Military Review

Armored personnel carrier today and tomorrow

172
Appearing several decades ago, armored personnel carriers firmly took their place in the land forces of all countries. Back in the years of the Second World War, this type of equipment clearly showed how an armored vehicle for transporting personnel is more convenient and more reliable than unprotected automotive equipment. However, over time, the tasks assigned to the BTR slightly changed, just as the modern war changed its appearance. As a result of such transformations, the disadvantages of the concept of a relatively light wheeled or tracked vehicle for transporting personnel began to appear more and more clearly.




An example of one of the main problems of armored personnel carriers is the experience of combat operations of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Soviet armored personnel carriers BTR-60 and BTR-70 protected soldiers only from ordinary and armor-piercing bullets of rifle caliber. The armor of these machines could not withstand more serious weapons, such as large-caliber machine guns DShK. An even greater danger for the Soviet armored personnel carriers was the RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launchers, for which the destruction of the armored vehicles was not particularly difficult. It is worth noting that something similar was previously with the American M113 armored personnel carriers in Vietnam. Also, the armored vehicles of both countries regularly with an understandable sad result were undermined by mines.



The poor experience of using armored personnel carriers in local conflicts was due to several factors. Perhaps the most important of them is the inconsistency between the conditions of these wars and the initial concepts of the use of combat vehicles. They were designed to protect against attacks from the front hemisphere and, with such tasks in mind, their booking was built. Shelling from an ambush or laying a mine in such a case allowed the enemy to strike at the least protected parts of the armored vehicle. In recent years, numerous attempts have been made to get rid of these problems and to ensure the full range of protection of the armored personnel carrier from various means of destruction, including anti-tank weapons.

As a result, a new concept of an armored vehicle called MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected - “Protected from mines and ambush attacks”) was formed, which implies the use of relatively powerful defense of the sides and a number of measures to prevent serious consequences of a mine explosion. In addition, some changes have undergone and "classic" armored personnel carriers. For example, multi-layer booking and additional hinged modules are becoming more common.

However, already at the beginning of the 2003s, reality put everything in its place and showed which solutions are suitable for use and which are not. In XNUMX, just a few months after the outbreak of the Iraq war, the United States Army began using the new Stryker family of combat vehicles. For armored personnel carriers, "wheeled Tanks"And other equipment based on a single chassis had high hopes, but in the end, part of the expectations did not materialize. So, the V-shaped bottom of the machine, designed to divert the blast wave from the body and people, coped with the calculated load in the form of an explosion of a 10-kilogram landmine.

As for the metal-ceramic panels of the additional armor of the MEXAS system, they really enhanced the protection against bullets, and in frontal projection from small-caliber projectiles. But for two plus enhanced protection found two minuses at once. First, due to the fault of the developers and customers, the Stryker armored personnel carriers turned out to be overweight and additional armor panels only worsened driving performance. Secondly, the “sandwich” of metal and ceramic plates could not effectively protect the combat vehicle from cumulative ammunition even of old anti-tank systems, for example RPG-7 grenade launchers.

In connection with the threat of anti-tank weapons, the combatant workshops began to urgently construct and install anti-cumulation grids on the Strykers. However, the weight of the resulting lattice design did not allow both the MEXAS panels and the anti-cumulative grids to be simultaneously mounted on the armored personnel carrier. Because of this, the combat vehicles of different units were equipped differently: with some additional panels were completely dismantled, and on others only part of the grilles were installed. Anyway, both solutions were palliative and could not significantly improve the situation.

BTR "Stryker"


Already in the field, the US military had to make some adjustments to the Stryker design and update their equipment. At the end of 2004, the Pentagon’s special commission presented a special report detailing all the existing problems of the new armored vehicles, as well as some thoughts on how to fix them. According to the results of this report, the leadership of the US military at the time limited the use of the new family of equipment, to eliminate the existing shortcomings. Construction of Stryker machines is still ongoing and, according to available information, some flaws have not yet been eliminated.

Stryker armored personnel carriers, which have a number of positives and a considerable number of flaws, can be considered a good example of the current state of this whole class of technology. The fact is that engineers from General Dynamics Land Systems, who developed this family of combat vehicles, tried to combine the most advanced ideas and systems in one project. However, the practical use of the Straykers clearly demonstrated all the pros and cons of the applied solutions. Moreover, such a demonstration under a certain set of circumstances may receive further development of the global species itself.

In the course of numerous discussions of the report on the BTR, Stryker expressed the most courageous thoughts. Among them, there was a separate proposal to completely abandon the armored carriers of the "classic" type. This idea was supported by the arguments in the form of the fundamental impossibility of creating an armored vehicle with a relatively small combat mass and protection sufficient to counteract not only manual arms and small-caliber artillery, but also anti-tank systems. With such requirements, a promising armored personnel carrier should be a combat vehicle, somewhat like a tank, but built with regard to the need to transport soldiers.

Such a concept of a heavy and well-protected armored car several decades ago was embodied in metal and tested in practice. In the early eighties, the Israeli industry converted a number of Centurion tanks into heavy Nagmashot armored personnel carriers. The resulting machine with a combat weight of 52 tons retained the level of protection of the base tank, but it could carry up to ten soldiers with weapons. The experience of combat use confirmed the correctness of the chosen path of development of armored personnel carriers, which is why in the future Israel created several more similar vehicles based on tanks.

BTR "Nagmashot"


It is noteworthy that all Israeli heavy armored personnel carriers were made on the basis of the available tanks, and the Egyptian T-55 tanks served as a base for the Ahzarit war machine. The latest representative of its class at the moment is the heavy armored vehicle “Namer”, created on the basis of the tank Merkava Mk IV. It can carry up to 12 fighters and protects them with combined armor completely borrowed from the base tank. In addition, to protect against the enemy’s anti-tank weapons, the Namer can be equipped with active armor. Despite all its differences from the "classic" armored personnel carriers, the new Israeli heavy machine completely suits the army, as it is able to fully perform all the functions assigned to it.

BTR "Achzarit"


BTR "Namer"


A heavy armored personnel carrier on the basis of the main tank has several advantages over similar-purpose vehicles, but built according to the usual pattern. The main advantage of this concept lies in a high level of protection and good maneuverability. However, strong and thick armor is heavy. So, the “Masry” combat weight is approximately equal to 60 tons, which is more than three times the weight of the Stryker in the configuration of an armored personnel carrier. Thus, Israeli heavy armored personnel carriers are unsuitable for quick transfer to the place of hostilities, since there are only a few types of military transport aircraft capable of lifting such cargo. In addition, with their fighting weight, “Namer” or other vehicles of this class cannot cross water obstacles by swimming, which is unlikely to suit some customers.

Thus, it turns out that when creating a new armored personnel carrier, one has to choose between the mass and protection. It is not hard to guess that because of the reservation, which is able to protect soldiers and machine units from anti-tank grenade launchers like the RPG-7, the armored personnel carrier will weigh at least 40-45 tons. To counter more powerful weapons, additional means of protection will be needed and, as a result, additional weight. It is also possible to use active protection systems, but they will correspondingly affect the cost of the finished armored personnel carrier.

To date, there is a specific situation in which armored personnel carriers, created in accordance with the ideas of past years, can no longer fully work on the battlefield. Urban battles and counterguerrilla operations, as practice has shown, are too risky for vehicles that do not have all-round protection against large-caliber small arms and anti-tank weapons. Attempts are regularly made to correct the current situation by changing certain elements of the project, but not always these changes give the expected effect - a good example of this was the Stryker problem in Iraq.

Stryker ICV destroyed in an 13.12.2003 battle in Iraq. Additional protection in the form of gratings has already been removed. It is alleged that one soldier broke his leg, the other five who were inside the armored personnel carrier were not injured


At the same time, one cannot but admit that the measures taken lead to positive consequences. The interview with Colonel R. Brown, commander of the US 25 Infantry Division, is widely known. According to him, for several months of work in Iraq, armored personnel carriers from his unit were repeatedly subjected to shelling from various weapons. At the same time, Iraqi grenade throwers managed to get into American 115 vehicles once. As a result of such attacks, only one soldier was killed, who during the explosion grenades fired a machine gun at an open turret. This example clearly shows how effective anti-cumulative grilles, which, however, significantly increase the combat weight of the machine and degrade the driving characteristics.

Itself suggests a way to solve all problems or, at least, to minimize them. The most obvious is the design of a new armored personnel carrier with acceptable all-archery protection against small arms and anti-tank weapons, perhaps even of a modular type (like the MEXAS system). In this case, you may have to sacrifice the ability to cross water obstacles or the ability to transport several cars at once on one transport plane.

In accordance with the available weight, the power plant of the machine should be designed. Repeatedly mentioned above machines in the basic configuration (without additional modules) have a specific power of no more than 19-20 hp. per ton of weight. A hypothetical prospective armored personnel carrier must be equipped with an engine, the characteristics of which will ensure sufficient power density even after the installation of all possible additional protection systems.

It is quite clear that such an approach to shaping the appearance of the future armored personnel carrier will not allow for the refinement of existing equipment. Most likely, you will have to start a completely new project and, using the best practices of the previous ones, to ensure compliance with the existing requirements. It is unlikely that such a project will be simple and cheap, but it will significantly increase the combat potential of the infantry. Now there is reason to believe that the wars of the near future will be exclusively local in nature, and besides urban battles will retain great importance. In this case, it is required to work out as soon as possible the appearance of a new protected transport for infantry and begin its development.


