Fighting engineering machine Buffalo

36


History create
As a result of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the need was identified for special vehicles capable of countering the threats of the use of mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). For example, in Afghanistan, more than half of the losses of coalition forces are precisely those threats. Specialized vehicles were called MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, armored vehicles with enhanced mine protection).



Buffalo roots originate from the South African border war in Namibia 1966-1989. In this conflict, Soviet and Cuban mines posed a mortal threat to South African troops along the border with Angola. Because of its policy of racial apartheid, international sanctions were imposed on South Africa, and therefore South Africa had to independently search for solutions to its problems. To combat the threat of mines, South African engineers developed armored vehicles with a V-shaped hull to divert the blast wave from the crew compartment. Buffalo was widely used by the police and armed forces of South Africa in the 1980s. The South African Casspir was successfully used to detect mines during peace missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of the 1990s.



At about the same time, the Soviet army faced a similar problem in Afghanistan, but did not begin to create special low-resistance cars, but used tank mine trawls or engineering clearing vehicles. This did not provide protection for the crews from mines and IEDs, and the fighters began to be placed on the armor, not protected from the rifle weapons fragments of mines and directional land mines.



The Israel Defense Forces went the other way. Tanks were forbidden to travel on paved roads, and, in addition to tank mine trawls, they used an X-NUMX-tonne bulldozer D-60, which with its bucket, to remove an impressive part of the ground, in order to clear the route. The very bulldozer, thanks to its considerable height, reliably protected its crew from the effects of an explosion. So, in the 9 year, the armored D-2006 hit a powerful landmine for the tanks following it. As a result of a powerful explosion, the crew was not injured and, as the driver put it, “we only stalled the bulldozer”. Recently, the D-9 has been increasingly used with remote control.



By the 1999 year, as part of the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System (GSTAMIDS) program, the US Army began comparative testing of two South African Casspir and Lion II vehicles to determine which one could serve as the basis for GSTAMIDS vehicles. At the beginning of 2001, Lion II was chosen, which, after further improvements and design improvements, became Buffalo A0.



The Buffalo MPCV (mine-protected clearance vehicle) combat engineering vehicle belongs to the class of combat vehicles for mine clearance and is the largest MRAP currently used. The car is used for mine protection of the third category, clearance of the route, clearance of explosive devices, protection of objects, as well as command and control. Buffalo is manufactured by Force Protection Inc. Force Protection Inc was founded in 1996 in Ladson, South Carolina. The company initially tried to deal with aviation equipment, however, after September 11, 2001, due to the decline in demand in the aviation market, she was forced to change the direction of her activities. Until 2005, the company employed only a few dozen people, and its turnover amounted to only $ 1.5 million. Three years later, its staff amounted to more than 1000 people, and sales exceeded $ 900 million. Currently, Force Protection Inc is part of General Dynamics.



In 2002, four Buffalo were deployed in Afghanistan to clear the Bagram airfield. After the first successful use of Buffalo in Afghanistan in 2002, its appearance in Iraq was only a matter of time. Buffalo is remembered by former program manager Dennis Haag: "If he can find mines, he could also find IEDs." The US Army was in a hurry to adopt equipment for demining the routes of columns in Iraq and began its purchase at the very beginning of the war. Together with a small team of engineers, Haag worked on the Buffalo 16 project for hours a day, six or seven days a week. He repeatedly personally traveled to Iraq in December 2005 of the year to observe the car in action and communicate with the soldiers using it. According to another member of the engineering team GSTAMIDS, more 25 changes were made to the car, including the integration of the fire extinguishing system, additional armor and other elements of survivability. “When we started the development, we didn’t communicate with the user,” Haag recalls. No one was actually on the battlefield with the soldiers. Soon, the situation changed and Haag’s numerous recordings, based on soldiers ’feedback, had a decisive influence on the design of Buffalo and other RCVS.



MPCV Buffalo Construction
Structurally, Buffalo is a three-axle all-wheel drive heavily armored off-road vehicle, which has increased protection against damaging factors: mine explosions and improvised explosive devices, including through the V-shape of the double-bottom armored capsule. Buffalo is able to accommodate up to six crew members, including the driver and the second driver. The car is 8200 mm long, 2690 mm wide and 3960 mm high. Empty weight - 22 tons, maximum loading capacity - 12.4 tons. Buffalo is equipped with Michelin 16 R 20 XZL wheels with aluminum rims, providing the ability to drive with flat tires. The cabin is sealed by providing overpressure of the cleaned air from the damaging factors of the WMD. Buffalo is not equipped with a winch. Loading and dismounting from a vehicle can be done through one tailgate and six upper standard hatches. Buffalo is equipped with a metal-clamped 9-meter hydraulic metal-operated manipulator equipped with a day / night video camera and sensor equipment for remote disarming of explosive devices. The manipulator can be controlled from the cab of the car, watching what is happening on the monitor or through armored glass 130 mm thick. Buffalo metal wheels, when detonating mines, take the impact of an explosion, providing the crew with additional protection. In addition to mine protection, Buffalo is equipped with powerful ballistic protection. Ballistic protection is provided for the radiator, tires, battery compartment, fuel tanks, engine and transmission. Thus, Buffalo provides protection against improvised explosive devices weighing up to 21 kg, exploded under any wheel or 14 kg under the car body. Ballistic protection is able to withstand 7.62 × 51 mm bullets, while aluminum armor from BAE Systems L-ROD protects the vehicle from RPG-7 attacks. Ballistic protection can be enhanced to counter shots from SVD. In addition, the car is equipped with an automatic engine and cabin fire extinguishing system and manual fire extinguishers. The car is fully adapted to accommodate remote-controlled weapons when it performs the functions of an armored personnel carrier or ambulance. One of the machine guns of the M2 caliber 12.7 mm, the M249 caliber 5.56 mm, the M240 caliber 6.73 mm or the 40-mm automatic grenade launcher Mk19 can be mounted on it.

Fighting engineering machine Buffalo


Orders and deliveries
Buffalo has been ordered by several countries. In February 2008, four Buffalo cars were ordered by the Italian Ministry of Defense. They were produced at a plant in Ladson, South Carolina. In July, 2008, Buffalo’s third category of protection was ordered by the French military in accordance with the M67854-07-C-5039 contract with a total value of $ 3.5 million, the order was completed in November of the same year. In October, 2008 of the US Army ordered the 27 Buffalo A2 models under the contract W56HZV-08-C-0028 in $ 26.2 million. In November, the US Army ordered another 2008 Buffalo A16 for $ 2 million by 15.5, the delivery was made in the 2009 year. In addition, the Buffalo 14 vehicles were delivered to the UK Department of Defense in October 2009 for the year under the M67854-06-C-5162 contract. In November 2008 of the year, the Canadian government, under the M67854-07-C-5039 contract, ordered 14 Buffalo A2 for $ 49.4 million. Deliveries were made during 2009 year. The command of the Canadian Expeditionary Force ordered five Buffalo, which were delivered in the 2007 year. In July, 2009, the company Force Protection Inc signed a contract with the US Army for $ 52.8 million for the production of 48 Buffalo. The delivery was completed by the end of 2009. In April, the US Marine Corps 2011 placed an order worth $ 46.6 million for the supply of the MPCV Buffalo 40. In June, the US Army additionally ordered 2011 for 56 Buffalo for $ 63.8 million. Deliveries were completed by July 2012 of the year. In the 2008 year, around 200 Buffalo cars took part in the fighting. The US Army plans to procure 372 Buffalo A2 for use in engineering units for demining columns, in demining platoons and in engineering training centers such as the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.



