If not, then humanity can safely give out the Darwin Prize, deservedly posthumously.

[Lynx2000]

A diesel engine of an unnamed model with an HP 330 power is placed in the forward engine compartment. A five-speed manual transmission is used; transmission distributes torque to all wheels. The four-axle chassis has an individual torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers, borrowed from the BTR-82A.

Here you can not guess the internal combustion engine from the BTR-82, KamAZovsky these 300-330 conditional hp. issues.
If I'm not mistaken, they planned to install the Yaroslavl ICE on the "Boomerang", which has more relics declared ...
God bless her with a ramp, sometimes the door leaves are easier to close, and how to use a protective shield. The main question is: when, how and how many will enter the army?

Py.Sy. A vague feeling of deja vu:
https://topwar.ru/145408-bronetransporter-btr-87.html

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It is a pity that there is no civil low-profile diesel engine with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders, like those that were installed on the Hungarian Ikaruses. Then it would be possible to develop a more flexible layout. And the engine from the BMP-3 has a smaller motor resource comparable to caterpillars and is poorly suited for a wheeled armored personnel carrier.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It is a pity that there is no civil low-profile diesel engine with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders, like those that were installed on the Hungarian Ikaruses. Then it would be possible to develop a more flexible layout.

Do you mean boxer engine? For diesel internal combustion engines with an opposed cylinder layout, I heard about tank 5TDF two-stroke, OROS two-stroke, and the so-called. The boxer also has a 180-degree camber, which is familiar to me from the short-term possession of a Subaru Forester 2 hp. benz. not turbocharged, there are pluses, but also minuses, not economical, expensive to maintain / repair.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And the engine from the BMP-3 has a smaller motor resource comparable to caterpillars and is poorly suited for a wheeled armored personnel carrier.

The motor resource is less for caterpillar vehicles, not only for the military, but also in the national economy (any MTM master will confirm).

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The Ikarus engine was not boxer. To reduce the vertical dimensions, it had horizontally arranged cylinders.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The Ikarus engine was not boxer. To reduce the vertical dimensions, it had horizontally arranged cylinders.

I always thought that the camber angle of 180 degrees is an opposed internal combustion engine (there are several types of them). Subaru uses this type of "Boxer" with two cylinder heads and one crankshaft, with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders - a boxer:

V-shaped, the angle of the collapse of the cylinders from one crankshaft is from 45, 60 to 90 degrees. For installation in a compact engine space, sometimes with a transverse arrangement of the internal combustion engine, it can be installed with an inclination of the internal combustion engine so that it is possible to service the cylinder head looking at the wall of the engine compartment.

[Vladimir80]

BTR-82A (advanced)" is floating. It is likely that in order to cross water obstacles, an appropriate mover or movers must be present on it

I wonder when they will finally give up these useless options ??? or mo continues to insist on them?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you do not want to swim, then you do not need an armored personnel carrier, use Typhoon-K. It is well armored and spacious, as they say - any whim for your money.

[Romario_Argo]

disagree,
as shown by CBO
on the Seversky Donets River, actively used floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers
even now, floating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are actively used on the Stallion River near Kupyansk
also actively use floating anti-tank systems, BRM, SAO
and floating engineering vehicles BREM, IRM, IMR
even floating BDMs based on the BTR-82 use OBOR SpN Strategic Missile Forces

[Dante Alighieri]

It would seem that after so many years on the site you need to get used to the style of the namesake, but sometimes its materials simply freeze ....

In terms of overall architecture and key design elements, the new BTR-22 is similar to the serial BTR-82A.

Well, yes, the turret is the same, the wheels of the same diameter - it means it looks similar! On what basis this conclusion was made - go guess, because even the author himself later in the text could only give one general characteristic:

Like its predecessor, taken as a basis, the BTR-22 is an armored combat vehicle on a four-axle wheeled chassis.

Based on this, the new armored personnel carrier has in its relatives the vast majority of armored vehicles of this class, including Western models such as the Patria, Stryker or Boxer.

And well, it still seems to be floating, but this is not accurate.

In general, it should be noted here that a very cunning move by marketers should be noted. Instead of calling the new car Boomerang Light, or Boomerang Mobilization and thereby putting the car along with the more advanced, albeit still not raw, BTR Boomerang, they specifically force us to compare the new brainchild of a gloomy Russian engineering genius with a frankly unsuccessful and completely obsolete morale of the BTR-82, against which, it must be admitted, it is difficult to be worse. But everything changes if we take not even the Boomerang as a comparison, but for example, the BTR-90, which, unlike the Boomerang, passed all state tests and was put into service.

First of all, the declared anti-mine resistance causes skepticism. Visually, the bottom of the new armored personnel carrier resembles just more 82-ku than Boomerang, which means that the protection against explosions there is similar to its predecessor. No matter what anyone says about the old Soviet armored personnel carriers, the very shape of their hull still gave a certain dispersion of the blast wave (especially when hitting a landmine with a wheel), albeit very minimal. This is treated in several ways, and not so much and not only by strengthening the bottom, but also by increasing the clearance and tilt angles of the side sheets, thereby minimizing the area of ​​flat surfaces. This is how it was done on the BTR-90, this is how it was done on the Boomerang, but this is absolutely not visible on the copy of the armored personnel carrier that was shown at Army 2023.