On the materials of the sites:
http://army-guide.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://armytimes.com/
http://janes.com/
http://defenseindustrydaily.com/
Author:
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ramsi
    ramsi 4 June 2013 08: 39
    +5
    if "in the long term" the infantry intends to fight in armored personnel carriers, then there is no solution
    1. Ataman
      Ataman 4 June 2013 09: 47
      21
      Armored personnel carrier (I emphasize, TRANSPORTER) is intended:
      1) to deliver infantry to the battlefield, providing acceptable protection on the march
      2) to support the infantry with their weapons, if any
      The armored personnel carrier is not intended for attacking operations at the forefront.
      Therefore, in Russia, an armored personnel carrier must:
      1) quickly travel long distances on public roads
      2) swim
      3) have protection against small arms
      Thus, upgrading the BTR-80 to the level of the BTR-82A, everyone is doing it right.

      For combat designed BMP (Fighting infantry vehicle). Let the BTR remain the BTR, and the BMP remain the BMP
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 June 2013 10: 03
        0
        Quote: Ataman
        quickly travel long distances on public roads

        No tanks? Without artillery and other tracked vehicles? And what will it be, marching battalions?

        Quote: Ataman
        to swim

        What for? There are bridges on public roads.

        Quote: Ataman
        Thus, upgrading the BTR-80 to the level of the BTR-82A, everyone is doing it right.

        And why would an armored personnel carrier, designed to "deliver infantry to the battlefield, providing acceptable protection on the march," a 30-mm cannon? A 7.62 machine gun for a turret is enough for the eyes. In addition, traveling long distances in the BTR-80 (82) is far from comfortable. Better in an armored truck. It is cheaper and more convenient.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 4 June 2013 10: 09
          +6
          30 mm gun

          Helicopters.
          marching battalions?

          Delivery of goods and people to the front line.
          to swim
          What for?

          During the war, there will be few bridges, but there are a lot of rivers and streams, especially in Europe.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 4 June 2013 10: 23
            -1
            Quote: cth; fyn
            Helicopters.

            Laugh to death? They hit the drum, the "Apaches" ATGM firing range up to 12 km

            Quote: cth; fyn
            Delivery of goods and people to the front line.

            With loads, you are clearly excited. Yes, and with people. 13 tons for the transport of eight people is painfully curly. The armored Ural can comfortably transport 20 people.

            Quote: cth; fyn
            During the war, there will be few bridges, but there are a lot of rivers and streams, especially in Europe.

            There are not so many places where a floating armored personnel carrier can cross the river. A gentle entry into the water and exit is required. There will be more bridges for sure. Especially in Europe.
            1. Suvorov000
              Suvorov000 4 June 2013 13: 23
              +6
              You compare this with low-regional conflicts, but the Germans simply lost their temper for how long it took to travel through this Russia, everything that is written about Israeli equipment would simply be loaded with more explosives, and anti-tank grenade launchers would be anti-tank for that, and local bombs would simply blow them up so you stand and wait for the pontoons
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 4 June 2013 14: 46
                -1
                As I understand it, you can’t shoot anti-tank grenade launchers at an APC? And the Israeli-type charges do not take them? And we do not need tanks, because long distances?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 4 June 2013 14: 59
                  +4
                  Quote: Spade
                  As I understand it, you can’t shoot anti-tank grenade launchers at an APC? And the Israeli-type charges do not take them? And we do not need tanks, because long distances?

                  Shooting from a grenade launcher in an armored personnel carrier in combined arms combat is only possible theoretically. BTR is not put in the first line. Russia has tanks, it is not clear why this attack? Under a conventional arms agreement, any armored vehicles are larger than a certain mass - a tank, independently it is a BMPT or TBTR, so all this is instead of normal tanks.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 4 June 2013 15: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Shooting from a grenade launcher in an armored personnel carrier in combined arms combat is only possible theoretically.

                    Yes, in combined arms combat they will be shot with something more long-range

                    Quote: Setrac
                    Under the conventional arms treaty

                    For what, apologize? By the one that does not and will not be?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 4 June 2013 17: 12
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      For what, apologize? By the one that does not and will not be?

                      Well, the contract really has sunk into the summer. Then this option - every heavy armored personnel carrier will be instead of a tank, because the capabilities of the industry are not rubber. Or each heavy armored personnel carrier instead of 3 infantry fighting vehicles or 5 conventional armored personnel carriers like BTR-80.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 08
                        +1
                        Can you imagine how many obsolete tanks we have that will melt into needles?
                      2. cdrt
                        cdrt 4 June 2013 20: 25
                        +4
                        Yes, this is not so.
                        Recently there was a rework of the T-72 in BMO-T 12 million rubles. Obsolete T-72 thousand 5-6 probably. So ... not so expensive. Another question is the cost of operation, here your calculations are probably correct
                      3. Setrac
                        Setrac 4 June 2013 20: 36
                        +4
                        Quote: Spade
                        Can you imagine how many obsolete tanks we have that will melt into needles?

                        Quote: cdrt
                        Yes, this is not so.
                        Recently there was a rework of the T-72 in BMO-T 12 million rubles. Obsolete T-72 thousand 5-6 probably. So ... not so expensive. Another question is the cost of operation, here your calculations are probably correct

                        A bad tank is better than a good armored personnel carrier, even a TBTR.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 20: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        A bad tank is better than a good armored personnel carrier, even a TBTR.

                        Not for infantry being driven to the dismount line in cardboard boxes
                      5. Setrac
                        Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Not for infantry being driven to the dismount line in cardboard boxes

                        And before the turn of dismounting, they (they are infantry in us, since I am also in reserve) are not being shot. There are several points here.
                        TBTRs are expensive and there will be few of them, thanks to people like you, most of the infantry at the line of dismounting will go on foot, losses from enemy artillery will be HUGE.
                        All cars need to be refueled, the infrastructure capabilities are not unlimited, you will not be able to refuel all TBTRs in a banal way, you will have to reduce the concentration of troops, which will lead to defeat.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 28
                        -1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        And before the turn of dismounting, they (they are infantry in us, since I am also in reserve) are not being shot.

                        Religious considerations do not allow? More how they shoot

                        Quote: Setrac
                        TBTRs are expensive and there will be few of them, thanks to people like you, most of the infantry at the turn of the line will go on foot

                        Converted from obsolete tanks, they are cheaper than cardboard boxes called "BTR-82". And they will be much cheaper than new platforms.
                      7. Setrac
                        Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Religious considerations do not allow? More how they shoot

                        Does not allow the range of weapons.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Converted from obsolete tanks, they are cheaper than cardboard boxes called "BTR-82". And they will be much cheaper than new platforms.

                        Old T-72s still come in handy, do not touch them.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 55
                        -1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Does not allow the range of weapons.

                        Oh how. Are you confusing anything?


                        Quote: Setrac
                        Old T-72s still come in handy, do not touch them.

                        And the infantry is not useful? Does it start from damp?
                      9. bask
                        bask 4 June 2013 22: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And the infantry will not come in handy

                        The infantry is still useful. And the decommissioned spent MBT should only go for the manufacture of BTR-T / BMP-T.
                        Because when hitting an anti-tank missed a HE shell from an 152 mm shell.
                        In the BMP 1,2,3, BMD, BTR80 / 82, the entire crew and the landing
                        pi.pec
                        In war in hot spots, only highly protected armored vehicles should be used. !!!
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 22: 35
                        +1
                        It's not even about mines. In general, protection must be increased.
                      11. Setrac
                        Setrac 4 June 2013 22: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        It's not even about mines. In general, protection must be increased.

                        It is necessary, but without fanaticism.
                    2. AlNikolaich
                      AlNikolaich 5 June 2013 00: 47
                      +2
                      Quote: bask
                      Because when hitting an anti-tank missed a HE shell from an 152 mm shell.
                      In the BMP 1,2,3, BMD, BTR80 / 82, the entire crew and the landing
                      pi.pec

                      When you hit a land mine from 152mm shell, and Abrams, and T72, and Merkava! And their crews are the same!
                    3. Genady1976
                      Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 55
                      +1
                      Agree with you
          2. bask
            bask 4 June 2013 22: 12
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            TBTRs are expensive and there will be few of them, thanks to people like you, most of the infantry at the turn of the dismount

            If you produce-remodel from the armored corps of the T55, T-72, T-80 tanks, it is not so expensive.
            The main thing is that there would be a feed entrance, and a high degree of protection against mines and GPG-PTRK.
            Quote: Setrac
            From enemy artillery will be HUGE.

            What war are you preparing for ????
            We will have and are going on a sluggish aasimetric war with militants for more than 20 years !!! And BTR-T are simply necessary. In the conditions of urban battle.
          3. Setrac
            Setrac 4 June 2013 22: 27
            0
            Quote: bask
            We will have and are going on a sluggish aasimetric war with militants for more than 20 years !!

            So this is a completely different calico, does it need special equipment, small-scale production for local conflicts, what does the army armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles have to do with it?
            In a major conflict, all these TBTR and other nonsense will not play a role due to their small numbers.
          4. bask
            bask 4 June 2013 22: 45
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            So this is a completely different calico, here we need special equipment, small-scale production for local

            Low-volume is how much?
            Support in the MBT battle is provided by infantry. And how to protect the infantry itself (from the dense fire of snipers)) in a city battle, or in a mountain serpentine.
            One, two hits from an RPG, and all infantry without armored cover.
            How many such losses we had in Chechnya and Afghanistan.
            Quote: Setrac
            s, what does the army armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles have to do with it?

            And what is in your concept ARMY, BTR / BMP ???
            And what should be their protection especially mine action.
            What to prepare to throw on the La Manche again.
            BTR-T / BMP-T must be-become ARMY !!!
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 5 June 2013 03: 13
          0
          Quote: bask
          If you produce-remodel from the armored corps of the T55, T-72, T-80 tanks, it is not so expensive.
          The main thing is that there would be a feed entrance, and a high degree of protection against mines and GPG-PTRK.

