Military Review

Foreign experience and Russian wheeled armored vehicles

105
About a year and a half ago, there was an active discussion in the press and among the interested public about the purchase of two Italian-made combat vehicles. According to official data, the B1 Centauro wheeled tank and the Freccia infantry fighting vehicle were intended for testing under Russian polygon conditions. However, already with the appearance of the first reports of such a purchase, the boldest assumptions appeared, including the impending rearmament of the Russian army with Italian equipment. Such far-reaching conclusions immediately became a pretext for accusations against the then leadership of the Ministry of Defense and a new topic for disputes. However, the tests of “Centauro” and “Freccia” began, passed and ended, and the Russian Ministry of Defense did not initiate negotiations on the supply of foreign equipment.


B1 Centauro


Freccia vbm


Tests on Russian landfills allowed to identify all the pros and cons of the selected wheeled armored vehicles and draw the appropriate conclusions. Probably one of them was the recognition of the unsuitability of Italian equipment for use in our army. In addition, there is a popular opinion, according to which the information obtained during testing is used in the course of work on the creation of new domestic wheeled armored vehicles. Anyway, the Ministry of Defense decided to equip the troops with combat vehicles of this class, but designed in accordance with their own requirements and adapted to the existing conditions.

Despite the apparent remoteness of such events, over the coming years, new wheeled armored vehicles will go into service and it will be necessary to ensure their operation in the troops, as well as to distribute them properly into subunits. In this case, again, foreign experience could be useful, but even here one should not adopt it without careful study and analysis. The fact is that domestic armed forces began to operate wheeled armored vehicles back in the sixties of the last century. At the same time, while the BTR-60 armored personnel carriers were actively produced in the Soviet Union, troops received tracked M113 in NATO countries, and the pace of construction of wheeled vehicles left much to be desired. A characteristic feature of the land connections of all countries was the heterogeneity of the fleet of vehicles: even the USSR and its allies did not have large subunits equipped only with wheeled armored vehicles.

Thus, the regiments from one Soviet division could operate not only different models of equipment, but also different classes: one regiment could be equipped with armored troop-carriers on a wheel track, the other with tracked infantry fighting vehicles. Abroad, the situation in some moments repeated the Soviet, although it had its own specifics. For example, the United States Army quickly received the required number of tracked M113 armored personnel carriers, which were transported by all infantry personnel. The European countries of NATO, in turn, for a long time had to use both M113 and trucks of various models at the same time. It is worth noting that in most countries of the North Atlantic Alliance there were separate units equipped with light armored vehicles, including wheeled armored vehicles. However, their numbers did not allow to have a significant impact on the appearance of all armed forces.

Until a certain time around the world wheeled armored vehicles were not considered as a full-fledged military means. She was often assigned a supporting role - for example, armored personnel carriers for many years were considered solely as a means of delivering personnel to the front line, after which the support of the fighters by fire was assigned to infantry fighting vehicles. However, the combination of characteristics of wheeled vehicles, as well as the high speed and performance characteristics of the wheel propulsion, eventually forced the military to reconsider their views. Perhaps the Americans came to the boldest conclusions in the nineties. They considered that wheeled armored vehicles were necessary for equipping units of a new type.

During the division of the land divisions into two types, the existing armored and unprotected vehicles were divided between heavy and light units. This division has caused a significant gap in the combat capabilities of units. Therefore, the creation of a new type of brigades and divisions — medium divisions — was initiated, and a special project was launched for their armament. As a result of this project, the Stryker family of armored wheeled vehicles appeared, incorporating various-purpose equipment. In 2003, the first brigade fully armed with such armored vehicles appeared in the US ground forces. The brigade had more than three hundred "Strikers", towed artillery, anti-tank missile systems, etc. At the same time, any caterpillar equipment, such as Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles or self-propelled artillery, were completely absent. Their functions were performed by the corresponding machines based on the Stryker chassis.