The second thing that raises the question is bullet resistance. I won’t say anything over the sides, but the angle of inclination of the front frontal part, if it keeps hitting 30-mm automatic cannon shells, then its passive protection capabilities (read ricochet) are clearly minimal.

Otherwise, as the author of the article correctly noted, the presented BTR is a clear leap forward compared to the BTR-82 and a step back compared to the Boomerang.

In general, I am once again surprised by our engineers. Instead of taking the finished project of the BTR-90, which has already passed all kinds of tests, and simply swapping the engine and troop compartments (just like the Ukrainian BTR-4, since the existing side hatches can be perfectly used as technical openings for servicing the MTO, there remains only a little to conjure with centering and all). But no, you have to reinvent the wheel again and again.

By the way, as for replacing the ramp with swing doors, I don’t see this as a big inconvenience, but as for the step folding mechanism, which is just a chain attached to the doors, the tension of which ensures the unfolding of these steps is a big minus, because. in order to completely expand them, it is necessary to open the door wide open, which is not always possible. Wangyu that this mechanism will still have to be squeezed manually (more precisely, the foot one), which is inconvenient. Why it was not simple to weld one wide footboard at the bottom - tse is a great secret. Does it go beyond the dimensions of the case? And what? The rhinoceros does not see well, but with its size, these are no longer its problems. So here too. If you recall the T-64, then it also had a ladder at the back, so that it would be more convenient for the rem brigade to get on top of the MTO and it did not interfere with anyone, on the contrary, it helped. It would seem a trifle, but it is precisely from such nuances that the life of ordinary fighters is formed, and hence their effectiveness on the battlefield.

[Passing]

Quote: Dante

By the way, regarding the replacement of the ramp with swing doors - I don’t see this as a big inconvenience

The main feature of the ramp is the fundamental possibility of dismounting and entering the car on the move (without circus tricks, broken limbs and compression injuries of the cervical vertebrae). With that step, it's impossible. Those. An armored personnel carrier under fire should stop, release / let in troops. An ideal target for grenade launchers of all stripes. So, at the conceptual level, we are programming a vulnerability. Savings on matches that destroys millions of equipment and lives.

[garri-lin]

Aparel also has disadvantages when dismounting on the go. So in a number of cases it becomes a “catapult” which, according to the law of leverage, throws up those who are on it.

[cold wind]

The BTR-22 is certainly a step forward compared to the BTR-80/82, and a huge one at that. But it is already outdated and at least 20 years late.

[Slon1978]

Kirill Ryabov's articles are always guessed from the first paragraphs. The author has a rare, but very dubious talent - to write rather voluminous articles, but with a perfect minimum of useful technical information. The information component of the article with a short (namely, brevity, as you know, the sister of talent) writing can be stated literally in 2 paragraphs.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Slon1978

Kirill Ryabov's articles are always guessed from the first paragraphs. The author has a rare, but very dubious talent - to write rather voluminous articles, but with a perfect minimum of useful technical information.

Asimov's "Foundation" immediately comes to mind.

'But in that case,' said Sutt, 'how will Mayor Hardin explain Lord Dorwin's assurances of the Emperor's support?' They seem to me…” he shrugged, “quite reliable.

Hardin leaned back in his chair.

– This is the most interesting thing. To be honest, at first I took his Excellency for a completely hopeless donkey, but it turned out that he was the smartest person and an excellent diplomat. I took the liberty of recording all my conversations with him.

There was an indignant rumble, and Pirenne had already opened his mouth to express a general opinion.

- So what? Hardin warned him. “I know this is a serious violation of the laws of hospitality and the gentlemen's code of honor. And if His Excellency had noticed this, I would have been in an unpleasant position, but this did not happen, and now we have a record - and this is the main thing. This record was reproduced for me, and I gave Holke a copy for analysis.

– And where is the text of the analysis? inquired Landin Crust.

– This is the most important thing. When, after two days of hard work, Holke finally managed to get rid of all the meaningless platitudes, meaningful nonsense and meaningless statements, it turned out that there was NOTHING left in the text! He self-destructed.

In all five days of negotiations, Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, did not say a damn thing and managed to do it so that you did not notice anything. Here are all the assurances of your beloved Empire!

[svp67]

To be honest, I like this armored personnel carrier. The hull not only has the best armor resistance and comfort for the crew with the landing force, but it is clearly more technologically advanced in production.
The only question is how long Arzamas is able to arrange their production instead of the usual BTR-82

[FRoman1984]

It's a pity that you always see half-hearted solutions. Boomerang in 2015 was rolled out to the Parade, but for 8 years !!!! never made it to the series.

[ailcat]

Not a single wunderwaffle has yet won the war (raids on the Papuans and others “and where is he with his bare heel against a machine gun” do not count).
Wars have always been won by technology whose creators were able to find the line between cheapness and efficiency.
And the BTR-22 is much closer to this edge than the Boomerang.

