No "acrobatics" in the BTR-60: Vietnam unveils the XTC-03 armored vehicle in metal

Vietnam has unveiled a prototype of its first domestically produced wheeled armored personnel carrier, designated XTC-03. It was developed to replace the aging Soviet armored vehicles, particularly the BTR-60, which remains in active service with the army.

Unlike Soviet technology, the XTC-03 has a layout based on the Western approach: the engine is located in the front, and the doors for the troop exit are in the rear.

The published video shows a commander's sight, which is identical to that installed on a domestically produced anti-drone turret. This means that it is theoretically possible to intercept a UAV using the 30mm 2A42 cannon (or its local equivalent) mounted on the armored vehicle. Moreover, the XTC-03 is equipped with a modern fire control system, although it lacks a radar, which would significantly simplify interception. drones.

The vehicle's dimensions are 7,6 x 3 x 2,7 meters, significantly smaller than modern, massive Western armored fighting vehicles. The low profile is due to the commander and gunner being housed in the turret and "basket." These dimensions reportedly allow troops to comfortably fit inside the vehicle. At the same time, exiting through the rear doors will significantly facilitate disembarkation for the troops, compared to the "acrobatic maneuvers" required to dismount from the BTR-60 through the side hatches.

It is stated that the transmission of the Soviet-Russian wheeled armored personnel carriers was completely redesigned, which was caused by the new layout of the vehicle.

Comments

[ZhEK-Vodogrey]

This is a kind of corrected BTR-80 as it should have been – with a front-engine layout, a spacious compartment for troops and a two-man turret.
The XTC-03 is expected to replace the BTR-60 in the Vietnamese Army in the coming years.
We currently have the failure of the Boomerang, which flew out the wrong door, and the sluggish, decades-long reworking of the BTR-80 into a front-engine configuration under the guise of the BTR-22...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Why are you all so fixated on the front-engine layout? Is the Jewish Merkava so intoxicating?
The Ukrainian BTR-4, with its mid-mounted engine, should be the model. Although the Ukrainian vehicle proved to be heavy and had poor cross-country ability, similar solutions should be used as a reference, rather than relying on the unstable front-engine design.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Author! Before you write servile praises of the backward-looking "Western" approach, take a look at the BMP-1—the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. Tell me honestly—did you dodge the draft?

[Nexcom]

I found this. Is this our future from Kamaz?
Well, damn, he's so tall - he's a real bus, honestly...

[foxes]

There were the "Pantsir-S" tanks that rolled over, now it seems we'll be seeing something similar with the Kamazoid armored personnel carriers...

[IVZ]

It's more of a thing of the past, almost completely out of sight. It was originally conceived as a chemical and radioactive reconnaissance vehicle, making maximum use of KAMAZ chassis and components, hence the height. However, things didn't work out. For now, at least.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Some of the solutions in this vehicle are quite impressive, and shouldn't be limited to chemical defense and reconnaissance. The vehicle is unarmed, and that's the main problem. And it's unclear how a serious combat module could be mounted at such a height.

[Bolo]

Even Vietnamese women can wear armored personnel carriers...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Roof hatches are good; you can use the hatch covers to cover yourself while sitting on the armor. But the shape and execution look ridiculous. There's not enough room to sit on top. Roughly speaking, two soldiers wouldn't have room to rest their butts between the hatch covers. Either the hatches should be semicircular or spaced a little further out to the sides. In short, something's wrong.
And it’s better to make a 2A72 cannon, it’s more convenient and less powder gases get inside.

[ZhEK-Vodogrey]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

There's not much room to sit up top. Roughly speaking, two soldiers wouldn't have room to rest their butts between the hatch covers.

Because in normal armored personnel carriers, soldiers should be behind the armor, not sitting on it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A statement from someone who's never driven, either on or under armor. People drive armored vehicles for better visibility and easier breathing, especially in the hot summer.
Where are you coming from, these experts?

[commbatant]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

A statement from someone who's never driven, either on or under armor. People drive armored vehicles for better visibility and easier breathing, especially in the hot summer.
Where are you coming from, these experts?

I've been reading "ZVO" since I was 10, and I've never seen a photo of a VT NATU column with a personal carrier on it...probably because of the air conditioners...they're just primalists, what can you expect from them...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

We don't ride on armor at parades either. And they pay their respects so beautifully.

[IVZ]

I believe it's essential to consider the possibility of placing troops on armor, both for visibility and threat response time. Afghanistan and Chechnya have taught us something. Relying solely on armor is untenable. It's not a tank, after all, and tanks burn.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

When upgrading the BMP-2 with the Berezhok module, judging by photos online, they even redesigned the roof hatches to accommodate it. They're starting to figure out what's going on.

[rostov-dad]

In NATU, insurance will not be paid if you are without body armor, ammunition, and a helmet. There will also be no payments if you are not wearing a BBM at the time of the attack on the march.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

That's exactly what it looked like when they invaded the Kursk region. The vehicles moved one after another, the troops inside them like passengers, completely blind. And two of our cannon-armed BTR-82As, firing from ambush, picked off the mole rats one after another.

[Eugene-Eugene]

This is a common myth. In reality, a soldier will still receive compensation—insurance and disability payments (if that's what it takes). Problems may arise only if gross negligence or intentional self-harm is proven. However, the lack of a helmet or body armor is generally not considered a legal basis for denial of benefits. A soldier may be disciplined for violating regulations, but they will not be deprived of their right to injury benefits.

[ZhEK-Vodogrey]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

People drive armored vehicles to improve visibility and make breathing easier, especially in hot summers.

It's because of poverty; if the conditions inside the armor were normal, they wouldn't take such risks. It's precisely because of poverty and embezzlement that we have these jack-knifing schemes, loaves of bread, scooters, donkeys, armored personnel carriers with troop compartments on the roof, baofengs, collections for underwear and socks, "falling debris," and notes of protest after yet another humiliating kick.

[garm]

Only the 2A72 is seriously inferior in accuracy, the barrel wanders during firing (that is why the BMP-3 has an additional coupling for it, which attaches the 2A72 barrel to the gun-launcher) and in rate of fire: 330 versus two modes for the 2A42, 200-300 and 550.

[faterdom]

It's easier for the Vietnamese; one and a half times more of them can fit into the same armored personnel carrier than the Russians, and even with weapons they will have more space.

[Nexcom]

There are one and a half times more of them that can fit into the same armored personnel carrier than Russians, and even with weapons they will have more space.

yeah, especially with the shortened versions based on the PPSh - K50M.

[commbatant]

This is probably what a "Stryker" looks like if it were cut out of a log...of a large diameter...our "school" is felt...immediately...

[IVZ]

Our "school" can be felt...immediately...

We've never produced any hideous-looking mastodons. Quite the contrary, they're often blamed on insufficient protection and ergonomic flaws, including the difficulty of exiting.