Engine
The Buffalo was originally equipped with a Mack ASET AI-400 I-6 turbocharged diesel engine with XHUMX horsepower and a five-speed gearbox. Subsequently, a six-cylinder engine C450 with a volume of 13 liters was installed on Buffalo. It provides power in 12.5 horsepower at 440 rpm and 1800 horsepower at 525 rpm. The engine develops torque in 2100 nm at 1483 revolutions per minute. The Buffalo's maximum speed on the highway is 1400 kilometers per hour, the cruising range is 90 kilometers with the 520 and liter fuel tank.



Troops on the battlefield appreciated the many advanced protective capabilities of Buffalo. Senior Sergeant Ryan Grandstaff (Ryan Grandstaff), who carried out de-mining operations on the routes of the 612 Engineer Battalion of the Ohio National Guard, told CBS News in 2005 the year that Buffalo made him feel "in 100 percentage security," and added: "I went through countless explosions and I'm still here to tell you about it."



"Since their deployment in Iraq in 2003-year Cougar and Buffalo, these vehicles used by engineering units defused explosive devices around 1000 without losing a single human life," said Wayne Phillips, vice president of the company. in charge of the program for the marines.




In a recent incident, Buffalo blew up on an anti-tank mine, blew off a wheel and destroyed a car bridge. There were no injuries among the crew, and the car retained its mobility and left the minefield on its own. It was repaired overnight and returned to service the very next day.




Performance characteristics
Crew: driver, second driver-mechanic; besides them, the machine can hold up to four fighters
Manufacturer: Force Protection
Length: 8200 mm
Width: 2690 mm
Height: 3960 mm
Internal body length (behind the front seats): mm 3800
Maximum weight: tons of tons
Loading capacity: 10.2 tons
Empty weight (with armor): 24 tons
Engine: 13 six-cylinder Caterpillar C12.5
Transmission: Caterpillar CX31, 6-speed
Transfer Case: Cushman 2-x Speed ​​with Neutral
Power: 440 HP @ 1800 rpm, 525.l.s @ 2100 RPM
Torque: 1483 nm @ 1400 rpm
Maximum speed on the highway: 90 km / h
Power reserve: 530 km
Fuel tank capacity: 320 l
Power density: 15.4 hp / t
Front suspension: 13.6 tons
Front axle: AxleTech, steering axle drive
Rear suspension: 10.4 tons (each side)
Rear Axle: AxleTech
Brakes: Pnevmanichsky, brake chambers are protected
Wading depth (without preparation): 1000 mm
Entry angle: 25 °
Departure angle: 60 ° with rear staircase folded
Side bias: 30 °
Ground clearance: 450 mm front; 635 mm under transfer case cover; 380 mm rear
Air Transport: Aircraft C-17
Climate control system: air conditioning (80.000 BTU, one front and 2 rear); direct air ventilation system
Spare Parts: Enabled
Connection: Stand with power distribution center
Power supply: 24V with 12V outputs
Batteries: 4 by 12V
Seat belts: Four-point seat belts


36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    7 January 2013 10: 48
    He repeatedly traveled to Iraq in December 2005 to observe the car in action and communicate with soldiers using it.

    This I understand - the approach!
  2. +9
    7 January 2013 11: 29
    In a recent incident, Buffalo blew up on an anti-tank mine, blew off a wheel and destroyed a car bridge. There were no injuries among the crew, and the car retained its mobility and left the minefield on its own. It was repaired overnight and returned to service the very next day.

    apparently a complete freak, but efficiency is beyond praise. Interestingly, do we have at least the experience of such machines?
    1. Eric
      -3
      7 January 2013 11: 54
      BREM modify and voila!
      1. orfo
        +3
        8 January 2013 23: 36
        a completely different class, in the shaped bottom is preferable for mines.
    2. bask
      +11
      7 January 2013 11: 55
      Quote: rkka

      . Interestingly, do we have at least the experience of such machines?

      We don’t seem to have. We would have taken and ordered the development of MRAAP. The same. Сasspir ... Instead of spending money on ivek - ,, Lynx ,,, we’ve remade it for the Hindus, Caspir Mk6 based on the Urals .4320 .. Based on it it was possible to make a mine clearing vehicle .. But in general I want to say the South African sheep, well done .. They create beautiful MRAP machines ...
      1. Kir
        +2
        7 January 2013 21: 00
        Just don’t forget who they raised their defense industry, the former GDR and our former mainly, I know about ours precisely because I alone offered to move to South Africa as a joke. type from here to carry, but in general the benefit was given not to every shushara like lawyers and financiers, but to the engineering and scientific personnel in particular military profile!
        And with regards to the security buffalo, but now it cakes, so what. all the same, these are second-tier cars, and there will be craftsmen and these will be torn to pieces.
      2. QW4238
        +1
        7 January 2013 21: 03
        We don’t seem to have. We would have taken and ordered the development of MRAAP. The same. Сasspir ... Instead of spending money on ivek - ,, Lynx ,,, we’ve remade it for the Hindus, Caspir Mk6 based on the Urals .4320 .. Based on it it was possible to make a mine clearing vehicle .. But in general I want to say the South African sheep, well done .. They create beautiful MRAP machines ...


        Take an interest in the Typhoon theme at the base of the Urals and Kamaz.
    3. beard999
      +1
      7 January 2013 17: 48
      Quote: rkka
      Do we have at least the experience of such machines?

      Do we really need something like that? This is not about MRIs, namely, engineering. But we have excellent engineering machines - IMR-3M http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/5, BMR-3M http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/4. They are especially good in combination with new trawls: TMT-K http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2011/09/blog-post_3099.html and TMT-S http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2011/09/blog -post_3099.html. Not to mention the extreme development - BMR-3MA with a DMR trawl http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/VIETOAVS/VIETOAVS011.jpg.
      1. +2
        7 January 2013 21: 43
        The vehicles you mentioned didn’t seem to be bad on paper, but in Afghanistan the engineering vehicle didn’t pay off, the anti-tank mine and landmine itself didn’t hold, and the soldiers sat on the armor.

        And again, damn it on a caterpillar, goodbye to the road.
        1. beard999
          +2
          8 January 2013 01: 15
          Quote: professor
          sort of and not bad on paper

          Why only "on paper"? They are really good:
          With a TMT-K trawl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qwSiPBClkk&feature=player_embedded.
          With the TMT-S trawl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WF5BOBRiwA&feature=player_embedded.
          In addition, it is clear that when she trawled mines, she does not drive on asphalt. But if you already bother about the road surface, then it can be transported in this way:
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/RIAN_archive_734015_Wildfires
          _in_Moscow_Region% 27s_Lukhovitsky_district.jpg? uselang = en. You have one of the Buffalo pictures moving in the same way.
          Quote: professor
          in Afghanistan, the engineering vehicle of the barrage didn’t pay off, it itself did not hold anti-tank mines and land mines, and the soldiers boarded the armor