[Materialist]

Only here the Boomerang is not positioned as an armored personnel carrier, why, I don’t know, it may be too serious a weight category for an ordinary transporter
The efficiency of the armored personnel carrier is extremely low, given its functionality, and even the BTR-80 was fully satisfied with it if it had been developed as an armored personnel carrier, and not a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle / fire support

[Vadim S]

An excellent replacement for outdated models, but there are doubts about the boomerang that it will go into series in the near future, until the victory for sure.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The fact that he is excellent, and not just different, can only be shown by tests. Due to the increase in mass and the transfer of the engine forward, patency can be seriously affected and a buildup characteristic of the BMP-1/2 may appear.

[Vadim S]

The engine in front is a shield for the crew! It’s better to let it hammer on the engine, it will give time for at least someone to jump out, than to immediately turn the entire fighting compartment into a mess. We saw a video where a Ukrainian Bucephalus BMP1 hits the forehead, so the engine will at least catch something, I think this is more important than getting stuck somewhere

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

No motor is a shield, this is the same publicity stunt as other delusions. It is precisely that video with Bucephalus and BMP-1 that confirms that this is not a shield. If this video confirms that, it is the need for at least course machine guns, if it is a pity for the driver to install a separate machine gun module.
And getting stuck is a more real and serious problem than the mythical protection with the help of a motor.

[alexmach]

I totally agree with you about the performance. And how would a course machine gun help in the indicated case? Would an infantry fighting vehicle shoot back from that "Bucephalus"?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The side of an armored personnel carrier is protected from a machine gun only in theory. And the shooting was point-blank, it was possible to damage everything on the turret that came in the way of the machine-gun fire.
Again, what kind of machine gun to put, if 12,7 mm, then the side of the armored personnel carrier will not withstand exactly, and even 7,62 mm at close range will not be harmless.

[Eldarus]

Probably the engine is not a shield, although it does provide some protection, but the main thing is not this, but the fact that with a front-mounted engine it is possible to leave the dying vehicle through the stern.

[staer-62]

An armored personnel carrier in such a conflict as a combat unit is good for nothing, it is a bus with protection and that's it. If you go into battle on an armored personnel carrier, then what is on Pazik is the same on it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

However, armored personnel carriers participated in urban battles more than once. Shooting at window openings with a small-caliber gun is very effective. And the gun can also be used for mounted shooting, with proper adjustment of fire from a drone.

[buv59]

The line between infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is being lost. Previously, everything was clear and precise: the BMP supports tanks in battle (you can’t go on the attack with wheels) and has a cannon + ATGM. Nevertheless, in many countries, wheeled armored personnel carriers with guns are already called infantry fighting vehicles. Apparently due to the fact that they have increased armor and, as a result, weight. However, what's the difference: BMP or armored personnel carrier. The main thing is that we will still have such armored personnel carriers in prototypes. And the BTR-80 - BTR-82A will still remain "workhorses".

[Materialist]

The essence of the lack of a clear line has never been lost, not a single infantry fighting vehicle has ever corresponded to the security of those with whom it should go on track, and the armament of all Soviet infantry fighting vehicles can be mounted, as it turned out, even on civilian armored cars

[buv59]

Honestly, strange reasoning. It would be interesting if the creators of at least the BMP-1 told you. After all, you are arguing from the point of view of today. After all, an increase in the weight of infantry fighting vehicles inevitably leads to a decrease in number. You are aware that one of the mistakes of fascist Germany was the decision to manufacture Panther tanks. It turns out that 3 Pz.IVs were more effective than one Panther. And 3 Pz.IV cost as much as one “panther”. Which is better: 2 BMP-2 or one Bradley? I think that under the same conditions, our couple will look more preferable. At the present stage of development of society, the issue of saving people's lives has risen much more than it was before. I have two hands for the fact that people were more reliably protected and I wanted BMPs to be built only on the basis of tanks. Only the financial issue will immediately arise. HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? The state has enough money to equip ALL infantry with such infantry fighting vehicles. So far, only Israel is doing this, using captured equipment. And the last. Armament can also be mounted on trucks. That's just how the attack of such monsters will look like? And how many will survive?

[Materialist]

Let's start with the fact that the Germans, unlike the USA and the USSR, did not have a pipeline in the production of tanks and they could not produce tens of thousands of medium tanks
I don’t know how you compare the effectiveness of the 4 and the Panther, but keep in mind that the losses of the Panthers and their means of destruction were much more thorough and could do what no PZshka could handle, the same Panther made its way in the forehead much harder than the Tiger
Bradley, to put it mildly, the same performance concept as the Soviet infantry fighting vehicles, two pair of boots
It would be worth paying attention to how the Israeli military-industrial complex adapted to the permanent threat of war with a not very weak enemy
I talked about the front-line armored personnel carrier, the BMP, in the presence of it, and the BMPT is not practical as such, its functions are performed with much greater efficiency by two different vehicles, but I suspect that the BTR-T fleet will suffer much less losses if they are properly embodied in metal , save much more lives and require not so much replenishment of the park as consumables and parts

[buv59]