          If the tank is redesigned so that it turns out to be a tank drive with aft exit ... This is a new engine, a rework of the transmission, controls, a shift of the weapon module closer to the stern. The case will also have to be significantly redone. Why would it be cheaper?
  • Suvorov000
    Suvorov000 6 June 2013 14: 31
    0
    About anti-tank grenade launchers, it's me that they will be pierced with Israeli armored vehicles just like tanks. As for us, we needed tanks, of course we only need a tank, this is a tank, armored personnel carrier is armored personnel carrier and do not confuse their functions
  • old man54
    old man54 4 June 2013 19: 51
    +1
    everything that is described in the article about import attempts in this area, especially Jewish, is BMP !!! And far from their best option. In the west, that is not a tank, then a slow-moving monster! If the BMP, then tons of 40 / 60 certainly! :))
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 4 June 2013 20: 27
      +1
      Actually, Leo-2 seems to be the standard of maneuverability for today.
      Yes, and Abrams seems like our tanks on maneuverability is not a fact that inferior
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 4 June 2013 20: 44
        +4
        Quote: cdrt
        Actually, Leo-2 seems to be the standard of maneuverability for today.
        Yes, and Abrams seems like our tanks on maneuverability is not a fact that inferior

        Maneuverability is not only the ratio of engine power and mass. In addition, this is ground pressure, mass (throughput of bridges and other structures), transportability, and the load on logistics. So Western tanks lose a lot. True, not all Western tanks are so bullshit, but the Abrams is exactly the hellish one.
        1. bask
          bask 4 June 2013 23: 37
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          wow. True, not all Western tanks are so bullshit, but the abrams is for sure

          And the South Korean K2, Black Panther, doesn’t suck?
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 4 June 2013 23: 47
            +1
            Quote: bask
            And the South Korean K2, Black Panther, doesn’t suck?

            It seems that the tank is not sickly, but it’s expensive to drive 200 Papuans or shoot the parliament.
          2. old man54
            old man54 6 June 2013 01: 03
            0
            and what good is it? I don’t know about performance characteristics, I’m not familiar, but the geometry of the hull, turrets, their right angles ... the German "Tiger" reminds, but only the "TIGER" was made 70 years ago. Then I think everything is clear.
          3. Setrac
            Setrac 6 June 2013 11: 36
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            and what good is it? I don’t know about performance characteristics, I’m not familiar, but the geometry of the hull, turrets, their right angles ... the German "Tiger" reminds, but only the "TIGER" was made 70 years ago. Then I think everything is clear.

            Well, a leopard also has right angles, right angles have their advantages - the best ratio of armor area to volume. TTX is in the public domain, I also do not own sensitive information, I estimate in my opinion the Noob. The question is that Korea does not have the opportunity to launch this tank in mass production, because they do not have a tank factory, hence the apparently high price, as an exclusive one.
            Another point, Russia is developing a new tank, in addition, I have no doubt that the new tank is being developed by the USA and Germany. Koreans (and all developers) need to make the tank not at the modern level, but at the promising level, of which no one knows anything.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 4 June 2013 23: 26
    -1
    Quote: old man54
    everything that is described in the article about import attempts in this area, especially Jewish, is BMP !!! And far from their best option. In the west, that is not a tank, then a slow-moving monster! If the BMP, then tons of 40 / 60 certainly! :))

    In AOI there is no BMP at all. We have adopted a bunch of tank + armored personnel carriers. And in general, before we put aplomb to say, maybe it’s worth reading something?
    1. lilit.193
      lilit.193 5 June 2013 22: 48
      +1
      Quote: Old Man54
      In the west, that is not a tank, then a slow-moving monster! If BMP then 40/60 tons certainly! :))

      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      In AOI there is no BMP at all.

      But has Israel already become a Western country and ceased to be a Middle Eastern country? wink
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      But in general, before we put aplomb to say, maybe it’s worth reading something?

      Yeah! Preferably a geography textbook. wink
      1. old man54
        old man54 6 June 2013 00: 54
        0
        Quote: lilit.193
        But has Israel already become a Western country and ceased to be a Middle Eastern country? wink
        Yeah! Preferably a geography textbook. wink

        I appreciated the humor, thanks, even put "+". :)
        Geographically, Israel, of course, refers to the BW, but politically, ideologically, economically and politically, to the West, and not to the East. Personally, I'm talking about it. I meant the commonality of goals (world domination, beat those who are weaker than us), then according to this totality Israel has long been not an eastern country. And besides everything else, Israel, participation in all sports regional European competitions and European competitions, despite the fact that there are absolutely identical events in their geographical region, speaks of the same. There are no excuses for "hostility" from the neighbors in the region, they themselves are to blame for this. Look wider, lilit.193! :))
    2. old man54
      old man54 6 June 2013 01: 00
      0
      I will not use your offer! And about your bunch ... so you even call her a starship, but she does not pull on an armored personnel carrier, just like you can’t twist it. Here on the branch, the guys quite accurately voiced the concept of armored personnel carriers and their principal tactical principles, I will not repeat myself, take the trouble, read, everything is clearly stated there. In Israel, what is said here is BMP, but this is my opinion.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 4 June 2013 16: 31
    +2
    Laugh to death? They hit the drum, the "Apaches" ATGM firing range up to 12 km

    Remind me how much such a racket costs. and how many Apache can they take? and how many were shot down by their air defense?
    Even the CPV is not bad at Apache, Iraq has proved it.
    You obviously got excited with the loads. Yes, and with people.

    But nothing that this is its intended purpose?
    Armored personnel carrier (armored (armored) carrier, armored personnel carrier) - armored fighting vehicle, intended for the delivery of personnel (riflemen) motorized rifle (infantry, motorized infantry, and so on) units to the place of the mission. In exceptional cases, if the enemy does not have anti-tank weapons, an armored personnel carrier can support infantry with machine-gun fire.

    There are not so many places where a floating APC will be able to cross the river

    Each military unit has an engineer-sapper company, which is armed with the BAT, BAT-M, BAT-2 (although this is a rarity, well, in the sense of BAT-2), they may well equip the descent to the water.
    Those. full of places, or rather make them not a problem, especially in an already controlled territory, where armored personnel carriers should be used.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 19
      0
      Quote: cth; fyn
      Remind me how much such a racket costs. and how many Apache can they take? and how many were shot down by their air defense?
      Even the CPV is not bad at Apache, Iraq has proved it.

      Cheaper by several orders of magnitude of armored personnel carriers and ten trained fighters. "Apache" best "land" hats

      Quote: cth; fyn
      But nothing that this is its intended purpose?

      With which our armored personnel carriers can not cope.


      Quote: cth; fyn
      Each military unit has an engineer-sapper company, which is armed with the BAT, BAT-M, BAT-2 (although this is a rarity, well, in the sense of BAT-2), they may well equip the descent to the water.

      Do you know why columns do not stop in modern warfare? Faulty cars are thrown with the crew, and they are picked up by technical closure. Yes, because there will be no opportunity to stand and wait for the BAT or its likeness. You are aware that it is a caterpillar and will not go in the convoy.
      For a long time when you have to choose, they prefer a much more relevant protection to the much less necessary ability to swim.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 4 June 2013 20: 50
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        Yes, because there will be no opportunity to stand and wait for the BAT or its likeness. You are aware that it is a caterpillar and will not go in the convoy.

        Your problem is sucked out of your finger, it is not difficult to find a gentle slope, in fact there are much less steep sections of the coast. In fact, the terrain will be explored and the BRTs will immediately come to a convenient descent.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 4 June 2013 20: 59
          0
          Dear, it’s so arranged in nature that if the descent is gentle, then the ripper is away. And vice versa. In the vast majority of cases.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 25
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Dear, it’s so arranged in nature that if the descent is gentle, then the ripper is away. And vice versa. In the vast majority of cases.

            This is in theory, but in practice you can always find where to call in and out.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 30
              0
              This is just practice. But "floating armored personnel carriers, on the move overcoming any water obstacle" is already a theory.
            2. bask
              bask 4 June 2013 23: 44
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              in theory, but in practice, you can always find where to call in and out.

              When over the past 30 years, the buoyancy of our armored personnel carriers /, infantry fighting vehicles in combat conditions ?????
              We have already had enough theories for 20 years. BLOOD PRACTICE.
              As the BTR, BMD, and BMP boats, only marines and airborne forces need them.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 22
        0
        wait for BAT or its likeness.

        as they say, you again forgot that the armored personnel carrier should not break through enemy orders, but should be brought to the front line, i.e. in a controlled territory where the assault orders and their engineering support have already passed.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 4 June 2013 20: 30
      0
      From your words it follows that wheeled armored personnel carriers will take advantage of heavy BATs, which have operational mobility much less than wheeled armored personnel carriers, to take advantage of their ability to swim.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 28
        0
        No, they will not wait because Engineers will go right away with attacking orders, as they did during the Second World War, remember the same Katowice, the engineers themselves took it.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 4 June 2013 19: 22
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Ataman swim There are bridges on public roads.


    There is no series of airstrikes at the bridge.

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Ataman Thus, upgrading the BTR-80 to the level of the BTR-82A, they are doing everything right. And why would an armored personnel carrier designed to "deliver infantry to the battlefield, providing acceptable protection on the march" with a 30-mm gun? A 7.62 machine gun for a turret is enough for the eyes. In addition, traveling long distances in the BTR-80 (82) is far from comfortable. Better in an armored truck. It is cheaper and more convenient.