During the first months of combat operations in Iraq, the middle infantry units demonstrated their advantages and disadvantages. At the same time, as it was repeatedly noted, the overwhelming majority of problems were related to technology, and not to the organizational structure of the units. Medium-sized units have a greater combat potential compared to light and more mobile than heavy ones. Thus, it is the middle brigades and divisions that turn out to be a means of quick response to the threats that have arisen. If necessary, such a unit can be quickly transferred to the desired area, where it will begin hostilities, without waiting for the arrival of heavy equipment: tanks or SPG.

Over the past ten years, the Pentagon has been actively developing and improving its structure of ground forces, based on three types of connections. All disputes about the need for such separation ceased in the late nineties, at the present time no one doubts the correctness of such a decision. If desired, the positive American experience can be used to advantage: since the US has already spent its time and money on improving the middle divisions and shaping their final appearance, our country has the opportunity to simply analyze the results and adapt the American experience to Russian conditions at the theoretical level.

In the autumn of 2011, information appeared about the upcoming transformation of the Russian ground forces. According to the information, for several years it was planned to create in the structure of the Russian army heavy, light and medium brigades. A few months later, in July last year 2012, the latest media appeared in the media. news regarding the equipment of these units. At that time, the equipment for the brigades of the future was distributed as follows: vehicles based on the Armata platform for heavy connections, Tiger and Lynx armored vehicles for the lungs, as well as vehicles based on several wheeled platforms for the medium.

However, such plans immediately caused a lot of questions, the most important of which was the problem of expediency. There is still no consensus on whether our army needs such a structure with separate heavy, medium and light units. First of all, it is necessary to note the specifics of the use and mobility of such units in the light of potential threats. In the near future, the Russian army will not fight at a great distance from the territory of the country, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the transfer of equipment and personnel within its borders.

The transfer of troops to relatively short distances, if necessary, may well be carried out on its own. As for more serious transport tasks, for example, the transfer of personnel and equipment from the European part of the country to Siberia or the Far East, the railway is the only convenient means. However, the features of rail transport deprive the middle units of any advantages over the heavy mobility. As for the military transport aviation, then it can effectively carry out its tasks only when moving troops to a distance of several thousand kilometers. The increase in range, in turn, may be associated with serious logistical problems.

If necessary, such problems can be solved at once in several ways, each of which, however, will require the creation of appropriate infrastructure and additional costs. The same can be said about the very idea of ​​introducing into the armed forces a system with three types of connections. In this case, the question again arises about the appropriateness of such transformations. Do Russian armed forces need medium-sized brigades with the appropriate equipment? Probably needed. But they should be created, not simply by adopting foreign solutions, but by conducting a thorough analysis of the opportunities, shortcomings and prospects in the light of the threats of the present time and the near future.

Foreign experience and Russian wheeled armored vehicles


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://vpk-news.ru/
http://army-guide.com/
http://rian.ru/
Author:
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Avenger711
    Avenger711 5 June 2013 08: 42
    16
    If we talk about "Strikers", then this is the same BTR-80, only with a lousy machine gun (12,7 mm to KPVT as to the moon on foot) and a lot of computers. All this on a chassis based on a lighter LAV, as a result, the car is too heavy for its drive. In practice, this is one of the worst wheeled vehicles in existence, and, which is typical, no one in the world takes it. Anything is taken, but not "strikers". And the MGS self-propelled gun is all fail, it doesn't even hold the recoil from its gun, plus only 18 rounds of ammunition, of which there are only 8 in AZ. The mobility of striker brigades, then wheeled vehicles have many problems in this regard, and heavy vehicles (with anti-grenade netting and other sheds, the striker pulls for 20 tons) especially. The maximum speed on the highway is rather weakly characterizes mobility, and as far as I know, due to the tendency to overturns, the speed of the "stalkers" is limited to 35 miles / h, which is only 56 km / h.
    1. Ataman
      Ataman 5 June 2013 09: 32
      +7
      That is why Russia does not need to invent or buy a new wheeled platform now, but it is necessary to bring the BTR-80 modernization to the BTR-82A level in a businesslike way.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 5 June 2013 10: 53
        13
        It is necessary to twist on all the BTR-80s in a businesslike way along with the BTR-82A nameplates and push it all cheaply to Africa.