To answer for the effectiveness of the Pz.IV, you need to read and analyze a bunch of literature. I can't give you a complete layout. But 18 extra Pz.IVs look much better instead of 6 Panthers. If the "panther" shoots through the T-34, and the Pz.IV only pierces the armor, then the crew doesn't care.
Putting an equal sign between 21-33 tons of Bradley and 15 tons of BMP-2 is very doubtful.
As for the BTR-T, do not forget that the army has such a concept as "staff". The staff of the department is 10 people, and the BTR-T will intervene only 7. What do you propose to change the ALL structure of infantry units? Then, after all, it will be necessary to change the Combat Charter of the SV, to determine the new width of the front for the offensive and defense. Well, and be sure to calculate HOW MUCH IT COSTS?
It is possible to regard the adversary of Israel as not particularly weak, especially since the experience of history shows that Israel has been stuck forever. But I think it is incorrect to compare the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the Palestinian militants. APU will be offended. Therefore, Israel can afford to convert Merkavas, Centurions and T-55s into heavy armored personnel carriers. And they will suffer less losses. But these armored personnel carriers, if they got on the SVO, would immediately feel the difference.
I repeat that I am in favor of protecting the fighters, but so far our industry and our finances are not ready to produce such products and in such quantities. Even "Army-2023" did not offer any of this plan.

[Materialist]

The question, after all, is at what distances the advantage in armament of the Panther or Pzshka of a specific modification will be achieved
By the concept of execution, I did not mean their weight, it is enough that both vehicles are made for conducting combat by the second line and combine two roles - transport and combat, which places restrictions on the implementation of both of them in full, both are not protected similarly to tanks, otherwise that more metal and even remote sensing is hung on an American, it doesn’t save him much, at least in a war with an approximately equal enemy (the same case of the vehicle’s survivability on the battlefield as that of the Challenger, who, with additional armor in the form of mounted dz, kept multiple RPG hit)
I leave the question of the structure of the army aside, it must adapt to reality no less than cars, it is possible to put 7 people in a 5-seater car, especially since the equipment of the BTR-T should be primarily for assault units that directly come into contact with the enemy
Nobody argues about the inability of the Russian industry to produce the necessary machines in the required quantity, but the question of the price of the same BMO-T in comparison with the Boomerang will be approximately the same, given that in the first case there is an engine, transmission, cart, and a finished project, and BTR-T does not require combat modules with remote control, the main requirement is all-aspect tandem dynamic protection, all BTR-T indices do not mean a specific vehicle, but only a conceptual layout

[LastPS]

In many countries, they are trying to standardize the fleet of vehicles, it is more logical to have an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle on the same chassis than on different ones, and since the wheeled one is cheaper, such solutions have become widespread.

[AdAstra]

I looked at the first photo and ... phew, it seemed.

[Doctor]

Finally guessed to put the engine in front. Not even 30 years have passed. Now we will bring the transmission the same amount.

[Ethiopian]

It’s not clear why the ancient Competition is being lit there, if there is a well-proven Cornet?

[buv59]

Or maybe there are not enough "Cornets" anymore?

[Materialist]

No, no one took into account the experience of hostilities, otherwise work would already be underway to modernize the BMO-T or
at least a new BTR-T was created
This carton has no conceptual differences from its predecessors either in terms of armor or armament, the nominal increase in the resistance of spaced armor to 12,7 does not actually make it more tenacious on the battlefield, since no one hits armored vehicles with machine guns, protection against shrapnel could take place if art fragments could not be more penetrating than the previously named caliber

[ZeeD]

Quote: Materialist

This carton has no conceptual differences from its predecessors either in terms of armor or armament, the nominal increase in the resistance of spaced armor to 12,7 does not actually make it more tenacious on the battlefield, since no one hits armored vehicles with machine guns, protection against shrapnel could take place if art fragments could not be more penetrating than the previously named caliber

So the concept of application has not changed. She should not fight in her pure form, but only transport infantry and support it with fire, which means that the main damaging factors are small-caliber riflemen and fragments ... So they raised protection from them.

[Materialist]

Is there any reason due to which the enemy infantry will fundamentally not use ATGMs not only against tanks, but also against any equipment? Their saturation is super high
"Only transport infantry and support it with fire" is a WWII tactic that has changed by the end and even the heaviest tank could be destroyed by a hand grenade launcher

[ZeeD]

Quote: Materialist

this is WWII tactics

This is how the APC should be used. Well, he shouldn’t go into battle so as not to be burned, he has another job. He must deliver the infantry and shoot a little, covering it, and not tank all sorts of ATGMs and RPGs)
And what you are talking about are all sorts of tanks and modern infantry fighting vehicles.

[Materialist]

Where should he deliver it and where should he shoot it? What is the range of fire of auto-cannons and is it comparable to the range of fire of portable and mounted ATGMs?
There is a BMP-3 (M) or some kind of CV90, how do they differ from the BTR-82A in this respect, besides the fact that their armor is nominally thicker? Yes, both the first and second with a set of remote sensing systems will withstand RPGs in the main projections, but not anti-tank systems, the saturation of which is commensurate with the first ones, and it is these BMPs that should go on the attack along with tanks, as was literally on the last video of the assault on the Russian Armed Forces by the Ukrainian opornik with two BMP-3M and T-90M
I will clarify that I do not propose to replace light armored personnel carriers (far rear-near) with heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank platform, I am saying that these vehicles are not suitable for the front end and hardy and tenacious vehicles are needed, and the BTR-22 is still trying to develop the concept of a light rear armored personnel carrier , while due to the lack of heavy ones, the first must suffer significant losses directly during fire contact

[bk0010]

Quote: Materialist

Where should he deliver it and where should he shoot it?