    7,62 is not enough - situations in battle are different.
    The same BTR-82 in a number of sources is classified as a light infantry fighting vehicle. Armored trucks are a good idea, but they should also be equipped with at least a light machine gun.
  • ramsi
    ramsi 4 June 2013 10: 33
    +1
    in armored personnel carriers 70 - 82 - everything is wrong: layout, capacity, protection, dismounting - but you can shoot from machine guns into loopholes and swim freely
  • Algor73
    Algor73 4 June 2013 12: 59
    +1
    I agree that BMP is needed for combat. But in reality, not everything is so simple, and it happens that the battle does not arise at all where you are waiting for it. Moreover, current wars are local military operations. Israel burned - and that’s where the armored personnel carrier on the basis of Merkava. We need armored personnel carriers of several classes. BTR 60-90 series are more suitable for police functions.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 4 June 2013 13: 25
      -4
      BTR series 60-90 are generally not suitable for anything. Ah, no, I'm lying - for jipping - that's it
  • Per se.
    Per se. 4 June 2013 10: 15
    +8
    They began to want too much from the APC. If we are talking about attacking the columns, then they are vulnerable to any technique. A column of tanks of the "Merkava" type or heavy armored personnel carriers, if it turns out to be on a mountain serpentine in Afghanistan, will be as vulnerable as our Soviet armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were vulnerable. They would have installed more powerful landmines, immobilized the head and tail of the column, and then gouged from the mountains, practically on the roofs, from RPGs and mortars. Therefore, in columns and went on armor, in order to jump off immediately, take up defense under the bottom behind the wheels (rollers) or behind the equipment itself, without wasting time to get out of the hatches, burning in cars. Here it is not about the armored personnel carrier's armor, but about the organization of the movement of the convoy, its outposts. In general, an armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, the infantry still needs to get out of the armor, otherwise it is no longer infantry, but ballast. We like to use the heavy armored personnel carriers of Israel as an example, yes, for the internal troops, the functions of which are mainly performed by the Israeli army, and even with the appropriate geographic environment, this may be useful, but not for a large and maneuverable war, with many rivers and swampy soil. Create robots, then the armored personnel carrier will not be needed, but as long as there is infantry, the main advantage of the armored personnel carrier is cross-country ability, speed, maneuverability (when protecting against shrapnel, bullets and weapons of mass destruction), fire support, but not replacing tanks. To save the infantry, fight from under the armor, it would be better if the BMPT came up.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 10: 32
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      They like to set the heavy Israeli armored personnel carriers as an example, yes, for the internal troops, the functions of which are mainly performed by the Israeli army, and even with the appropriate geographical environment, this may come in handy, but not for a large and maneuverable war, with many rivers and marshy the soil.

      You have tanks. They must be covered with infantry. The infantry in body armor cannot run at the speed of tanks. So you need a vehicle capable of doing this. So Namer is a perfectly acceptable thing.
      About "many rivers and swampy soil" is not entirely clear. If this area is overcome by tanks, then the armored personnel carriers based on them will be overcome.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 4 June 2013 11: 12
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        If tanks overcome this terrain, then APCs on their base will be overcome.
        If tanks overcome, and if not, and tanks are different, not everyone is "worn by the ground" (and so that the infantry in bulletproof vests does not run after the tanks, and armored personnel carriers have been created for the second echelon, for the first, with tanks, - BMPT).
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 4 June 2013 11: 20
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          If they overcome tanks, and if not

          There is nothing to meddle in there, and the enemy is absent there. Everything can get stuck. But the tracked vehicle is definitely more passable. In the European theater of operations, 48% versus 5-11% for wheels in the mud
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 4 June 2013 12: 02
            +6
            Quote: Spade
            There’s nothing to go in there, and the enemy is absent
            During the war, near Leningrad, the enemy was present, but the attempt to use the first "Tigers" near Mgoy ended, approximately, as in the above photo from the T-VIB. There will be places where an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle will pass, but tanks, especially "mastodons", will not. I do not argue, there is a niche for heavy tanks and heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank base or specially created, simply, you do not need to go to extremes, but it is CORRECT to use the equipment, and, most importantly, you need to KNOW TO Fight, both ordinary soldiers and multi-star commanders ... Without this, any armored vehicle will be a doomed iron.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 4 June 2013 12: 29
              +1
              Let's not remember "Tigers", but at least T-72.

              Do you say "niche"? No, they are the backbone of the Ground Forces. But wheeled armored personnel carriers and other MRAPs already have niches.

              Quote: Per se.
              There will be places where an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle will pass, but tanks, especially "mastodons", will not.

              There are no such places. Of mass vehicles, patency is better than tanks only MT-LB
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 4 June 2013 13: 37
                +6
                Quote: Spade
                Let's not remember "Tigers", but at least T-72.
                History should teach something, you must agree that in place of the "Tiger" could well be "Abrams" or "Merkava". The basis of our Ground Forces are not heavy armored personnel carriers, and the T-72, if you do not persist with the concept of "main tank" in comparison with the Israeli "Merkava", is essentially a medium tank. Our tanks were created taking into account the war, taking into account our dirt and off-road conditions. As for the cross-country ability of tanks, in comparison with armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, I will not argue, I can only say that our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles had a plus - the ability to independently overcome water obstacles, and this can also be attributed to cross-country ability.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 4 June 2013 14: 54
                  -1
                  Precisely, I must teach. The fact that the Namer-type armored personnel carrier is needed. That pokatushki on armor should be a thing of the past. That's all.

                  Quote: Per se.
                  that our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles had a plus - the ability to independently overcome water barriers

                  Have you forgotten that tanks can do this too? And that means that machines based on them will be able to do it.
                  1. roial
                    roial 4 June 2013 15: 04
                    +3
                    Pokatushki on the armor is just a national game, well, and the misuse of this armor. Look at the reports from Syria where the landing party goes inside the same obsolete BMP-1,2.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 4 June 2013 15: 25
                      +3
                      Quote: roial
                      Look at the reports from Syria. There, the landing party is going inside the same obsolete BMP-1,2.

                      Maybe they’re not afraid of mines. Or maybe cars separately, and infantry separately. On foot. All reports are fights in the city. There, you can’t ride BMP 1 (2) either inside or on armor.
                  2. cth; fyn
                    cth; fyn 4 June 2013 16: 44
                    +4
                    Have you forgotten that tanks can do this too? And that means that machines based on them will be able to do it.

                    Again, you are telling the half-truth, yes, tanks can force water barriers, but you need to prepare them for this, fill up the cracks to install equipment for underwater driving, and this time, imagine an armored troop carrier with soldiers is traveling to a remote block post, and there are 3 rivers on the way, and then ? to ride breathlessly in a dirty cabin? or lose a couple of hours before forcing?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 29
                      0
                      Quote: cth; fyn
                      Again, you are telling the half-truth, yes, tanks can force water barriers, but you need to prepare them for this, fill up the cracks to install equipment for underwater driving, and this time

                      For the T-90, as far as I remember, 15 minutes. This is slightly less than two hours.
                    2. cth; fyn
                      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 31
                      0
                      Yeah, 15 minutes, but the tanks do not carry equipment with them, escort vehicles carry it and everything will depend on where these vehicles are.
        2. lucidlook
          lucidlook 6 June 2013 01: 13
          +1
          When was the last time you saw footage of a military chronicle, where tracked vehicles would rush to the enemy on virgin soil, blowing up mother-damp earth with tracks? I personally don’t remember anything like that. But I saw more similar movements on highways and dirt roads than I would like. And in settlements, everything is usually more or less asphalted (well, except for the village of "Gadyukino" :-))

          Accordingly, I propose to compare the capabilities of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers on the surface where they most often have to move lately. We look:



          As you can see, the BTR wheeled platform on solid ground is certainly no worse. And if you remember that an APC can leave (and save the guys) even after losing one wheel (or even two), I think many will agree that we still need wheeled APCs.

          If we consider the large-scale war in Europe, then we should remember how ramified and perfect the road network is.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 6 June 2013 07: 48
            +1
            wheeled platform on the concrete - tears the caterpillar like an ace warmer, even if you do not let the air in the wheels. On a very rocky terrain, it should also exceed
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 6 June 2013 11: 46
            0
            Quote: lucidlook
            If we consider the large-scale war in Europe, then we should remember how ramified and perfect the road network is.

            The enemy will be strengthened on the roads and an attempt to circumvent fortifications on wheeled vehicles may end badly.
            1. lucidlook
              lucidlook 6 June 2013 12: 20
              0
              Can. That is why no one offers to completely and completely switch exclusively to wheels. But not using the opportunity to quickly develop an advantage or transfer parts as soon as possible along existing roads is also somehow strange.
            2. ramsi
              ramsi 6 June 2013 14: 50
              +1
              somewhere I saw conical nozzles on a wheel disk, fastened with wheel nuts, in appearance - they look like an electric motor housing with large ribs. In such a "shoe" 8 large-diameter driving wheels will probably not yield to a caterpillar even in muddy roads
              1. cth; fyn
                cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 46
                +1
                You can wrap the chains with lugs on the wheels, but you can only dig in and sit on your belly.
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi 7 June 2013 10: 15
                  +1
                  this is a common, universal problem: traction and grip weight
              2. lucidlook
                lucidlook 6 June 2013 19: 26
                0
                The question is not only and not so much in the hook, but in the specific pressure on the ground. However, if you wish and with sufficient ingenuity, you can even drown a tank. There have been cases. But this is not about cases that are exceptions, but about the fact that armored vehicles are not competitors to military vehicles, but only a logical and organic addition.
          3. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 33
            0
            but still you need to think about mine protection, because this is practically one of the main threats to armored personnel carriers, as well as the protection against RPG grenades.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 4 June 2013 20: 33
        +2
        BMPT today is a certain mutant purchased only by Kazakhs.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 4 June 2013 21: 28
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          BMPT today is a certain mutant purchased only by Kazakhs.
          It’s unfortunate that Russia didn’t even have money for a dozen BMPTs, at least the machine would be very useful to our internal troops for mopping up, and even better, they would run it in Syria, everything would become clear. In my humble opinion, this is a very promising vehicle for a future war, both in terms of using old tanks for remaking, and in itself, as a type of military equipment that organically connects tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with armored personnel carriers, as an addition and strengthening of the capabilities of the tanks themselves.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 31
            +2
            There armament does not meet the objectives.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 June 2013 16: 38
      +2
      For joint action with tanks, there is a BMP, so do not distort.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 30
        -1
        If there are a lot of extra soldiers, you can use BMP
    3. old man54
      old man54 4 June 2013 20: 02
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      So Namer is a perfectly acceptable thing.