          The IMR-3M and BRM-3M / MA designated by me in Afghanistan were not by definition. This is for a start. Further. The overwhelming majority of them worked in Afghanistan, the IMR, model 1969, created on the basis of the T-55 http://www.saper.etel.ru/texnica/imr.html. I have not seen any bad reviews on it. Where did you get the information, the IRM in Afghanistan “didn’t pay off”? Give a confirming link? Do you accidentally confuse a tank IRM with an IRM based on an infantry fighting vehicle ("Beetle")? (it was there that the crew got out for armor).
          Since about 1985, the first IRM-2s based on the T-72 and with improved mine resistance appeared in OKV. IMR-2 was constantly improved (4 modifications were made). All the reviews that I heard about her, in particular on both Chechen campaigns, are the most positive.
          Well, and I, in general, talked about the extreme generation of the machine - IMR-3M based on the T-90A:
          http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Engineering-Technologies-2012/i-7wrRfwz/0/O/TV
          M2012ch2p2photo046.jpg
          http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Engineering-Technologies-2012/i-vHP5k75/0/O/TV
          M2012ch2p2photo048.jpg
          It has mine resistance significantly superior to both the IRM and the IRM-2.
          Anyway, the tank chassis provides much better protection, both from land mines and mines, and from possible enemy ambushes (especially from remote control, like on the BRM-3M). The Buffalo wasn’t lying around here.
          1. +1
            8 January 2013 08: 56
            With trawl TMT-K

            Both on paper and in cinema, in reality, the trawl is ineffective even against ancient anti-tank mines (they are delayed by a fuse and goodbye to an engineering demolition vehicle with a TMT trawl and a tank with a TMT-S trawl)

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/RIAN_archive_734015_Wildfires



            _in_Moscow_Region% 27s_Lukhovitsky_district.jpg? uselang = en

            broken link sad

            Give a confirming link? Do you accidentally confuse a tank IRM with an IRM based on an infantry fighting vehicle ("Beetle")? (it was there that the crew got out for armor).

            I can give a link to another forum. You most likely did not understand me correctly, the crew was not selected by the IMR itself, but by the column following it. Such photos are full.

            Anyway, the tank chassis provides much better protection, both from land mines and mines, and from possible enemy ambushes (especially from remote control, like on the BRM-3M). The Buffalo wasn’t lying around here.


            Well, drop it. lol I will not waste time explaining (such as suspended seats, high ceilings, seat belts, V-shaped bottoms, double sides, etc.), but practice suggests otherwise. The best example of this is Russia's desire to develop MRAP Typhoon. Why did the tank chassis end? But the Americans put the tanks into the desert for storage, while Buffalo orders hundreds of them and confuses the allies. By the way, IMR based on T-72 to which protection class according to SATANG belongs? Under the bottom, how many kg of TNT holds, and under the track?

            PS
            Is IRM-2 equipped with any sensors? How is she looking for mines and IEDs or should a fighter walking with a mine detector run ahead?
            1. beard999
              +2
              8 January 2013 16: 57
              Quote: professor
              they set a delay in the fuse

              It seems you are not very well versed in the topic about which they undertook to write. This "delay" is designed to ensure that the explosion occurs under the second or third roller of the machine. No more. For starters, you would look at how far the skating rinks are located, away from the first BMM skating rink, before writing like that. And on the TMT-S trawl you mentioned, even the working rollers are installed in 2 rows !!! In addition, both TMT-S and TMT-K are equipped with uproots. On my links it is clearly visible. And if the mine is equipped with a non-contact fuse, then there are EMT prefixes for trawls http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/78738-1-f.jpg or a more sophisticated product SPMZ-2 http: / /www.niistali.ru/security/mine. Generally deeply naive to think that in Russia. having a specialized Military Institute of Engineering Troops, a specialized Central Research Institute of Defense (15th), a specialized enterprise for the development of trawls of the Federal Scientific and Practical Center "Stankomash", a special design department for PMZ BBM at the Research Institute of Steel, will produce trawls "ineffective even against ancient anti-tank mines." Do not be so naive. These products have successfully passed the GI at the 38th Research Institute of Moscow Region. And they are imprisoned not against “homemade goods”, but against standard mines and military forces of the leading armies of the world.
              And by the way. One shot PG-7VL (36 years ago), in any projection, and goodbye to the Buffalo ...
              Quote: professor
              broken link

              I tried, copied from your message. Works. I will try again:
              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/RIAN_archive_734015_Wildfires
              _in_Moscow_Region% 27s_Lukhovitsky_district.jpg? uselang = en. Try to carefully copy the entire link.
              Quote: professor
              You probably misunderstood me

              Well, yes, I really didn’t understand you. But why it surprises you that the infantry rode on the armor, I still do not understand. And where does IMR in general? The infantry began to ride from above, not only because of mines and IEDs, but also especially because of grenade attacks. Ancient PG-7V, penetrated BMP / BTR without problems. If it was possible to defend against mines when escorting columns with engineering equipment, then there was no effective protection from RPGs at all. But this does not mean in any way that the WRI in Afghanistan was not effective.
              Quote: professor
              I will not waste time explaining

              Well, I will not explain the same to you the difference between the protection of a specialized machine made on the MBT chassis originally designed to work in minefields and the MRAP converted to IMR. On Russian engineering machines, PMZ is provided with a false bottom, a special filler (which can withstand explosions of standard mines with a cumulative warhead), a specially reinforced and reinforced bottom, a large air gap between the bottom and the floor, special floor mats to absorb high-amplitude vibrations, and pillers ( and naturally various trawls). Find me a similar PMZ at MRAP? And why did you remember “Typhoon” MRAP, didn’t understand? Talk about engineering cars.
              Quote: professor
              Is IRM-2 equipped with any sensors?

              I can only say for the IRM "Beetle". On it there is a PIF engineering photo reconnaissance device, as well as a wide-angle mine detector, which provides PM detection with ferromagnetic parts in a strip 3,6 m wide at a depth of up to 0,3 m.
              1. 0
                8 January 2013 17: 43
                It seems you are not very well versed in the topic about which they undertook to write. This "delay" is designed to ensure that the explosion occurs under the second or third roller of the machine. No more.

                I don’t know about you, but I personally had to cock it on two types of Soviet anti-tank mines, but mostly they were TM-62M. The fuses of this mine can be cocked for a much longer time needed to detonate the "second or third roller". Now I don’t remember exactly how much, but the literature says the following: fuse MVCh-62, MVZ-62, MVP-62M, MVP-62 cocking time, sec 30-120, 30-120, 30-300, 20-300 respectively. In 300 seconds, the 4th roller will hit the mine, but not even the next tank, but the fourth BMP. Don't find?
                Mines of the TM-62 series and fuses for them

                In addition, both TMT-S and TMT-K are equipped with uproots.

                Show you how a mine of perfume was laid by crushing it next to vertically stacked stones so that you could cut 40 cm of soil without damaging the mine?

                One shot PG-7VL (36 summer ago), in any projection, and goodbye to Buffalo ...

                Not so fast. The buffalo weighs 34 tons, the 37.5 tons engineering demolition vehicle, and this includes a non-frail bucket, a jib boom and tracked tracks. At Bufalo, these tons went solely for protection. Also, pay attention to the grilles. Well and most importantly, Buffalo is not a warrior alone in the field, and without cover he does not rush. Well and most importantly, low losses speak for themselves.


                Talk about engineering cars.

                Let's measure who has more using a single measurement scale, for example SATANG or GOST. What level of protection does the technique you mentioned meet?