        Dear, enough to promote the Deripaska guano, he has a bunch of top defenders without you.
        1. bask
          bask 5 June 2013 14: 48
          +6
          Quote: Spade
          important, stop PR Deripaska guano, he and without you a bunch of defenders at the top.

          That's for sure, modernization will not help here.
          But, I'm talking about something else, the impetus for the development of wheeled armored vehicles was not given by amers, but by South Africa.
          They demonstrated the advantages of wheeled armored vehicles in this theater of war ((shroud on rocky soils))). BTR ,, Ratel ,, ,, self-propelled gun G-5, MRAP ,, Caspir ,, anti-tank gun ,, Ruikat ,, were created
          Wheeled armored personnel carriers were used in droves only in the USSR and South Africa.
          1. old man54
            old man54 7 June 2013 02: 51
            +1
            What do you think about the BTR-90? Your opinion is interesting.
      2. Roll
        Roll 5 June 2013 11: 00
        +4
        wassat Right now, Russia needs to invent and make the main bet on armored cars. It is armored cars that are for Russia the basic minimum unit for a centric battle. Only they need to develop a competent strategy, and instructions for combat use, and with this we feel bad as always. Here in the picture the Italian tank stands like a finger in a bare field, I don’t want to destroy it, but if it stood in a previously dug up trench, one gun sticks out, try to destroy one, Then they like to squeeze out foreign equipment with us, and then the conclusion is unsuitable. And 80 percent of the time it is suitable, but in the rest there is nothing to take, we will manage our usual ones.
        1. bask
          bask 5 June 2013 14: 53
          +5
          Quote: Rolm
          Russia’s basic minimum unit for a centric battle. Only for them it is necessary to develop a competent

          Wheeled armored vehicles will be repeated only for marines, airborne forces, and airborne forces of rapid deployment (((peacekeepers)).
          The SEP concept is best suited for wheeled and tracked chassis, platform modularity with unification of 80% of the main wheels .. chassis.
        2. mark1
          mark1 5 June 2013 14: 53
          +3
          Quote: Rolm
          Here in the picture, an Italian tank stands like a finger in a bare field, I don’t want to destroy, but if he stood in a previously dug trench, one gun sticks out, try to destroy such a

          And then why would he need 8 wheels and a speed of 100 km / h? Likely to do dashes from trench to trench!
          An armored car, this is an armored car, it is good to push speeches from it at a rally, you can fight with a weakly armed enemy (or the population), you can suddenly pounce on the enemy, from where he does not wait, and try to overwhelm him at the cost of your own life, but the cornerstone of the theory " a senecintric "battle ... He will not pull it.
      3. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 5 June 2013 19: 49
        +2
        I don’t understand at all what we are talking about, since it has been said more than once about a new wheeled platform under the nickname "boomerang" in which all the latest developments, both ours and foreign ones, should be taken into account ...
    2. USNik
      USNik 5 June 2013 10: 53
      +5
      If we talk about "Strikers", then this is the same BTR-80, only with a lousy machine gun (12,7 mm to KPVT as to the moon on foot) and a mass of computers. All this on a chassis based on a lighter LAV, in the end, the car for its hodovuha too heavy.

      Uh, like, on strikers, the standard weapon is the 25mm bushmaster? And with 2, I completely agree, the acceptable cross-country ability of the basic version, after the "improvements" and the increase in mass, rolls down to the level of the SUV.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 11
        +4
        Quote: USNik
        Uh, like the standard weapons on strikers are 25mm bushmaster?

        No. On the vast majority of machine guns or an automatic grenade launcher
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 5 June 2013 12: 12
      12
      High speed movement of wheeled armored vehicles on the highway is acceptable only for a single combat unit. No column will ever move at a speed of 60-70km / h, otherwise it will be just a race for survival. Who drove in the column, he knows ...
      1. old man54
        old man54 7 June 2013 02: 57
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        High speed movement of wheeled armored vehicles on the highway is acceptable only for a single combat unit. No column will ever move at a speed of 60-70km / h, otherwise it will be just a race for survival. Who drove in the column, he knows ...