      Yeah, maybe you can still use the armored train for support, there you can potentially put more protection! :))
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 June 2013 20: 52
        0
        At least the death star, if any.
  • dominatus
    dominatus 5 June 2013 01: 10
    +1
    What about Active Defense Complexes?
    For example, KAZ "Zaslon" can be installed on any armored personnel carrier. And immediately the issue of anti-tank grenade launchers will be resolved - a grenade fired from an RPG will be destroyed on the approach.
    The only negative point - when attacking the infantry will have to adhere to a certain distance from the APC, so as not to suffer from fragments.
    But BTR, in principle, is not intended for attacks. His task is only to move personnel to the battlefield.
  • washi
    washi 4 June 2013 09: 53
    +6
    How much can one condemn the same thing. The task of the armored personnel carrier in the armed forces is to deliver to the battlefield. The fight against partisans and saboteurs is the task of VV. So they need heavier armored personnel carriers for parting
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 4 June 2013 10: 24
    +5
    In my opinion, an APC should be perceived as a truck.
    Then he will have enough armor that will protect against 14,5 mm CPV bullets from all directions, including from above, as well as cumulative grenades. They are unlikely to meet with tanks if they are used according to the instructions (in accordance with the tactics of using armored personnel carriers).
    They will also need good mine protection, perhaps it will be a trawl or a reinforced bottom, or maybe all together, and even a seasoned radio suppressor.
    Why does an armored personnel carrier need mine protection? Well, for example, it would be very convenient to slow down a column of landmines so that it would be very convenient to shoot them, but basically their opponents will be Bullets, RPG and landmines, because a saboteur with a saboteur will not be pulled along the front line, and it would be easy to spend a couple of kilos or RPGs.
    Of course, 8x8 is cool, it allows you to keep moving after undermining, but here the mass and patency will be limited.
    Of course, swimming is also cool, but this also creates a weight limit, which entails a restriction in booking.
    An armored personnel carrier is enough for small things with the ability of anti-aircraft fire of 20-30 mm no longer required. nevertheless, it is quite likely to meet the enemy’s stray helicopter even on their territory, well, a pair of MANPADS would also be not bad or a light air defense system, but at that time I was already driven away from greed.
  • Roll
    Roll 4 June 2013 10: 48
    -4
    wassat Strange reasoning in the article. They show photos of armored vehicles on caterpillars and call them armored personnel carriers, the main difference between BMPs and armored personnel carriers is that the infantry fighting vehicles are tracked, and the armored personnel carriers are only wheeled. Not yet understood 115 shots from a grenade launcher at strikers and one leash amer broke his leg. Moreover, not understood was fired from a machine gun turret, but broke his leg. This is some kind of effectiveness in their anti-cumulative gratings. Almost 100 percent. But we would have to hang such grilles on our BTR-80 if they have such fantastic efficiency. Maybe we are making the wrong sizes or the fittings we have are not the same?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 10: 59
      +7
      Do you know what the BTR-50 looks like?

      BTRD?

      BTR-MD "Shell"?

      The most common M113 in the world at last?
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 4 June 2013 20: 40
      +2
      M113 and did not know that there could be no armored personnel carrier wink
      BTR-50, too, BTR-D, too, Troden also. Pichalka wink
  • Roll
    Roll 4 June 2013 11: 08
    +1
    drinks I guess I'm wrong, but what is the fundamental difference between the APCs and BMPs? Or the name is given on the principles of operation (S), so that the enemy would not have guessed, they called the caterpillar unit of the armored personnel carrier and the enemy in misunderstandings.
    1. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 4 June 2013 11: 31
      +6
      Quote: Rolm
      What then is the fundamental difference between the BTR and the BMP?

      BTR (Armored personnel carrier) - armored combat vehicles designed to transport personnel to the battlefield.
      BMP (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) - armored vehicles designed for the transport of personnel, infantry units, and assault forces, fire support on the battlefield.
      If we proceed from the initial concept, then BMPs were initially (in the 60s of the last century) created for operations on the battlefield, after the use of nuclear weapons. The personnel had to overcome the zones of radioactive contamination in the BMP, and only then leave them.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 11: 32
      +4
      An armored personnel carrier differs from an infantry fighting vehicle in its combat order. Well, fire capabilities.
  • gallville
    gallville 4 June 2013 11: 59
    +1
    The article put a minus. The author compares two completely different classes of cars.
    In essence, I will express an opinion.
    The concept of armored personnel carriers should be abandoned because anyway, any machine in modern warfare may be under enemy fire.
    In my understanding, wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, tracked infantry fighting vehicles, and MRAP should remain.
    Quote: Spade
    An armored personnel carrier differs from an infantry fighting vehicle in its combat order.

    Is that in the statutes of St. In fact, he has recently been in the same place as the BMP.
    Quote: Spade
    Well, fire capabilities.

    In light of the mass purchase of the BTR-82, there are already few differences.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 12: 22
      +2
      Quote: gallville
      Is that in the statutes of St. In fact, he has recently been in the same place as the BMP.

      And this is wrong.

      Quote: gallville
      In my understanding, wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, tracked infantry fighting vehicles, and MRAP should remain.

      MRAP does not have to be a standard technique. These are machines "sharpened" for actions in conditions of low-intensity conflicts. And performing specific patrol functions. You don't need a lot of them, and they should be passed on to those who need them.

      For armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, weak armament allows you to increase internal volume, which means the comfort of the landing and the volume of transported b / c and other mate. funds.

      So there must be a platform system. Here you have, for example, a wheeled platform. Put on it a large combat module with the appropriate weapons, hang additional modules. reservation, and you have a wheeled BMP. Need more internal volume - put dist. module with a 7.62 machine gun
      1. bask
        bask 4 June 2013 12: 32
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        tion. There are not many of them, and they must

        As for the staff unit, I agree.
        But there should be as many of them as possible. In the S. Caucasus, infantry is only moving on the MCI.
        Without mine protection, armored vehicles are generally not accepted for service.
        Quote: Spade
        For armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, weak armament allows you to increase internal volume, which means that the comfort of the landing and the volume of transported b / c

        There should be only highly protected ones. From 30 guns it is necessary to refuse altogether because of its weak high-explosive fragmentation.
        Armament KPVT + 40 mm grenade launcher.
        1. bask
          bask 4 June 2013 12: 45
          +2
          In the second half of the 1980s, at Leningradskoy Spetsmash, a large volume of tests was developed, manufactured, passed a large amount of tests to justify and select the design of a traveling model of a seven-axle chassis with an MTO front-end, Object 299.
          Ready BMP-T / BTR-T.
        2. Roll
          Roll 4 June 2013 12: 47
          +1
          fellow As for determining your differences between BMPs and BTRs, it may be officially correct, but it’s out of date, but the choice of a caterpillar or a wheel is in my opinion the essence of the matter, the rest is secondary. As for the 30 mm gun, even a Bushmaster with a caliber of 23 mm has enough strong high-explosive fragmentation when using programmed ammunition. An explosion in the right place does not require power.
          1. bask
            bask 4 June 2013 13: 09
            +2
            Quote: Rolm
            , then even a Bushmaster with a caliber of 23 mm has a sufficiently strong high-explosive fragmentation

            There is no remote detonation on the Bushmaster cal. 25 mm.
            Only With 35 mm
            We have 57 mm.
            What is the standard ammunition load of 30 mm shells on the BMP / BTR.
            The 30A2 42-mm automatic gun has dual-belt power. Fire from it is conducted by armor-piercing, high-explosive, incendiary, and fragmentation tracer shells.
            Rate of fire.
            200-300 rds / min and large (not less than 550 rds / min.
            . Ammunition for the gun 500 rounds.
            ONE MINUTE OF FIGHT !!!
            1. washi
              washi 4 June 2013 14: 30
              +1
              And why more? The enemy’s positions before the offensive should be processed with artillery. Destroy all stocks of Coca-Cola and toilet paper of the enemy.
              Drive up, capture and hand over BB
              1. bask
                bask 4 June 2013 16: 15
                +2
                Quote: Vasya
                And why more? The enemy’s positions before the offensive should be processed with artillery.

                What offensive?
                In the mountains, perfume clamped the column.
                Quote: Vasya
                Drive up, capture and hand over BB

                If it were that simple.
                See ANNA, the news of the Syrian War.
              2. cdrt
                cdrt 4 June 2013 21: 00
                +3
                Caps are more effective wink
            2. nerd.su
              nerd.su 5 June 2013 10: 26
              0
              Quote: bask
              Rate of fire.
              200-300 rds / min and large (not less than 550 rds / min.
              . Ammunition for the gun 500 rounds.
              ONE MINUTE OF FIGHT !!!