                I can only say for the IRM "Beetle". It contains a unit for engineering photo-reconnaissance unit investment fund, as well as a wide-angle mine detector that provides detection of PM with ferromagnetic parts in a strip with a width of 3,6 m at a depth of up to 0,3 m

                I saw a similar mine detector installed on a UAZ. The same TM-62M in a plastic case, installed 20-30 cm under the ground, he no longer took (maybe today its sensitivity has improved), and not metal mines, and even more so since there is no georadar on it. So a land mine made from a plastic 100 liter barrel with a remote detonator "Zhuk" will not help even in theory.


                PS
                Please insert links so that they can be opened with one click of the mouse (icons above the message input window).
                1. beard999
                  +2
                  8 January 2013 22: 22
                  Quote: professor
                  cocking time, sec

                  You misunderstand the term "cocking time". According to the developer of TM-62, NIIII, this family of mines has a cocking time of 20 to 700 seconds. Cocking time is the transfer of a mine into a combat position when it is installed. And more precisely, the transfer of the fuse from the transport position to combat with a certain deceleration. In other words, after installing a mine, it will be cocked only after a certain time, and not immediately in your hands, as soon as you screw the fuse. In a firing position, the TM-62 mine fuse (in particular MVS-62) has a deceleration time of only 0,2-0,4 seconds. Such fuses only slow down trawling with skating rinks (speed less than 5 km / h), but no more. But the new trawls do not have such a problem, they have uproots, and TMT-S has two skating rinks.
                  Quote: professor
                  how a perfume was laid by crushing it next to vertically stacked stones

                  Precisely mine? And not VCA? Show by all means! For example, the TM-62 you mentioned, when installing a minefield, is deepened by 200-250 mm, i.e. it is completely cleared uproots, and if quickly, then with installations like URP-01 "Garter", UR-07M "Re-sorting", UR-77 "Meteorite", UR-83P ...
                  Quote: professor
                  Buffalo weighs 34 tons

                  I didn’t understand, and how will the weight of the car help you with grenade fire? At "Buffalo" anti-cumulative protection only in the form of RE. And the windows are there, like on a bus ... I hope you understand that not one RE can withstand 500 mm PG-7VL. But the BMR-3M is covered by DZ.
                  Quote: professor
                  using a single measurement scale

                  I do not know exactly which GOSTs are used on such engineering equipment. But I repeat once again that these vehicles and trawls for them were originally created to work on minefields (!!!) set by regular enemy aircraft, against any anti-tank mines - anti-track, anti-bottom, anti-aircraft, anti-roof, with high-explosive, cumulative or warheads Oops. But the "Buffalo" is just a remake of a regular Mack truck. And reviews about him, in Afghanistan, at least ambiguous http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1507.html. In general, I am surprised to hear from the Israeli citizen the praise of the MRAPs when the IDF in combat operations, even against partisan units, rolls on 45 tons of Achzarit infantry fighting vehicles and 60 tons of Namer. And the same Americans, even taking into account the 12 year war in Afghanistan, are going to rivet for the infantry the 84-ton BMC GCV http://army-news.ru/2012/11/gvc-samaya-zashhishhyonnaya-bmp-vesom-v- 84-tonny. Where do you see the MRAP concept?
                  Quote: professor
                  100 liter barrel with remote fuse

                  As far as I know, incl. and to replace the IRM, UVZ made a BMI (object. 145). And you can deal with “remote fuses” using other methods as well - the Pelena-6BK2 blocker (protection radius of at least 120 m), Pelena-1000 (protection radius of at least 150 m). And the Airborne Forces generally made themselves a special vehicle for escorting the convoys - RB-531B Infauna.
                  Quote: professor
                  insert links so that they can be opened with one click

                  Think I haven't tried it? I'm tormented myself. For some reason, hell doesn’t work.
                  1. +2
                    8 January 2013 23: 37
                    You misunderstand the term "cocking time"

                    Maybe I’m confusing it, a couple of years have passed since the 1988 year, but I remember very well when the fuse was disassembled, there, when a button on the cover is pressed, the firing pin with a clockwork unfolds in the direction of the transfer charge. I don’t know what happened next since we removed the drummer before cocking the mechanism with a key.


                    Precisely mine? And not VCA? Show by all means!

                    There is no picture at hand, the training manual was chipboard, nevertheless, a mine or several are set on top of one another, and on the top stones one on top of the other. The bucket removes the soil with one or two stones, but the mine does not neutralize.

                    The quick method also does not always work, and all the more you need to know that the minefield is in front of you, and Buffalo is also engaged in detecting mines.

                    I didn’t understand, and how will the weight of the car help you with grenade fire?

                    First of all, Buffalo is designed for mine protection using all of its 34 tons for this, and its ballistic protection is rather weak. sad

                    But the "Buffalo" is just a remake of a regular Mack truck.

                    However, the V-shape of the body, etc. made this car legendary and reviews about its security are unambiguous. Yes, it is heavy and huge, but it does its job perfectly. But how the IMR crew is protected is not at all clear. Where does the shock wave go, are the seats and belts adapted? And the armored volume of Soviet tanks is such that in an explosion, at best, it will break the neck or spine ... sad

                    In general, I am surprised to hear from an Israeli citizen the praise of MRAPs when the IDF

                    Have you seen my passport? wink
                    Tzahal fights in specific conditions. Have you ever seen wheeled armored vehicles with them? There, the main threat is a powerful mine up to a couple of hundred kilograms of land mines (for this they send D-9) and ATGMs. Here from the ATGMs the most is the thing, and if you also deliver the KAZ it will be just brilliance. Americans talk about heavy APCs, and thousands buy MRAPs.

                    As far as I know, incl. and to replace the IRM, UVZ made a BMI (object. 145).

                    This is only suitable for radio-controlled landmines, but what about plastic mines, IEDs with wired remote control? The bourgeois have a georadar, and the Middle Eastern "aggressors" also have a chemical analyzer (almost like a dog's nose laughing ) and UAVs determining the slightest change in color, composition or shape of the soil. Dogs are also actively used in Tsakhal.
                    1. beard999
                      0
                      9 January 2013 15: 38
                      Quote: professor
                      Maybe I'm confusing

                      Definitely confusing. A slowdown of less than 0,5 seconds is a common occurrence for not only Russian but also Western mines. And methods of fighting for mines with a delay have been invented for a long time. These are special rollers with the so-called “Shoes” (on KMT-8, KMT-9), plow devices or the most common option in the Russian army today is the joint work of gauge trawls - knife KMT-7 and KMT-8, or the so-called combat trawls.
                      Read the links: http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/6148/ and http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2011/09/blog-post_1896.html.
                      Quote: professor
                      The bucket removes soil with one or two stones, but the mine does not neutralize

                      I don’t know the full-time firing mines that can be set like this. The effectiveness of mines with a cumulative warhead will be near-zero, and with a high explosive a substantial part of the energy will be "spread" around. Russian knife trawls work quite efficiently http://www.stankomash74.ru/catalog/opk/kmt-8/.
                      Quote: professor
                      The quick method doesn't always work either

                      You can apply UR at any time, including and on a dirt road, a superficial undermining (in Chechnya, they certainly did that, and more than once). As for the Buffalo, it is “engaged” in detecting mines precisely on the roads, and it is by no means intended to work on regularly established minefields (I hope you understand why). Russian BMR in this respect is more universal.
                      Quote: professor
                      made this car legendary and reviews about its security are unambiguous

                      Reviews about BIS are also the most positive. At the same time, Buffalo works against Taliban improvised work, and Russian engineering equipment also worked against a huge number of the latest western mines that Afghanistan was bombed in the 80s, as well as modern Soviet mines in Tajikistan, Abkhazia, and both Chechen campaigns. Regarding the protection of BIS. It is alleged that it is resistant to undermining in the center of the bottom of the TM-62 mine with explosives MS (TNT equivalent is 1,6). Those. for the modification of TM-62P with 8 kg of MS TNT equivalent to about 13 kg. In addition, the bottom holds the kuma (find an MRAP that can do this too).
                      Quote: professor
                      Tzahal fights in specific conditions

                      Landmines is Palestine. But Lebanon, Syria or Egypt, these are just mines (according to your layout, MRAP should be enough there, but the less so the IDF is not keen on them at all). The purchase of MRAPs by the Americans once again proves that it is precisely the counterguerrilla equipment that is ineffective against the regular army. Including and engineering machines based on them.
                      About "200 kg land mines" and "Namer" for protection against ATGMs, you frankly amused me ...
                      Quote: professor
                      and plastic mines, IEDs with a wired remote control?