At the other end of the focus of a nuclear strike.

Quote: Materialist

Here is the BMP-3(M) or some CV90, how do they differ in this respect from the BTR-82A, except that their armor is nominally thicker?

Yes, the BMP should go on the attack, behind the tanks. ATGMs and RPGs must be destroyed by artillery or nuclear strike. It was under these conditions that in the 60s the concepts for the use of motorized rifles and equipment for them were created.

[ZeeD]

BTR - Armored TRANSPORTER. BMP - COMBATInfantry Vehicle. Do you feel the difference? One transports, and the second fights. Even from the name the role is clear.

Delivers where ordered and can cover the landing, but not fight. In principle, he can fight, but he is not for that. There is little armor and the weapon is rather weak. But to cover the landing or landing of infantry - in the light. To the edge, it can suppress a firing point.

But in the ranks with tanks - these are all sorts of BMPTs)

[Materialist]

An infantry fighting vehicle and a transporter and a combat vehicle, that is, combining two functions on the battlefield, due to the large armor volume, cannot be well protected, and due to the presence of more or less serious weapons, it cannot carry quite a lot of troops, like a vehicle without a fighting compartment
The BMPT realizes precisely that fire potential that is inaccessible to the BMP
Tanks operate in isolation from infantry only in positional warfare, that is, in its format, which will inevitably have to become a mobile war in order to be completed, and the latter requires the utmost coordination of the actions of all types of troops among themselves, primarily mechanized units on drier
The roles of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have now practically merged into one, the weapons are the same, the lack of protection is similar, so the BTR-82A-BMP, Boomerang-BMP, BTR-22-BMP, since they are armed in the same way, the armor protection is monotonously meaningless regarding their use

[George Sviridov]

Well, protection against heavy fragments is solved by installing hinged screens, there is nothing special to invent here ...
About 12,7 machine guns, it’s not true that they don’t beat on technology, anything can happen. In the forehead, it is at least desirable to have protection from 30 mm. Anti-material rifles 12,7 are also used according to technology, there was a story recently how a sniper was shot down by a dill armored personnel carrier and shot everyone who was inside in such a major military conflict, such situations are probably not uncommon, and from both sides ...
And at the initial stage of the operation, there were a lot of chopping with the use of small arms, before the front line was formed, and there were as many vidos with BMDs riddled with 12,7 on the sides as you like. And ours was filmed and the enemy ...
Taking into account that CPV (t) are becoming rare, but 12,7 mass on both sides of the conflict, all-round protection from 12,7 is the minimum necessary protection for lightly armored vehicles and such equipment is in great demand.
Yes, this is not often in the field, although ambushes are still possible, and during the assaults of cities, such cases will be constant both with machine guns and with heavy snipers.

[Materialist]

In this war, there is no correspondence between the intended use of armored vehicles and the actual
I won’t argue that it will provide protection from a machine gun, but in any rifle unit there is at least an RPG, which, if it doesn’t destroy the vehicle with the crew and troops, will at least deprive it of its progress, and the survivors will lose their means of transportation and protection
To support the infantry, a vehicle is needed that can provide protection similar to a tank one, while it does not need to have auto-cannon weapons, a machine gun and a small turret are enough in order not to complicate the vehicle
All this can be done in a T-72 or T-80 cart within the mass of the MBT, although landing from it will not be so convenient, but a small fraction of the time that the landing party spends with the vehicle is spent on this, but for now it has nothing inside threatens

[George Sviridov]

Btr-t, not as a specific sample, but as a type of equipment will never become large-scale for many reasons:
The most important thing is that 1,5 armored factories that can produce such equipment are inundated with orders above the roof for both tank equipment and related ones, such as the same howitzer chassis, which will always be a priority.
The second is the price and complexity of production, at least the production of engines ...
Thirdly, even tanks do not and will never have sufficient protection against the main means of destruction (artillery, anti-tank systems).
Well, again, no less important than the first is the load on logistics.
The need of the armed forces for infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers is approximately 15-20 thousand pieces, or even more, taking into account the increase in the army ...
If all the equipment is heavy, just imagine how many times the need for fuel will increase, how many fuel trucks will be needed? What about security for them? How many tank tractors do you need? How many trawls are needed for transportation? How many drivers of these trawls and fuel trucks? How much money for their maintenance in peacetime?
Together with the previous point, these are excessive, unjustified costs, even Americans who have the opportunity to print an unlimited number of bucks, even they do not take such a step ...
If such vehicles would protect against almost all means of destruction, then such costs would be objective ... Otherwise, light and medium armored vehicles will be the basis, and if you follow the path of increasing survivability, then all kinds of masking devices, drone jammers, systems KAZ, DZ, and not an increase in armor to the level of tanks ...
Moreover, already in the west they took the path of lightening tanks - the Americans adopted the M 10 Booker, Abrams-X should also reduce weight. The German Panther is also lighter than the latest Leopards, although it carries a more powerful weapon. Because increasing the reservation gives too many disadvantages, and too little benefit ...