              How bad it is! But what about AK? Rate of fire - 600 rounds per minute. A store in 3 seconds, 10 stores - for 30 seconds, taking into account the change of stores is also a minute and a half. Don't you find it strange that the Russians are not going to fight for more than 1-2 minutes? Maybe you misunderstand something?
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 4 June 2013 14: 57
            +2
            Quote: Rolm
            still the choice of tracks or wheels in my opinion the essence of the matter

            This is yours. And in the world of tracked armored personnel carriers more than wheeled.
            1. bask
              bask 4 June 2013 16: 46
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              This is yours. And in the world of tracked armored personnel carriers more than wheeled.

              In the world, except for the M113, there are no more tracked vehicles. (((Israel stands alone with its BTR-T)))
              Wheels: ,, Patria AMV, Boxer ,, Pars ,, Pandur ,, Piranha ,, SEP ,, RG35,41, Type
              96 Japan, Nekster. And so there are still about 30 pieces.
              Piranha 4

              TYPE 96

              BOXER.
              1. Kars
                Kars 4 June 2013 16: 51
                +6
                Pbv 302
                Quote: bask
                In the world, except for M113, there are no more caterpillar tracks. (((

                If I start the knights I still collect.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 4 June 2013 16: 58
                  +2
                  ___________
                  1. bask
                    bask 4 June 2013 18: 10
                    +2
                    The German company FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau from Flensburg, specializing in the repair of Bundeswehr armored vehicles.
                    Introduced in 2011, a prototype. BTRa ha GSh BTR-G5 modular design.
                    Allowing to create a significant number of machines for various purposes on a single base.
                    Weight is 25 tons, the landing squad has a volume of 14,5 cubic meters.
                    Payload up to 6,5 tons.
                    Their crew is 2 mech.vod. And the commander. + Eight people landing, placed in explosion-proof seats.
                    MTO in the nose, diesel with a capacity of 560 l / s.
                    The chassis is designed by the FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau and includes six rollers per side. Rollers and other chassis elements from the Leopard tank
                    The maximum speed on the highway is 72 km / h and the range is 600 km.

                    1. old man54
                      old man54 4 June 2013 20: 21
                      +4
                      The review of the driver is gorgeous of course !! And in general, not an armored personnel carrier, but rather a European (non-GAZel) taxi, it reminds. :))
                      1. bask
                        bask 4 June 2013 21: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: old man54
                        uh !! And in general, not an armored personnel carrier, but rather a route European (not GAZel) taxi

                        The armored personnel carrier is, a taxi, to the place of battle.
                        The APC G-5, running from ,, Leo-1 ,,, I think the cross is decent.
                        And most importantly: it has mine protection at the STANAG 4 level !!!
                        No need to ride on armor.
                        We have the MT-SM tracked chassis adopted for service in the 1992 year. But it didn’t enter the troops. If it is finalized, strengthening the reservation will be no worse than the German G-5.
                        MT-SM
                        Weight -28-34 tons.
                        Years of operation with 1992
                        Basic Operators
                        dimensions
                        Length - 8,53m
                        Case Width - 3,25m
                        Height -2,93m
                        Booking is bulletproof.
                        Mobility
                        Engine's type ; diesel V-84
                        Power-780 l / s
                        Speed ​​on the highway, 65 cells / h
                        Cross-country speed up to -45 cells / h.
                        Cruising on the highway-600 CL
                        The suspension type is hydropneumatic.
                      2. old man54
                        old man54 6 June 2013 01: 18
                        0
                        Quote: bask
                        The APC G-5, running from ,, Leo-1 ,,, I think the cross is decent.
                        And most importantly: it has mine protection at the STANAG 4 level !!!
                        No need to ride on armor.

                        And why for an armored personnel carrier from Leo-1, do they have masses comparable? The machine seems to be nothing, but it confuses the ceiling over the airborne squad of maple! Somehow frivolously, what to do when driving in the mountainous regions and in the settlement regime?
                        Quote: bask
                        We have the MT-SM tracked chassis adopted for service in the 1992 year. But it didn’t enter the troops. If it is finalized, strengthening the reservation will be no worse than the German G-5.

                        An interesting thing, thanks, I have not seen it before! And her suspension from the "Tunguska" accidentally is not unified, looks very similar?
                  2. NOBODY EXCEPT US
                    NOBODY EXCEPT US 4 June 2013 22: 21
                    +1
                    Fuck yourself a VIP salon ....
              2. bask
                bask 4 June 2013 17: 51
                +3
                Quote: Kars

                If I start the knights I still collect.

                And I.
                BTR ,, Terrex ,, Singapore - a heavy wheeled armored personnel carrier, has been mass-produced since 2004. The mass of the armored vehicle is about 30 tons, and the landing force is 12 people. Speed ​​on the highway 110 km / h, afloat 10 km / h.
                1. lilit.193
                  lilit.193 5 June 2013 23: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: bask
                  BTR ,, Terrex ,, Singapore - a heavy wheeled armored personnel carrier, has been mass-produced since 2004. The mass of the armored vehicle is about 30 tons, and the landing force is 12 people. Speed ​​on the highway 110 km / h, afloat 10 km / h.

                  This is a beast! good
                  1. bask
                    bask 5 June 2013 23: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: lilit.193
                    This is a beast!

                    I agree. We would like that. hi
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 34
              0
              Quote: bask
              In the world, except for the M113, there are no more caterpillars

              Yes, and a lot. But some M113 produced 85 thousand pieces.
              1. cdrt
                cdrt 4 June 2013 21: 02
                0
                + British Troden - also 5 thousand probably released
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 07
                  0
                  Yes, there are a lot of them. You can recall 11 thousand Swedish articulated Bv 206
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 5 June 2013 10: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Yes, there are a lot of them. You can recall 11 thousand Swedish articulated Bv 206

                    An armored personnel carrier is good where the crew and troops can be shot from a pistol.
                    Well then, both the GTS and GTT are also recorded in armored personnel carriers.
              2. bask
                bask 4 June 2013 22: 00
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Yes, and a lot. But some M113 produced 85 thousand pieces.

                When they were released in the 60-70-80s.
                Now the release is discontinued. Only thorough .. repair + modernization.
                And for the airborne forces and airborne forces. There should be modular armored personnel carriers on a wheeled and tracked chassis, weighing up to 20 tons. With unification of units, up to 80%.
                With anti-mine and ballistic protection no lower than STANAG 4.
                1. cth; fyn
                  cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 51
                  0
                  Zhirnenko, just what will be the protection with a mass of up to 20 tons? Will she be able to provide 4th level? and if it does, then what will remain on bulletproof booking? STANAG 4, as far as I remember, STANAG is mine resistance.
          3. Setrac
            Setrac 4 June 2013 17: 15
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            This is yours. And in the world of tracked armored personnel carriers more than wheeled.

            More M-113s were released than all wheeled armored personnel carriers combined, so there will be more tracked armored personnel carriers.
            1. bask
              bask 4 June 2013 17: 44
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              days M-113 released more than all wheeled armored personnel carriers combined, so there will be more tracked armored personnel carriers.

              And if we count the BTR-60,70,80. That’s more wheeled.
              And I’m talking about BTR brands, not quantity.
              BTR M113 produced about 56 thousand units.
              1. Kars
                Kars 4 June 2013 18: 06
                +3
                Quote: bask
                And if we calculate the BTR-60,70,80.

                BTR 50, MT-LB, etc.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 4 June 2013 18: 06
                  +2
                  ___________))
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 4 June 2013 18: 36
                    +4
                    By the way, someone noticed that he was attached to the board?
                  2. bask
                    bask 4 June 2013 22: 02
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    ___________))

                    And this is the application of the M113 armored hull.
                    1. bask
                      bask 4 June 2013 22: 05
                      0
                      Quote: bask
                      Armored Corps M113

                      _______________________
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 4 June 2013 22: 15
                      +5
                      _______________________
              2. Setrac
                Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 03
                +1
                Quote: bask
                BTR M113 produced about 56 thousand units.

                80000 pcs By marks, yes, if you consider all sorts of limited series of several hundred or dozens of copies, more wheeled (probably), but the total number of tracks in front.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 35
              +1
              Here I am about that.
    2. washi
      washi 4 June 2013 14: 25
      +5
      For each task there should be a car.
      For example: T-80 was amazing for the Arctic, T-72 - south with its deserts. And both for Europe.
      A universal machine is always worse than a unified one.
      BTR - 60, 70, 80 provide their task. Delivery of infantry.
      How and on what machines the BB will provide the rear: these are the problems of the BB. If VV starts to disperse gameparades on these machines, these are problems of VV and the country's leadership
      Wheeled or tracked? Where are you going to apply the technique?
      Kazakhstan, the Baltic states, Korea, northwest of China, Europe, the Arabian Peninsula. Definitely wheeled. Russia is tracked. It all depends on the soil and terrain.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 June 2013 14: 58
        0
        Quote: Vasya
        BTR - 60, 70, 80 provide their task. Delivery of infantry.