                      We have enough means for detecting mines - for example, Oko-2 georadars (sounding depths from 0,8 to 24 meters), Mirador (sounding depths up to 5 m), IVP-RL1 and IVP-RL2 radar, detector of non-linear crossings NR-900EK Korshun (in Chechnya there was a case when he discovered an IED (with wire control) disguised as a curbstone at a distance of 24 meters), the Rotor-1 aerial engineering reconnaissance complex (adopted for service as early as 1978). All information even on the network is available. About dogs http://nvo.ng.ru/printed/86598.
                      1. +1
                        9 January 2013 21: 29
                        Thank you for the links, although copying them is annoying. wink
                        I will not change my opinion about Byffalo (until the experience of its combat use shows its "worthlessness") just like you about the BMR. Nevertheless, it is pleasant to communicate with you. hi

                        In addition, the bottom holds the kuma (find an MRAP that can do this too).

                        Decipher what is Kuma and I will look for the appropriate MRAP.

                        The purchase of MRAPs by the Americans once again proves that it is precisely the counterguerrilla equipment that is ineffective against the regular army.

                        Since the 1982 of the year, Duc Tsakhal has been fighting only with partisans, but he is not keen on wheeled vehicles because he sees the main danger in ATGMs, although he uses trawls during exercises, bulldozers are not only used for exercises.





                        About "200 kg land mines" and "Namer" for protection against ATGMs, you frankly amused me ...

                        What specifically amused you? The fact that in Gaza and in Lebanon the Merkava was blown up by several hundred kilograms of landmines? Hezbollah is silent, but Hamas more than once proudly told what exactly he blew up the tank. You look at the losses in Tsahal over the past 40 years, how many vehicles were hit by mines and landmines, and how many ATGMs. In addition to the double bottom (the truth and form was borrowed from Merkava) and the suspended seats, it is not particularly protected from mines.

                        About Russian GPR for me was a discovery. feel Do not tell me which of them are adopted?
                      2. beard999
                        +1
                        10 January 2013 15: 34
                        Quote: professor
                        I will not change my opinion about Byffalo

                        So I do not urge you to change your mind. In the first post, in this topic, I only expressed my doubt about the need to have a Buffalo analogue in Russia. He does not give any advantages over the engineering equipment that we have. It was exclusively about this. The entire further course of the discussion was only my reaction to your criticism of the Russian IMR and BIS.
                        Quote: professor
                        Decipher what is Kuma

                        “Kuma” is a cumulative warhead. For example, a Russian TM-89 mine penetrates 500 mm of armor at a distance of 200 mm. To protect the bottom and chassis, from cumulative warheads, is much more difficult than from high-explosive ones.
                        Quote: professor
                        Duc Tsahal since 1982, only with partisans and is fighting

                        Fact. That's just the IDF came to heavy tracked vehicles, after several wars, with regular armed forces of the Arab countries. And in this regard, the war with the "partisans" did not change anything, since BMPs and armored personnel carriers are much more universal (which the IDF itself demonstrates). But MRAP, in combat against regular forces, will only fit in order to deliver fighters from point A to point B, in their rear.
                        Quote: professor
                        What specifically amused you?

                        1. Amused named mass “200 kg”. Hamas frankly rides on the ears, intimidating landmines of such power, and some are being conducted. To destroy any BBM, you need much less explosives. Standard, 200-gram, factory-made checker TNT, rips the steel railway rail into two parts (ends in different directions). 25 kg of explosives, this is conditionally 125 (!!!), concentrated checkers TNT. To break the bottom of any armored object, this is enough. In addition, you will not find a single manufacturer of MBT in the world who would say that the bottom of his tank is guaranteed protected from PT-min. And now, let's recall how many explosives are in modern mines - about 6-12 kg. Even if the explosive there is more powerful than TNT, then this is any less than 20 kg. And after all, no one claims that this is not enough for tanks. It’s enough. And the “200 kg” of explosives, during WWII, the most powerful reinforced concrete (!!!) pillboxes destroyed. And here on the bottom of the tank is “200 kg”. Laugh…
                        2. You might think that “Namer” is guaranteed to hold ATGMs. Most of its projections will not save even from RPG shots (of the same PG-7VL and, especially, PG-VR, 25 years ago). When you write that heavy BMPs are needed to protect against ATGMs, this is not true.
                        Quote: professor
                        Do not tell me which of them are adopted?

                        “Geo” (“Radioavionics”) and “Mirador” (“Geological exploration”) were adopted. They have a lot of modifications. Mirador, for example, can be like this http://www.trgeo.ru/Reference/ThankMir.htm or like http://www.trgeo.ru/tr_geo_robot_rus.htm. I won’t say anything about Oko-2, I don’t know, but for civilians it is made and is freely available http://www.bnti.ru/des.asp?itm=4456&tbl=02.17.
                      3. +1
                        10 January 2013 16: 02
                        It does not give any advantages over the engineering equipment that we have

                        Lack of 200 cargo during its operation. After all, in the West there are classical IMR and BMR, but they created Buffalo for the same conditions where the USSR (Afghanistan) and now Russia (the Caucasus) uses IMR. Here is your advantage.

                        At the expense of resistance to cumulative warhead information I do not have.

                        Remembering MRAPs and Tsakhal, do not forget about "not love" there for wheeled armored vehicles in general. Although MRAPs are there as well. It is not always necessary to drive Namer or Akhzarit.



                        Amused named mass "200 kg."

                        In vain it amuses you. I saw a photo (now not at hand) of a land mine that was defused in Gaza. There is a 200-liter barrel with a hollow cone, weighs at least 150 kilograms. Also, the Arabs in Gaza practice the so-called "explosive tunnels" - the soil in Gaza is sandy, they dig a tunnel of 150-200 meters (this is how the abductors of Shalit) and lay a charge of a couple of hundred kg under the patrol route. This is recognized by both belligerents.

                        You might think that “Namer” is guaranteed to hold ATGMs. Most of his projections will not save even from RPG shots

                        "Guaranteed" nothing holds an ATGM, nevertheless, the war of 2006 and the operation in gas in 2008 showed how effective the tkhazhely BMP is against ATGMs and RPGs.

                        When you write that heavy BMPs are needed to protect against ATGMs, this is not true.