[Materialist]

The capitalist industry cannot do this in principle, especially the Russian one, but the failure of the latter does not make heavily armored vehicles unnecessary or redundant
The future of armored vehicles lies solely in the separation of functions with their unification on a single combat platform, which will reduce the role of infantry on the battlefield, the latter means there is no need to transport a huge number of infantry from trench to trench in order for them to be crushed there by artillery, but protection by a camera communication vehicle , reconnaissance, electronic warfare, as an elementary front-line transport vehicle requires the highest level of protection from both shells and missiles, so the KAZ will not be able to get by
The Americans themselves, in fact, do not fight, they have the economic ability to force semi-colonies to fight in their interests, and if they themselves have to, they will dominate even with such crappy armored vehicles, at the expense of long-range weapons, nuclear weapons, the fleet, they can allow, if necessary, to contribute any number of infantry in order to achieve the desired result by creating conditions for the emigration of low-income refugees to their country in order to level out losses
I explain what needs to be done in order for armored vehicles to be armored vehicles and not a disposable wagon for the workforce of war-soldiers, which are obviously defined as a consumable resource that must be spent to achieve the goal
Yes, the Russian Federation will maneuver within the limits of its extremely modest industrial capabilities, since during the attack the rate of loss of these “light armored vehicles” will be greater than the rate of their production, because everything that Russian factories produce can be destroyed by a remotely controlled Stugna, the loss of crew of which, even if and if detected, they will be limited to the launcher
KAZ is not a panacea, it is helpless nothing against shells, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to install DZ on light armored vehicles, and its one layer is almost as useless as its absence
All those sawing "combat" cars are needed to provide the manufacturer with a profit, for this they, if they fight, must suffer losses, and Abrams-X-an attempt by designers to pass off an old car as a new one, and the panther-reanimation of the Leopard is very often stuffed with half-measures like the presence of an MOH and a gunner at the same time, so far the imperfect and archaic BT of the RF Armed Forces is the most perfect due to the combat experience of their use

[alexmach]

Capitalist industry cannot do this in principle

The socialist industry also failed to achieve anything other than another modification of the classic armored personnel carrier, which became obsolete at the time of release; I’m talking about the armored personnel carrier-80, if that’s the case.

[Materialist]

You can only operate with a specific example of a socialist economy, which in the second half of the 50s began to self-decompose due to incorrect planning
And the concept of introducing war under the USSR was fundamentally different from the modern one, because the war between capitalist states and between socialist and capitalist states is completely different, in the first case the war is waged for sales markets, expanding the zone of influence and resources of a particular capitalist state, in the second it is a war for the sake of destruction of the class enemy (total war of annihilation) - in this case, in the presence of nuclear weapons of all types, armored vehicles are deeply secondary

[alexmach]

in the second, a war for the sake of destroying a class enemy (total war of destruction) - in this case, in the presence of nuclear weapons of all types, armored vehicles are deeply secondary

Nevertheless, even when creating the BTR-80, they knew about its insufficient security and weak weapons, but they could not pull either a "mass" vehicle with more serious armor and a stabilized gun, or a separate, necessarily floating, vehicle for the marines

[Materialist]

Knew his lack of protection from what he should never have faced.
They didn’t create it, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t pull it, in the USSR Army, at the same time, many MBTs and STs were in service in the number of tens of thousands, which was redundant and certainly not necessary, moreover, it was believed that the airborne landing of vehicles had prospects

[alexmach]

Knew his lack of protection from what he should never have faced.

What is it that he should never have faced? With a massive 12,7 machine gun in the NATO armies standing almost everywhere?

Not created, does not mean they could not pull

It was precisely what they could not pull and, for economic reasons, limited themselves to the modernization of what was.

[Materialist]

Armored personnel carriers were not created for fire contact, at least this is not what their armor suggests
Let me remind you that the concept of a tank fire support vehicle was born precisely in the USSR, thus, evolutionarily, they would have lost the need to defend and armor the BMP, gradually turning into an armored personnel carrier and transferring the role of a combat vehicle to the BMPT, and the transport vehicle to the BTR-T, while the BMPT was originally intended to be a tank chassis
The USSR at one time could afford hundreds of Is-4s and it was supposed to produce the Is-7 with the re-equipment of all army divisions with them in the late 40s, and only the weight restrictions of logistics put an end to it
The USSR could afford anything, if it was expedient, targeted production planning and the socialist economy is different, even if degrading into a capitalist one
Everything was modernized, like the T-54, due to their colossal amount in storage, released as unnecessary, but only because of the need to load the factories with work, which indicates crippled planning and the lack of a systematic approach to the production of progressive machines and modernization in parallel already somewhat outdated, such the problem was in the entire transmash industry, and not just in the tank industry
The labor and resource intensity of tens of thousands of T-54, T-55, T-62, T-72, T-64, T-80 is quite comparable if it does not exceed the same indicators of about 10 thousand universal combat platforms with a large margin of payload and backlog for modernization, with all-angle airborne protection and passive armor against kinetics

[alexmach]

Armored personnel carriers were not created for fire contact, at least this is not what their armor suggests

But why, then, has KPVT been on them since the 60s?