        On the armor? Poor provide, out of the ordinary.
  • Roll
    Roll 4 June 2013 12: 51
    0
    laughing And armored cars, this is a promising area and should increase the strength of our army, replace a significant part of the fleet of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers as well as armored Kamaz trucks, and a new strategy for the combat use of armored cars must be developed.
    1. bask
      bask 4 June 2013 13: 19
      +2
      Quote: Rolm
      Yes, and armored cars, this is a promising area and should increase our power

      In service: in the motorized rifle division.
      1 MBT, BMP-T / BTR-T, self-propelled guns, engineering equipment. All on a single platform. And GS.
      2. Everything else is armored cars for various purposes. On wheels.
      1. Roll
        Roll 4 June 2013 13: 44
        -3
        fellow Unfortunately, this is so, our military cannot yet appreciate the advantages of armored cars, and there are a lot of them. And when they estimate they will create universal and specialized compounds of armored cars and increase the total power of motorized rifle units very significantly, but as always with a delay. We will wait for the wind of change, as always from the west. from the west
        1. washi
          washi 4 June 2013 14: 33
          +5
          Act, graduate from the military school, serve in the army, it is advisable to fight. And HERE then evaluate both the equipment and the military who operate it
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 4 June 2013 21: 04
          +1
          Troll f furnace wink
  • gallville
    gallville 4 June 2013 12: 56
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    And this is wrong.

    Did I say that right? The machine is not intended for direct fire contact should not be in the place where such is possible.
    Here's just the problem: the armored personnel carrier was created for the transfer of troops. Why did they not take into account the "partisans" or sabotage groups?
    The very concept of the BTR60 / 70/80 is focused on the creation of at least some kind of transport for a mass mobilization army with the aim of a quick transfer "to the lamanche" across the lunar desert.
    Quote: Spade
    MRAP does not have to be a standard technique. These are machines "sharpened" for actions in conditions of low-intensity conflicts. And performing specific patrol functions. You don't need a lot of them, and they should be passed on to those who need them.

    Those. supply columns all the same advanced parts we leave in the unarmored Urals? And do we accompany these Urals with the same BMPs not intended for this?
    Quote: Spade
    So there must be a platform system. Here you have, for example, a wheeled platform. Put on it a large combat module with the appropriate weapons, hang additional modules. reservation, and you have a wheeled BMP. Need more internal volume - put dist. module with a 7.62 machine gun

    For a long time there is a concept of weapons made. But in general, you are right only the module does not affect the internal volume, but on the weight and, accordingly, the driving performance of the machine.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. bask
        bask 4 June 2013 17: 24
        +2
        Quote: Vasya
        . Sun should focus on

        1. ORIENTED TO THE MAXIMUM CREW PROTECTION (((MBT, ARMOR, BMP, BTR))) AND THE SOLDIER SOLDIER !!!!!
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 06
          +2
          Quote: bask
          1. ORIENTED TO THE MAXIMUM CREW PROTECTION (((MBT, ARMOR, BMP, BTR))) AND THE SOLDIER SOLDIER !!!!!

          During the battle, the soldier will be outside the APC, how will thick armor help him?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 11
            -1
            Quote: Setrac
            During the battle, the soldier will be outside the APC, how will thick armor help him?


            Only from the line of dismounting. To which you still need to get
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 29
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Only from the line of dismounting. To which you still need to get

              We took into account what dangers the armored personnel carrier is subject to the turn of dismounting and built the armored personnel carrier-82.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 4 June 2013 21: 40
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Quote: Spade
                Only from the line of dismounting. To which you still need to get

                We took into account what dangers the armored personnel carrier is subject to the turn of dismounting and built the armored personnel carrier-82.

                How to take into account?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 4 June 2013 22: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  How to take into account?

                  Dear troll, read the history of the creation of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, do I need to print a multiplication table for you?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 4 June 2013 22: 22
                    +1
                    That is, do you think the shatterproof padding and rubber mats are an adequate response to changing conditions on the battlefield?

                    Do you know that the same Americans in the motorized infantry and infantry divisions of the grenade launchers were replaced by ATGM calculations?
                    The motorized infantry section of the "heavy" division now has two units. One - on BMP, the second ("Dragon", replaced by "Javelin") - outboard.
                    Does Kevlar ballistic tackle solve such a problem?

                    A lot of remote mining systems have appeared, which during a defense occupation heap a bunch of mines in front of the front edge.
                    Does a rubber mat solve the problem?

                    The power of the BMP-BTR cannon armament is increasing every year, primarily due to ammunition, modern BOPs are not a hindrance now, they themselves create fragments, collapsing when overcoming the armor.
                    Does Kevlar ballistic tackle solve such a problem?

                    The weight of the individual armor of a fighter is growing, as well as the total weight of his equipment, which forces him to move the line of dismounting closer to the front edge.
                    Does shatterproof padding, rubber mats and side exits directly under enemy fire solve this problem?

                    Who the hell is a troll of us?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 4 June 2013 22: 38
                      +1
                      The answer should be Kurgan and boomerang.
                      Quote: Spade
                      A lot of remote mining systems have appeared, which during a defense occupation heap a bunch of mines in front of the front edge.
                      Does a rubber mat solve the problem?

                      Mine clearance will solve the problem
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 22: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        The answer should be Kurgan and boomerang.

                        And so now the BTR-82 is being purchased at an accelerated pace? We have already taken 150 pieces. 120 million bucks down the drain. Sorry, Deripaska at the expense. He's the owner of the MIC Corporation, isn't he? For vehicles that differ from those in service with lining, a rubber mat, cheap shock-absorbing seats and a combat module stabilizer with a meager ammo for several minutes of combat.

                        Quote: Setrac
                        Mine clearance will solve the problem

                        Urki? I would personally stay on the battlefield from MT-LBU, carrying a ton and a half of explosives as far as possible.
                      2. bask
                        bask 4 June 2013 23: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        The answer should be Kurgan and boomerang.

                        What year? By 20-30.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        mine solutions

                        What can be found in a plastic barrel in 100% of cases.
                        Quote: Spade
                        And so now they are buying BTR-82 at an accelerated pace?

                        BTR-82 doesn’t protect against anything, it’s better to buy MDI, Typhoons, the price is one and the protection will be better.
                        Quote: Spade
                        MT-LBU carrying one and a half tons of explosives as far as possible

                        I repeat, it is necessary to rejoice the release of MT-SM, an average trans-starter, with a lifting capacity of up to 15 tons.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 4 June 2013 23: 18
                        0
                        Quote: bask
                        I repeat, it is necessary to rejoice the release of MT-SM, an average trans-starter, with a lifting capacity of up to 15 tons.

                        And it will give little.
                        Two guts with explosive charge of 700 kg with copecks in each. Plus the powder rockets that these bowels throw forward. Here a car based on a tank is needed. Moreover, with remote control, in case of detonation there will be nothing to bury.
                      4. bask
                        bask 5 June 2013 00: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        on the. Moreover, with remote control

                        "" In the second half of the 1980s gt. was developed, manufactured, passed a large volume of tests to substantiate and select the design of the undercarriage model of a semi-support chassis with a front MTO - "Object 299".
                        In 1988, a robotic complex based on the T-80 tank was created, consisting of two vehicles: remotely controlled and controlled (unmanned). The complex provides transmission of video images of television cameras from the slave machine to the master one and transmission of control commands of the motion system. "" [Media = http: //rpw.ru/kb3/Efremov.html]
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 5 June 2013 00: 21
                        +1
                        Similar devices were actually used in Chernobyl.
                        Robotic complex "Klin" based on IMR-2 with a control machine based on T-72.
                        The Dorozhnik complex based on the Cheboksary T-25.01 tractor with a dump.

                        There is a kit for turning the T-72 into a remotely controlled device. Full shooting. In iron for 10 years already.
                      6. bask
                        bask 5 June 2013 00: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        rubbing. In iron for 10 years already.

                        And we amers, we admire Israel.
                        How many of their developers are poorer .. yum.
                        Now, catch up,
                      7. Genady1976
                        Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 30
                        +1
                        Robotic complex (RTK) "Alice" based on the T-72 tank,
                        no need to develop this
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 June 2013 15: 14
    0
    Quote: gallville
    Those. supply columns all the same advanced parts we leave in the unarmored Urals? And do we accompany these Urals with the same BMPs not intended for this?

    You do not confuse MRAP with armored vehicles. These are completely different things.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 4 June 2013 13: 03
    +5
    First of all, an armored personnel carrier is a vehicle that has armor and armament, but it is a transport. Attachment to it of inappropriate functions (more than transporting soldiers) has an extremely negative impact on its survivability, especially the conduct of combat in urban conditions. The armored personnel carrier is not a tank from the very beginning, and as a result armoring and armament. In addition, domestic armored personnel carriers are required to force water barriers, and this immediately imposes restrictions on mass, and as a consequence on armoring. As the author correctly noted, armoring is carried out on the basis of application in army operations, i.e. from the front .In local conflicts, when conducting police operations there is no obvious enemy, he is everywhere and from any direction. Here there are requirements not only for armor protection, but also for surveillance equipment and weapons. We have to work on the upper floors (the viewing angle of optics and the angle of elevation of the weapon), in fact, any house is a bunker, and these are requirements for the power of weapons. BTR-T is also not a panacea, RPG-7, like Colt in the wild West, levels everyone, the only question is how many grenades are needed.
  • jayich
    jayich 4 June 2013 13: 06
    +2
    Isn’t it easier to have a couple of dozens of special engineering machines? Nobody has yet canceled mine trawls, and the jammer is much lighter than the mine bottom; you don’t need to push a certain machine from the family of machines built on one base (for a smaller range of spare parts) that is not pushed for its task into one machine. A lot of weapons do not exist, rate of fire is very important, the more lead flies into the enemy the better ...
    1. Roll
      Roll 4 June 2013 14: 13
      +3
      laughing Well, mine trawls now do not always work, for example, a mine with a delayed response explodes under the bottom of the tank, not the trawl. And engineering cars and specialized bulldozers are of course important and necessary, Israel has rich experience in armored bulldozers.
  • roial
    roial 4 June 2013 14: 34
    +1
    To accompany the colon would praise and here such
    in the forward watch


    and for transporting cover groups




    cheap and cheerful
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 June 2013 18: 04
      +2
      cheap and cheerful