                        Are you implying that you know their true purpose?
                      4. beard999
                        0
                        11 January 2013 14: 48
                        Quote: professor
                        Lack of cargo 200

                        Yes, quit. The main losses in Afghanistan are suffered by Americans from bombings, despite the fact that they move on MRAPs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFGo0kI8v9g&feature=player_embedded#! . If the militants see that the power of the charges of their landmines is not enough, they will increase them. 8 kg is not enough? They will do 16. MRAP, from the 200s, it certainly won’t save Americans. And anyway, where did you get the information that there were no dead on the Buffalo? How long have these machines been used? How many of them work in Afghanistan?
                        Quote: professor
                        After all, in the West there are classical IMR and BIS, but they created Buffalo

                        Can you name what IMR and BMR were in service with the Americans in 2001? I don’t understand about the “advantage”? IMR and BMR can be used both in the classical war and in counter-guerrilla warfare, they can work both against standard mines (including directly on minefields) and against improvised landmines (including during engineering reconnaissance on roads). Buffalo has no such versatility.
                        Quote: professor
                        Although MRAPs are there. It is not always necessary to drive Namer or Ahzarit

                        By itself. However, MRAP is not a combat technique. This is a landmine protected vehicle.
                        Quote: professor
                        In vain it amuses you

                        It is quite obvious that the “150-200 meter tunnel”, with the explosive “a couple of hundred kg,” is not an anti-tank weapon. Judging by your remark, about the “sandy soil”, they dig quite deep (1,5-2 meters minimum, otherwise there will be a collapse of the soil). This is not an anti-tank mine (concentrated explosive). It is rather an explosive barrage. As for the “200 liter barrel”, it’s just funny. Instead of 8 (!) Quite effective 25 kg landmines, Hamas workers make one that is also easier to detect and render harmless faster.
                        Quote: professor
                        showed how effective heavy infantry fighting vehicles against ATGMs

                        This is how "shown"? There are completely obvious facts that you are unlikely to be able to refute. Neither the roof, nor the sides, nor the “Namer” feeds, hold cumulative warheads with armor penetration greater than 500 mm. The frontal projections there are naturally highly protected. Only with counter-guerrilla actions, when the enemy mainly acts from ambushes, a protected forehead will not always help you. I roughly imagine that you will object. Will you give loss statistics, right? I believe I am familiar with the Israeli numbers, no worse than you. So let's do this. You give me the following numbers: 1. the number of ATGM hits in the Achzarit and Namer infantry fighting vehicles (namely ATGMs, not RPGs), 2. the number of armor penetrations after the ATGM hits. Can you provide such figures (and certainly with a confirmation link)?
                        Quote: professor
                        Are you implying that you know their true purpose?

                        I directly state that there is no BTT protected from ATGMs. What will heavy infantry fighting vehicles protect against? If we talk about cumulative warheads, then the frontal projection from most heavy (but not all) ATGMs with frontal attack of the target, side and feed, only from light RPGs, the roof does not even protect against this. Naturally, this is better than let’s say so on the “classic” infantry fighting vehicles, but it’s definitely not worth talking about some reliable protection against anti-tank missiles.
                      5. 0
                        12 January 2013 13: 13
                        And anyway, where did you get the information that there were no dead on the Buffalo? How long have these machines been used? How many of them work in Afghanistan?

                        About MDIs, I have already laid out more than one article, including how much they have reduced the loss of drugs, you can’t argue with numbers. Information about the absence of dead um mines at Buffalo from the United States Department of Defense, in this article: In 2002, four Buffalo were deployed in Afghanistan to mine the Bagram airfield. In the 2008 year, about 200 Buffalo vehicles took part in the fighting.

                        IMR and BMR can be used both in the classical war and in counter-guerrilla warfare, they can work both against standard mines (including directly on minefields) and against improvised landmines (including during engineering reconnaissance on roads). Buffalo has no such versatility.

                        We walk in circles. What level of protection according to SATANG or GOST is met by IMR and BMR? If there is no data (not casual) then there is nothing to hide. request


                        It is obvious that the “150-200 Tunnel of Meters”, with a “couple of hundred kg” explosives, is not an anti-tank weapon.

                        Not at all "obvious" and yet it is a fact, these tunnels are used against tanks. Similar landmines are also laid using traditional methods.

                        There are completely obvious facts that you are unlikely to be able to refute. Neither the roof, nor the side, nor the “Namer” feed, can hold cumulative warheads with armor penetration greater than 500 mm.

                        Yes? And where are thesevery obvious Yes, and data? Kindly share the facts, not assumptions.
                        When you write about armor penetration, do not forget to add "homogeneous armor". Do you know what kind of booking Namer has? Tell us.

                        I believe I am familiar with the Israeli numbers, no worse than you.

                        Then you don’t need to give a list of losses, because you yourself know everything. I hope you will not argue that the IDF hides losses?

                        Are you implying that you know their true purpose?

                        The question was about destination heavy infantry fighting vehicles, since "I don't know him", and not their armor penetration.
                      6. 0
                        12 January 2013 13: 14
                        There are completely obvious facts that you are unlikely to be able to refute. Neither the roof, nor the side, nor the “Namer” feed, can hold cumulative warheads with armor penetration greater than 500 mm.

                        Yes? And where are thesevery obvious Yes, and data? Kindly share the facts, not assumptions.
                        When you write about armor penetration, do not forget to add "homogeneous armor". Do you know what kind of booking Namer has? Tell us.

                        I believe I am familiar with the Israeli numbers, no worse than you.

                        Then you don’t need to give a list of losses, because you yourself know everything. I hope you will not argue that the IDF hides losses?

                        Are you implying that you know their true purpose?

                        The question was about destination heavy infantry fighting vehicles, since "I don't know him", and not their armor penetration.

                        but it’s definitely not necessary to talk about some kind of confident protection from ATGMs for heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

                        Where did the Israelis hide all the victims of breaking through the armor of Akhzarit or did the Hezbollahs not use ATGMs? wink

                        However, MRAP is not a combat technique. This is a landmine protected vehicle
                        .
                        Of course, it’s not a battle technique - probably fishing. fellow The Raphael MRI holds on board a cumulative non-tandem RPG, but the Israelis just designed it, because they were not seen in battles. wink How do they know what a battle is? So it turns out?
                      7. beard999
                        +1
                        12 January 2013 16: 04
                        Quote: professor
                        the absence of dead um mines on Buffalo from the United States Department of Defense, in this article