        And why? Because driver training is very weak, and this is the main reason. There are semi-trailers on the intercity with a permissible weight of 30 tons or more and they drive 90/110 km / h and nothing does nothing in fright. :)
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 7 June 2013 15: 02
          0
          The fact of the matter is that the semitrailers are on their own, and in the column the distances between the cars are small, but maybe they will go at maximum speed on a level road, but in the column, on an intersection or a dirt road and in truth suicide.
          1. old man54
            old man54 9 June 2013 19: 50
            0
            what does "semi-trailers by themselves" mean? :)) And look at the distance between AM, including semi-trailers, on the tracks? and what, they, semi-trailers, drive on deserted roads or something, or still on the "highways" and the main arteries of the country? So it is not necessary to shift from a patient to a healthy one, a column of armored vehicles on a paved road is capable of moving up to 80/90 km / h !! And as for dirt roads, no one claims that they need max. maintain speed.
  2. xetai9977
    xetai9977 5 June 2013 08: 53
    +6
    The military equipment should correspond to the terrain, where the use of this model is supposed. In the mountains and in very rough terrain, the use of caterpillar equipment is natural, and on the plain wheeled, which has lower operating costs.
  3. Dima190579
    Dima190579 5 June 2013 08: 57
    +5
    Now more and more it is accepted to fight in cities. And in the city the armor should be stronger.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 5 June 2013 11: 21
      10
      I mean, "now", and in the Second World War in the cities of battles were not fought?
      In general, to me all these protracted thoughts that something has fundamentally changed, there will be no battles "in the field" seem to be pure profanation.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 June 2013 13: 50
        10
        The war begins the way the aggressor plans it. If Hitler planned "Blitzkrieg", so the German tank wedges moved, armed with a variety of equipment, but with air supremacy. The war in Iraq, the Yankees also first achieved air supremacy. We already had thousands of "wheeled tanks" in the Red Army, armored vehicles of the BA-10 type, as well as BT wheeled-tracked tanks, and what, again, is a topic for our army? We must first decide with whom and how we are going to fight, who is our potential enemy, where are the lines of our defense, and then get bogged down with light, medium and heavy brigades, which in itself sucks the problem out of the blue. It is not the name that determines the essence, and it is not the technology itself, but the interaction of various equipment and combat arms with each other, with the obligatory achievement of air supremacy (or its prevention by the enemy), otherwise all our "platforms" on wheels or tracks will burn.
  4. Akim
    Akim 5 June 2013 10: 02
    +5
    MOS (fire support vehicles) are needed. Practice proved this, but you can’t create it on the BTR-80 chassis. Need a new one. With front-wheel or mid-engine layout.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 10: 56
      +3
      Practice has shown that they are nothing outstanding. It would be better to buy "carts" larger than the same Bryansk plant and transport normal tanks on them, if you really wanted mobility that your hands are itching to buy something.
      1. Akim
        Akim 5 June 2013 11: 03
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Practice has shown that they are nothing outstanding.

        Just the opposite. In Afghanistan, MOSs have established themselves well. It would be more logical for us to develop a 115 mm caliber for them.
        1. Kars
          Kars 5 June 2013 11: 11
          12
          Well, I don’t know, Shilka got good grades, and they just lost it for nothing the ZP and NURSs put on everything.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. bask
            bask 5 June 2013 15: 13
            +5
            Quote: Kars
            shilka shone, and vryatli just like that ZP and NURSY put everything in a row.

            And it proved itself to be an 82mm mortar ,, Cornflower ,,, put and welded the tag on different chassis.
          3. Pimply
            Pimply 5 June 2013 17: 01
            0
            I had a chance to work with the "Vulcan" based on the M113. Hell car. Frightening.
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 6 June 2013 08: 37
              0
              No matter how they wriggled, but still could not reach the shilka, they put information about this cart on military materials, it does not even have protection against weapons of mass destruction.
              Although it should be admitted "Volcano" - nishtyak.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 17
          +2
          What's good? The fact that when clearing villages they can only work on the outskirts, and for other purposes it is necessary to use aviation and artillery? Well, the expensive Javelins, which were used exactly more than 105-mm shells.
          1. Akim
            Akim 5 June 2013 11: 29
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            By the fact that during the cleaning of villages they can work only in the outskirts, but for other purposes it is necessary to use aviation and artillery?