      Well, then yes, it’s all right for local conflicts, but for war, there’s not even like this: War needs a car with WMD protection, good armor, and the ability to move after a mine or landmine explosion.
      Well, like a BTR-80, only with flaws removed.
    2. bask
      bask 4 June 2013 23: 11
      +1
      Quote: roial
      cheap and cheerful

      Make a V-shaped bottom, a roof, on an armored personnel carrier and forward.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 37
        0
        OU! nishtyak!
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 4 June 2013 16: 53
    +2
    I can’t understand how the proposed APC differs from the BMP.
  • vomag
    vomag 4 June 2013 17: 36
    +4
    yeah I look at the armored personnel carrier "Namer" and quietly o **** they blinded such a monster! was the lot of the leaders of the 3rd Reich and nothing good ended. I dare to suggest that the larger the target, the easier it is to hit it! and if there flea Arabs drive through the desert quite well, then in a real war, imagine the advancement of an ordinary infantry regiment (not to mention about the brigade) to the starting lines for the attack ...... and do not forget the vnutryanka completely from the tankila with all the ensuing consequences low motor resource increased fuel consumption now the question is how long this "miracle" of technology will last ??????
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 June 2013 17: 59
      +4
      I agree that the armored personnel carrier needs to withstand only 14,5 mm from the CPV and RPG grenades, anti-ballistic armor is unnecessary for them.
      But mine protection is very necessary.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 June 2013 19: 39
        +1
        Poor infantry. You treat her like dirt.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 57
          0
          What is this? An armored personnel carrier is not an armored personnel carrier, it does not need a projectile. The shortcomings and saboteurs do not carry guns with them (with the exception of the Russian shortcomings, who can drag the gun with them, there were residents, Kovpak generally had his own artillery)
          BTR is a truck, a well-armored truck.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 4 June 2013 18: 04
    -1
    BTR-100 gun 100mm how many of these in the Russian army.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 4 June 2013 21: 08
      +3
      Well BTR-100 in RA zero wink
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 4 June 2013 21: 30
        +3
        What kind of papelats is such an BTR-100? The first time I've heard.
        This is a BTR-90 with a melon module.
        1. Genady1976
          Genady1976 4 June 2013 22: 39
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          Well BTR-100 in RA zero wink

          Quote: Setrac
          What kind of papelats is such an BTR-100? The first time I've heard.
          This is a BTR-90 with a melon module.

          Thank you very much.
  • Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 4 June 2013 21: 24
    +3
    I believe that there is a need for an average wheeled armored personnel carrier designed with widespread use of components and assemblies of a promising multi-purpose vehicle. Regarding protection, I think that circular protection from 14,5 mm B-32 and TM-67 mine detonation will suffice for him. For mobility, he needs a 500-600 strong diesel. The layout with the middle location of the MTO, so that the front sheet does not have a weakened zone in the form of slots of the access hatch to the engine. The geometry of the case in my opinion should be similar to the VBCI case, it seems to me that the more technologically advanced the case, the better. From armaments, I think it’s not worth shoving 4-ton towers with a triple there, a machine gun is enough, and even better, 2 in 2 remote controls, one for a com, one over the airborne compartment. From the other, a wide tire profile, a mesh basket on the sides in the area of ​​the troop compartment for property, hinged roof hatches, airborne APU, Conder, individual seats.
    1. svp67
      svp67 9 June 2013 16: 52
      0
      Quote: Mr. Truth
      mine detonation TM-67.

      Not real, since this mine is so "classified" that I'm afraid you won't find it anywhere ... wink
  • Mister X
    Mister X 4 June 2013 22: 10
    +2
    Quote: old man54
    The review of the driver is gorgeous of course !!

    I agree. Here you have a view from the inside.
    In some photos, cumulative screens cover it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mister X
    Mister X 4 June 2013 22: 25
    +3
    Pay attention to the stern of the PMMC G5:
    if you need to jump out quickly - open the door.
    For oversized cargo, a lowering ramp with hydraulic drive is provided.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 22: 31
      0
      Quote: Mister X
      For oversized cargo, a lowering ramp with hydraulic drive is provided.

      You are not quite right. The ramp is for landing. The main way out. Door - backup in case of hydraulic drive failure
      1. Mister X
        Mister X 4 June 2013 23: 15
        +1
        Greetings, mastermind!

        The ramp is for landing. The main way out.
        Door - backup in case of hydraulic drive failure

        I figured this functionality based on their timing:
        open the door faster than lowering the ramp.
        True, you will have to go out one at a time and lightly.
        But on the other hand - you can land through a wide aperture by 2 person,
        and even in full gear.

        Another caveat: the platform is modular:
        the ceiling was removed along with the tower and the suspended landing seats,
        lowered another ceiling with chairs for doctors and places for stretchers -
        here is the ambulance.
        The Germans provided many modules for the PMMC G5.

        I’ll lay out a better video: it shows a lot, and you’ll think up the rest yourself.
        He smiled as G5 scratches on the autobahn and splashes in a shallow puddle smile

        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 4 June 2013 23: 33
          +1
          Quote: Mister X
          But on the other hand - you can land through a wide aperture by 2 person,
          and even in full gear.

          With enough training, even on the go

          Quote: Mister X
          Another caveat: the platform is modular:

          This is the Germans' fad. They also have a wheeled Boxer. By the way, at the end of the video, the process of quickly changing the engine is shown - also a fad. This is also implemented on the Boxer.

          I liked the anti-glare "cilia" on the glass. They don't seem to be too thin for protection. But "bunnies" will not be. What is good is not unmasking.

          I did not like the fact that the tracks seem to be rubber. On the one hand, you can ride on the autobahns, and the clank is not heard. On the other hand, in case of damage, they will only have to be completely changed
          1. Mister X
            Mister X 9 June 2013 16: 49
            0
            It was very nice to exchange opinions with a competent and adequate interlocutor.
            hi
      2. bask
        bask 4 June 2013 23: 24
        0
        Quote: Spade
        and. Door - backup in case of hydraulic drive failure

        It is solvable.
        South Korean BMP K 21. There ramp duplicated exit door-hatch.

        In general, it is necessary to closely study what is suitable for adopting South Korean equipment.
        Conditions - the theater of operations in Korea and Russia is similar.
        Only there is a full-scale war, and we have a sluggish asymmetric war.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 4 June 2013 23: 38
          +1
          Quote: bask
          South Korean BMP K 21. There ramp duplicated exit door-hatch.

          This is a common practice now. KamAZ "Typhoon"
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 4 June 2013 23: 36
    +1
    ---------------------
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 June 2013 23: 45
      +1
      Cool device. The armored car of the Putilov plant on the basis of an American truck. Only it is rather a wheeled self-propelled gun. At that time, 76-mm guns and tanks were rarely set.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 4 June 2013 23: 52
    +4
    here awesome stuff
    1. bask
      bask 5 June 2013 00: 08
      +3
      Quote: Genady1976
      here awesome stuff

      But I saw such a thing.
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 15
        +1
        cool stuff. Is this our domestic?
        1. bask
          bask 5 June 2013 00: 26
          +1
          Quote: Genady1976
          ny. Is this our domestic?

          Yes, I definitely don’t remember the photo from my archive. Leningrad Front 1942.
      2. svp67
        svp67 9 June 2013 17: 01
        0
        Quote: bask
        But I saw such a thing.

        The tower from T26 arr1939 of the year, maybe some kind of TOP - fire training simulator?
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 02
    +1
    As a base for their armored personnel carrier, they chose their Tariq tank, which is a modernized British Centurion tank.
    1. bask
      bask 5 June 2013 00: 14
      +1
      Quote: Genady1976
      As the base for their armored personnel carrier, they chose their own Tariq tank, which is a modernized English tank

      Even dumb ... ё understood the importance of highly protected BTR-T.
      We have everything created, start the release. Aai, there’s not any hoo-noo with cardboard armor continuing to drive ..
      But swims: this piece ,, de..ma..for ml $.
      Not protecting from anything.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 13
    +1
    This is an original vehicle created by Pakistani developers. The armored car is characterized by increased resistance to damage from mines and the original shape of the hull. It is assumed that Burraq will carry up to 10 infantrymen, the armor of the machine should protect from caliber bullets up to 12.7 mm at a distance of up to 200 m.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 5 June 2013 19: 55
      0
      Quote: Genady1976
      This is an original vehicle created by Pakistani developers.

      The center of gravity is too high (and the machine itself is high) the resistance to overturning of such a bucket is close to zero.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 00: 35
    +1
    Alice's photo
    Costs will require only the installation of equipment that provides remote control and automatic loading of weapons. Moreover, such a tank is also economically effective in the sense that it is almost not a pity, since it was decommissioned anyway.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 59
      +1
      But this will not solve the problem of transporting l / s in places of a possible meeting with the enemy.
  • lilit.193
    lilit.193 5 June 2013 23: 14
    +1
    Quote: lilit.193
    Quote: bask
    BTR ,, Terrex ,, Singapore - a heavy wheeled armored personnel carrier, has been mass-produced since 2004. The mass of the armored vehicle is about 30 tons, and the landing force is 12 people. Speed ​​on the highway 110 km / h, afloat 10 km / h.

    This is a beast! good

    That's the type of armored personnel carrier we need. wink
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 18: 00
      +1
      Damn 30 tons and swims, and the truth is awesome.