                        That is, you refer to yourself? No other links? Do you have a link to a source of information, where it is DIRECTLY stated that there were no losses at Buffalo at all?
                        Losses, MRAPs, of course, partially reduced (this is still not the miserable Hummer that drove into Afghanistan). But I doubt that you will name any SPECIFIC figures loss reduction. And even more so, you can hardly prove that this decrease is not associated, for example, with a noticeable reduction in ground combat operations by the Americans, the “transfer of provinces” to the Afghan, etc.
                        Further I will answer without quoting, so as not to produce posts.
                        1. NATO STANAG shows only the mass of a HE charge. For an engineering machine, this is far from all. BMR-3M accurately holds 13 kg in TNT equivalent, with a blast in the center of the bottom http://www.arms-expo.ru/049053057051124049057049.html. At the same time, the BMR, in combination with new trawls, is able to fight any mines, including anti-sideboard and antiturn conditions with warheads such as UYA. The bottom of the BMR holds the godfather. BMR can work on any minefields (this is its main purpose). None of this "Buffalo" can. BMR initially has MBT armor (!!!), covered by DZ. Buffalo cardboard compared to it. Will explode next to the 152/155 mm OFS and where will your Buffalo be, with its huge glazing, like a sightseeing bus?
                        2. In vain argue. With tunnels, everything is obvious. This is not a landmine. Landmine is a very definite product, even if it is an IED.
                        3. The armor is certainly “homogeneous”, only it is taken in the form of an equivalent thickness of 500 mm or more. Or do you think that on “Namer” the thickness of the side or stern armor (even if it is multi-layer) is 500 mm or more? Remind you, what kind of “ears” did the Ukrainians hang on the BM “Oplot” to protect the hull sides from 500 mm hectares?
                        4. I do not need a “list of losses” because it does not at all prove your thesis about the stability of heavy infantry fighting vehicles against ATGMs. Without knowing the specific numbers - how many ATGM shots hit the heavy infantry fighting vehicles and how many shot through, you cannot prove anything. So do you have such numbers?
                        5. The purpose of heavy infantry fighting vehicles is the same as for other infantry fighting vehicles. Nothing new. A distinctive feature is better security. But this does not mean that it is not even affected by wearables of PTS insurgents. Which was proved in the summer of 2006.
                        6. "Raphael MPAP", is it "Golan"? Well, let’s tell us what kind of “cumulative non-tandem RPGs” he is holding (specific numbers, how much does he keep on the coup, name it). And also where he "fought", how exactly and against whom the enemy?
                        PS
                        And why didn’t you talk about the American IMR and BMR, which they had in service in 2001? The answer to this question is directly related to why the Americans riveted Buffalo ...
                      8. 0
                        12 January 2013 23: 04
                        That is, you refer to yourself? No other links?

                        Do you need it? Judging by your questions, you have not even read this article? sad
                        Buffalo armored vehicle

                        NATO STANAG shows only a mass of landmines

                        What level of protection by Satang or GOST meets WRI and BIS?

                        With tunnels, everything is obvious. This is not a landmine.

                        Is it really a torpedo? The tunnel is bookmark method and nothing more.

                        And why didn’t you talk about the American IMR and BMR that they had in service in the 2001 year?

                        What for? For the Americans, sappers walked to Buffalo ...

                        In conclusion, you convinced me- Buffalo is complete fuuuuuflo, and the Americans are suckers. hi

                        PS
                        Read a couple of works by academician Lavrent'ev about the theory of a cumulative jet, especially where he paints what happens to it when passing through a liquid medium.
                      9. beard999
                        +1
                        13 January 2013 15: 14
                        Quote: professor
                        Do you need it? Judging by your questions, you have not even read this article?

                        Well here you are again, for yours. I read an article, but why do you think your article is the ultimate truth? In my opinion, you interpret the information as beneficial to you. You, for example, give a link that supposedly confirms your words that there were no losses on Buffalo, but in fact nothing of the kind was said there. I'm not talking about the fact that the article is frankly old, seven years ago ... Or another example. Why do you begin to dispute well-known information that MRAP is not a combat vehicle, namely, transport. Have you tried driving a Buffalo MPV into the search engines? So try and see "Buffalo MPV (MPV - Mine Protected Vehicle, TRANSPORT with increased protection against mines). In my opinion, your admiration for MPAP already prevents you from objectively evaluating this technique ...
                        1. About GOSTs, I already answered you. Have you forgotten? In the USSR / RF, GOSTs define their own engineering equipment security, separate. They are not related to GOSTs of other BTTs. According to your link, it is said that "Buffalo" is holding a 30 pound (13,6 kg) landmine under the bottom, which I gave you in the previous message, said that the BMR-3M withstands the undermining of the TM-62 HE mine explosive, (which corresponds to about 13 kg of explosives). What do you still not understand?
                        2. In addition to the “torpedo”, you no longer have any options at all? When a high-explosive mine is detonated, the target is hit by a shock wave and explosion products. The tunnels are “150-200 m”, dug at a sufficient depth and with the explosives distributed along the entire length, you can’t hit the equipment. Hold up, yes. And so - take on the dispute, let's immediately link to the photos of these tunnels, or BTT that got into them.
                        3. I have never claimed that the Buffalo is bullshit and that the Americans are suckers. I don’t understand why you have such a nervous reaction?
                        4. If you can convincingly explain to me what the theoretical works of “Academician Lavrentiev” have to do with the topic under discussion, I’m ready to read it. But only after your clarification.
                        5. And in conclusion. I believe that you are not talking about “American IMR and BMR” because after my question, you realized that at the time the troops entered Afghanistan (2001), the Americans did not have anything close to Russian engineering machines! At that time, they really had in their troops: the D7G “mine eliminator-bulldozer” (the 50s of the last century), the M728 CEV combat engineering vehicle (1965, since 2000 its use in hostilities was discontinued). But the engineering machine M1 "Grizzly", adopted for service in 1999, in 2001, the troops were not a single instance! Entering Afghanistan, the Americans realized that they had no effective engineering equipment. They started frantically scraping it from wherever they could - they took the Danish HYDREMA 910 MCV, and quickly riveted both the Stryker ESV and the Buffalo MPV ...
                      10. 0
                        13 January 2013 16: 53
                        I read an article, but why do you think your article is the ultimate truth?

                        If you read, you would ask questions for which there are answers in the article, for example, how long have these machines been used? Anyway...

                        You, for example, give a link that supposedly confirms your words that there were no losses on the Buffalo, but in fact nothing of the kind was said there.

                        We read carefully: Since their deployment to Iraq in 2003 the Cougar and Buffalo vehicles employed with explosive ordnance disposal teams and engineers units have taken about 1,000 IED hits without a loss of life, said Wayne Phillips, a company vice president in charge of Marine Corps programs. Do you have information about the dead? Share it?
                        1. Not forgotten. Tests of armored vehicles for protection against explosion are carried out not as anyone would think, but according to GOST. Explain to you what a standard is?
                        2. The tunnel is a means of laying a land mine, and not the only one. A land mine is not installed along the entire length of the tunnel, but only at its "end" point directly under the "roadway" or the attacked object (this is how the checkpoint was blown up).
                        3. Despite the existence of tracked IMR and BMR, Americans acquire a buffalo fact.
                        4. These theoretical works are the cornerstone of Soviet applied science, the result of which is the creation of shaped charges. After reading, you can understand that 1000 mm of homogeneous armor can be replaced by 100 mm of composite armor (approximate figures), and also how quickly the cumulative jet in liquids "fades".
                        5. Of course it wasn’t! (among the Israelis

                        they were too shy to ask the Germans

                        , and started frantically riveting Buffalo). Why did you forget the M9 engineering machine? Why didn’t they tell about the fate of the Grizzlies, how many of them are in the troops now, and how many are Buffalo? How many USMC M1ABV, whole 6 pieces of M1 Panther II? Where did the D-9 and the British FV 180 CET go? The French and the Germans without engineering equipment flooded into Afghanistan? wink
                      11. beard999
                        0
                        14 January 2013 15: 29
                        Quote: professor
                        Anyway...