[Materialist]

For self-defense, although according to the principle of thinking of many military men, no matter what weapons they have, the vehicle should be used as a combat

[Ryaruav]

finally removed the side loopholes

[George Sviridov]

The technique is interesting and necessary. The only thing that always confuses me is a bunch of all sorts of combat modules, which are all small-scale and differ from each other ... The BTR-22 is heavier than the BMP-2 and should also pull the shore, which is really modern ... I understand that you can’t get enough of them for all the BMP-1 and they put a tower from the BTR-82a, but it’s reasonable to put new combat modules on new equipment.
And then, as in the law of organic chemistry, if you add a fly in the ointment to a barrel of honey, you get a barrel of "garbage". So here too. Most likely, it will not be possible to put melons on it, but damn it, at least the bank ... It will turn out to be a very good fighting vehicle.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A single turret from BMD with a 30mm 2A42 cannon seems to be called "Coast", not "Berezhok". And another question is whether they will be able to resume its production.
Although, themselves, for habitable modules, they have better awareness and orientation in space.

[George Sviridov]

Another question, they made the rear doors - it's great. But why abandoned the side. The presence of 3 exit points greatly increases tactical flexibility, and also increases the chances of survival of the landing force and crew...

[ailcat]

This also surprised me, until one comrade demonstrated that it was possible to evacuate through the side door of the BTR-82 only in parts (at first, unloading and armor flew out, and only then a fighter fell out of there). After that, the volunteer tried to do the same in the armor and unloading on top of the T-shirt - he got stuck ("the three of us saved him, by the way").
And, I read somewhere else that an attempt to organize a side exit in Kurganets increased the mass of the car, emnip, by more than 4 tons ...

[ZeeD]

In addition to the Boomerang (while we are waiting for it) - excellent!
But if instead...

[George Sviridov]

Well, as I understand it, yes, this is a half measure, 82a really does not meet the requirements, apparently there was a requirement to create an intermediate sample that the industry could quickly master and produce in significant volumes, without a long re-equipment of production lines.

[Materialist]

On the question of the load of vehicles on logistics, the consumption of T-64A weighing 38,5 tons with 5TDF was 175 g / hp * h, the consumption of YaMZ for Boomerang (declared) 165, do you think this is a fundamental difference, given the security of each of the machines for its habitable volume?
A frivolous choice: put 8-10 infantrymen in a 3-meter barn, weighing 34 tons, or 4-5 in a cart from the T-72, with cut-out armor dimensions and hinged thick bulwarks with a tandem VDZ, weighing 40-45 tons
Absolutely incomparable habitable volumes of both, conceptually diametrically opposed machines

[ailcat]

But if instead, then it will be a very good solution, much more needed by the army than Kurganets.

[tchoni]

In general, the car made an impression of the most sane and necessary exhibit at the Army 2023 exhibition. Simplicity and practicality. The only thing that alerted me in the article was the clearly insufficient declared mine protection of 2 kg of TNT equivalent ... The generally accepted standard is 8 ... Anti-tank mine - 5 .... It’s not clear, in general ... And in a standard tower from an armored personnel carrier - 82 complain about the lack of visibility for the shooter ... (But this is hearsay ..)

[Smirnov Sergey]

It's just that someone BTR90 decided to offer the military again

[bk0010]

Increase the power of the engine at least twice, bring the armor to a resistance of 14.5 BB, and mine protection - up to 8 kg under the wheel. And it will be normal for an armored personnel carrier today. Yes, to equip the roof of the armored personnel carrier with means that make the ride on the armor comfortable and safe. Because it will be hard to drive in such a cabin for a long time.

[ailcat]

....and Kurganets will turn out - heavy (in muddy conditions, a self-propelled target, because it can only travel on roads), expensive (because the price is not only electronics, but also stupid machining and welding of armor plates), and some other nuances, making the Kurgan in a real war with a strong enemy worse than the BTR-22.
The only thing I agree with you on is that mine protection is indeed insufficient.

[Zaurbek]

The abandonment of the BTR 90 was a mistake. Now they would have a powerful wheeled platform a class higher.

[ZeeD]

Quote: Materialist

BTR-22 is still trying to develop the concept of a light rear armored personnel carrier

So it is being made to replace the BTR-82A!

But in fact, closer to the front, they try to use infantry fighting vehicles: both the armor and the weapon are more serious.
Another question: what kind of infantry fighting vehicles... It is clear that the troika is much better than 1 and 2...