                        Well, why "oh well." My question was quite natural. You have written: "In 2002, four Buffalo were deployed in Afghanistan to mine the Bagram airfield." But many other sources call the beginning of operation in 2004 (moreover, 21 cars should have appeared only by the end of the year, in December).
                        1. According to your link, it is said that the two types of MRAPs “Cougar” and “Buffalo” had about 1000 detonations and there were no victims? Do you agree? Well, firstly, they only say that there were no fatalities due to the destruction of a given number of landmines. But it is not said that “about 1000” of the bombings, this is generally the full number of the bombings. For some reason, they didn’t simply write in the article - all the MRAP data bombings cost no casualties ... And secondly, there is no breakdown - how many Cougar and Buffalo MRAPs were exploited and how many of them each survived. MRAPs "Cougar" operated by orders of magnitude more than "Buffalo". And thirdly, and this is probably the most important thing - this information is 7 years ago. Where is the infa for the last 7 years?
                        2. Are you ready to tell the details how exactly, according to the "standard" is carried out undermining according to STANAG or GOST? Let’s tell, it’s interesting. Although why it doesn’t suit you, I still don’t understand the information on the bombings, which are very specific and really applying (!) In the combat operations of ammunition, TM-62 mines. And the place of detonation is indicated specifically - the "center of the bottom."
                        3. And where is the "block post" and landmines for BTT? And it is completely incomprehensible, the meaning of digging a tunnel at 200 m, and then laying an explosive in one place? Or do you want to say that the “tunnel” is just a way to quietly lay explosives in a certain place? Well, then he is no different from a conventional landmine.
                        4. Yeah, that is, you base your knowledge on theory. Well then, I see ... In practice, they didn't give a damn? Tell me at least one tank or heavy infantry fighting vehicle, where OFFICIALLY declared stability of side projections of the hull (!!!) to cumulative warheads of more than 500 mm? In 2006, in the IDF operation, the most protected Israeli MBT took part - the Merkava Mk.3B Baz dor Dalet (with the so-called 4th generation armor and the Merkava Mk.4 and were quite successfully hit by the ATGMs second generation.
                        5. Exactly so, “they started to rivet convulsively,” because the M9, it’s a digging machine, with partial reservations, http://www.saper.etel.ru/texnica/us-m9.html, is the program for the 70-ton “Grizzly” Americans covered up for a long time (they wrote that it was precisely because of the overweight of the car). As for the other things that you listed, it was a question of the lack of proper engineering equipment among the Americans, and precisely at the time of the entry of troops into Afghanistan (2001). In a hurry, they were only able to rivet the Buffalo, because they didn’t have anything “caterpillar”, similar to the Russian MII and BIS. And the Buffalo cat wept - about 250 units were produced (for the US Armed Forces), but how many are currently in service is not known at all ...
                      12. +1
                        15 January 2013 13: 07
                        We walk in circles. The Americans already having a real model of the IMR based on the M1 tank decided to abandon it, despite the fact that this could save the plant for the production of these very Abrams. Instead, the army ordered a "worthless" Buffalo from the same Abrams company. Moreover, the Yankees did not acquire an IMR based on the Leopard from the Germans, but created an engineering vehicle on the basis of the South African MRAP, considering it more secure. Or maybe they didn't have enough money for the Grizzlies? Also by - the plant in Lima is allocated money for the production of tanks that will not go to the army, but straight for storage in the desert ... Well, stupid, what else can you say about them.
                        fool

                        BMR-3M accurately holds 13 kg ...
                        What does "hold" mean? The sealing of the case was not broken, and the bottom bent 10 cm, the fighters broke their spines, since the seats were bolted to this bottom with M10 bolts, and then they broke their neck because there were no seat belts and the fighters were banged their heads on the roof, and those who survived received in pursuit of excess pressure? And of course it "holds": the body is like new, and the soldiers are sitting like living ...

                        Do you distinguish between homogeneous armor and, for example, composite armor or spaced armor (generally I am silent about the built-in dynamic protection)? What is armor penetration?

                        This argument ends because of the lack of productivity. hi
                      13. beard999
                        0
                        15 January 2013 15: 28
                        Quote: professor
                        We walk in a circle

                        "We" just do not go. You maybe. I explain the last time. As you know, the Russian IMR-3M and BMR-3M / MA are made on the chassis of the T-90 / 90A tanks. IMR-3M has a mass with a trawl KMT-R3 weighing 49,5 tons, BMR-3M with a similar trawl 51 tons. The Americans latest modifications M1 have a mass of 62-63 tons. The BMR on their base turns out to be a heavy crane, the same "Grizzly" - 70 tons. This does not suit them. And they do not have a lighter protected tracked platform. This problem, they overlap with some kind of disregard for the development of engineering equipment. Even the M1 MCBS mini-removal plow system for Abrams was created on the basis of the Israeli development http://www.saper.etel.ru/texnica/us-m1.html. When the Americans roasted a rooster in Afghanistan, then besides the Buffalo, they simply had no other choice.
                        Quote: professor
                        MRAP engineering machine, considering it more secure

                        Your statement is simply a "masterpiece." MRAP is more secure than a tank. You yourself are not funny? Above, I have already shown that, unlike the BMR-3M, Buffalo, except from 13 kg of landmines, will not be able to protect it from anything else. Want to continue to engage in self-deception? For God's sake…
                        Quote: professor
                        What does "hold" mean?

                        You have read my link inattentively. It says what it means - "ensures the survivability of the crew."
                        What is not clear here?
                        Quote: professor
                        Do you distinguish between homogeneous armor and, for example, composite armor or spaced armor (generally I am silent about the built-in dynamic protection)? What is armor penetration?

                        Do you like to theorize ... Armored penetration of warheads is always given on homogeneous steel armor, when indicating the angle of encounter with an obstacle. But the security of the armored object is also indicated in the same way - resistance to cumulative warheads is given in the equivalent of steel homogeneous armor. Those. not the actual thickness of the armor is taken (any - composite, spaced, etc.), but its equivalent is steel homogeneous. This is clear? You will not name me any serial BTT model, in which the hull side has a resistance of more than 500 mm. There is no such protection for the Israeli "Namer".
                        The fact that you are "silent" about DZ is done correctly. On the Israeli "Namer" it is not. There is nothing to talk about.

                        All the best!
    4. QW4238
      -1
      7 January 2013 20: 46
      apparently a complete freak, but efficiency is beyond praise. Interestingly, do we have at least the experience of such machines?


      Not all at once, the appearance of such machines in Russia is a matter of time. The equipment is suitable, but our budget is not comparable with the United States, and there is not enough money for all. I suppose, in the first place, ordinary MRAPs are necessary, and already on their basis to make an engineering machine.
      1. bask
        +3
        8 January 2013 00: 40
        Quote: QW4238
        aye. I suppose, in the first place, ordinary MRAPs are necessary, and already on their basis to make an engineering machine.

        That's right, we need our MPC on the components and assemblies of serial freight cars. On bridges, and not on an independent suspension Example MPC .RG 33 L6 / 6 BAE Systems / Mine clearance vehicle. Year of release 2007.
  3. Sadam
    +2
    7 January 2013 16: 32
    We have not only achievements, but ready-made copies such as KAMAZ Typhoon, VPK-3924 “Bear, etc., but there is no state order for them
  4. SenyaYa
    0
    8 January 2013 11: 41
    I have such a thing, dig a garden and plant a cartan ... moreover, there’s a lot more robbery! beauty

    She probably still has a Taliban nozzle to grab for eggs)
  5. 0
    10 January 2013 10: 16
    And so it all began in Rhodesia.





    1. +1
      10 January 2013 10: 17
      continued with pictures






      1. ICT
        0
        13 January 2013 19: 54
        live geo radar
  6. petrpob
    0
    24 March 2013 16: 55
    we would have come in handy such cars, on Russian roads would have passed without problems =)