[Materialist]

The only thing is that those that others will have a non-target use will use them as infantry fighting vehicles, while the role of a rear armored personnel carrier is completely fulfilled by the BTR-80, which costs exactly as much as it costs to capitalize on it
BMP-2/M, BTR-82A have the same type of weapons and equally near-zero protection
BMP-3 without DZ is their complete analogue, only more expensive, and Boomerang, in turn, is its wheeled version in steel, only even more expensive, since it was designed anew and even with 100-mm weaker weapons

[Cypa]

A good thing. The main thing is that she quickly appeared in the troops

[Uncle_Misha]

An armored personnel carrier will remain an armored personnel carrier no matter what index you assign to it. A lightly armored transport vehicle. We must remember when and how armored personnel carriers were used on the battlefield in large numbers. Initially, they were part of the German tank divisions, which is absolutely logical, remembering the tactics of using the latter. The armored personnel carrier was also used on the battlefield, both with and without dismounting personnel. At that level of anti-tank weapons, this is also justified. Armored vehicles were also liaison, medical, and the like. But time goes on, everything has changed. The appearance of such a vehicle in the LBS area, regardless whether she holds 30 mm in the forehead or not, it means one thing, she will be quickly destroyed. Should they be abandoned? I don’t think so, but the tactics of application must be radically reconsidered.

[acetophenone]

Quote: Dante

But no, you have to reinvent the wheel again and again.

Our engineers are paid for the process. Every month. Not for the result.
Therefore - what? That's right, there is a process. The result is... optional.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: bayard

It all depends on the combat module.

From which combat module - you are talking nonsense, dear! Do you even know what an infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier are, and in fact what is their difference? The essence of the difference is not only and not so much in the installed combat module, but primarily in the armor of the equipment. And this is where the differences between the Boomerang and the BTR-22 are significant; one, in principle, cannot be a replacement for the other. Because the Boomerang is an infantry fighting vehicle and its technical characteristics are significantly superior to the BTR-22.
And stop talking nonsense.

[bushmaster]

instead of a normal armored personnel carrier, they created some kind of krakozyabra ...
20 tons on 8 wheels, the same armored personnel carrier-90 weighed 22 tons, but there are a lot of advantages, it is clear that each ton was not spent in vain, but what about ...
if you have already reached such a mass, make an armored personnel carrier on caterpillars, because this is not a "combat taxi", it is a "combat SUV", its place is next to the same heavy mrap of the typhoon family, though why such an undersized is needed, the question is
it doesn’t swim yet, many say that a floating car is not needed, well, everyone is aware of the crossing at Belogorovka, can you imagine there are such phenomena as rivers and they need to be forced, and the enemy destroyed your pontoon bridge, what to do?
330hp, some kind of car engine, btr-80/82 very often drives with open hatches above the engine so as not to overheat, but then they stuck it like on a bmp-1/2 and that this solved the problem?
with the help of a 330hp engine. and 5 st. checkpoint to control a 20 ton machine, let's remember the dynamics.
the engine was shifted to the right, on the Lav-25 this was compensated by the shift of the turret to the opposite side, but nothing was done here, so let's move on.
the engine is located in front and will catch everything that flies into it through a thin armored barrier, which will have a bad effect on the survival of the crew and troops, because a stationary armored personnel carrier is a dead armored personnel carrier, along with all its contents, which are far from shrapnel and bullets on foot run away.
the sides are straight, that is, there are no rational angles of inclination of the armor, that is, we increase the thickness of the armor plates, increase the center of gravity of the vehicle to make it easier to turn it over off-road, apparently behind the landing seats and near the turret ammunition rack, there are fuel tanks, a queue of 2a42, and one large oven , because the habitable volume is not divided in any way
the commander gently breathes into the back of the driver’s head while observing the world through the tkn-3, as on the BMP-1, what target designation he can give to the driver, or gunner, remains a mystery
by the way, behind the commander, a side hatch similar to the BTR-70, gives these suicide bombers some chance to get out
a troop compartment for 7 people plus a spare seat, made in the manner of Western vehicles, that is, a lamb pen, any ammunition that flies here has every chance to dramatically increase its effectiveness by hitting as many targets as possible with shrapnel or spray of a cumulative jet
"lambs", except for some kind of monitor, which they will surely break, they see nothing
what is going on in the world, where to run, what to do, where the enemy is, and it doesn’t matter, “sheep”, it’s just ballast that needs to be thrown out somewhere
hinged doors, lintels between doors, like on the lav-25, or bmp-1/2, no, that is, if one door jams or warps, you won’t open the second ...
again, when moving in a convoy, if another car drives in from behind, or the driver parks unsuccessfully, that everyone should leave the armored personnel carrier through the side hatch from the armored personnel carrier-70, optimistically

looking at this monster, I like the btr-80/82 more and more, it is lighter, more likely to go off-road, less load on the power plant, visibility is much better, it floats, the engine is in the stern, and therefore there is a chance to return to your

[Sergei N 58912062]

In my opinion, the front wheels of this armored personnel carrier are poorly protected. It wouldn't hurt to cover them better. For example, make an NLD like the BTR-87.

[savage3000]

Sergey, this protection is installed in a series or in a pre-series, like a boomerang.

[Yellow bubble]

He swims well, but where were they before? I needed the car yesterday.

[vh48905]

Better than nothing, but the BTR-90 is like Beijing...
For the BTR-90 we must thank the liberal bastard.