            At the time of the creation of MOS, the Americans simply did not have the right weapon for the combat platform. We have it. I am inclined to favor a 120 mm 2A80 or a 115 mm 2A20, but with an elevation angle of 30-35 °. (so that he could not shoot at the tank).
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 36
              +1
              Well, this is not a MOSFET, but a full-fledged wheeled self-propelled gun.
              1. Akim
                Akim 5 June 2013 11: 50
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                full wheel self-propelled guns.


                So MOS should be like self-propelled guns. And to be reduced to batteries and the staff of the argroup brigade consist.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 June 2013 12: 02
                  +2
                  SPGs should be like SPGs. Why fence the garden. Each battalion has mortar batteries. Now they began to replace towed ones with self-propelled ones. The 120-mm guns have much more capabilities than the 105-mm tank gun
    2. poquello
      poquello 5 June 2013 22: 57
      +3
      And what is the problem there, why is the BTR-80 unpromising?
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 6 June 2013 08: 45
        0
        With the advent of new ammunition, his 4 mm armor became too flimsy, you can even shoot from an assault rifle, the KPV elevation angles are small, there is no mine protection (by the way, I did not say that it must be MRAP, it may be different, but it is not).
        In general, we need a new machine, and given that the new grenade launchers from Basalt are tearing the old armored personnel carrier into pieces (put the corsair-6 firecracker in an empty tin can, it will be very similar), then you also need to think about anti-grenade protection.
        1. poquello
          poquello 6 June 2013 20: 13
          +2
          "With the introduction of new ammunition, his 4mm armor has become too flimsy,"
          New armor probably also appeared, can be replaced. It is clear what to make heavier - you get a mediocre striker. Something our military at times try to carry out a conceptual bicycle revolution, forgetting that the advanced technology is a dime a dozen. Why not try a proven modernization on proven technology?
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 7 June 2013 14: 56
            +1
            Well, you asked about the BTR-80, and I answered about it.
            1. poquello
              poquello 7 June 2013 20: 08
              +1
              Of course, thanks for the answer.
  5. sinedanafin
    sinedanafin 5 June 2013 10: 09
    0
    And yet, our cars are the best, and for our roads what you need :)
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 08: 46
      0
      And I like the Ukrainian BTR-4, although there is something to complain about.
  6. fartfraer
    fartfraer 5 June 2013 10: 17
    +4
    at the end of 2005 in the 291th mountain regiment in linear companies there wasn’t a BMP, armored personnel carrier. only mtlb.
    just a small remark, for the overall development, so to speak.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 10: 59
      +6
      Because MT-LB is the only car currently applicable in the mountains. Especially in the rain. High power, highest traffic, low center of gravity.
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 5 June 2013 11: 06
        +2
        I do not argue about its merits, but this is a "pack donkey", and not a "war horse." with turrets and 30 mm cannons), but this is rare - rather the exception than the rule.
        I really wanted during the service that a thread like a BMP in such units.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 22
          +3
          Quote: fartfraer
          no reservation

          But this is a common misconception. MT-LB is protected as well as the BTR-80
          1. Akim
            Akim 5 June 2013 11: 45
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            MT-LB is protected as well as the BTR-80

            I support. Moreover, there was news that Russia had its own ceramic armor. "Mongoose-2" is protected by STANAG 3 class 4569 (withstands 12,7 x 200 meters) and still swims well.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 50
              +1
              I'm afraid they will lose mobility during overload. It is necessary to install engines with gas turbine supercharging, as on MT-LBU.
              1. Akim
                Akim 5 June 2013 12: 02
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                It is necessary to install engines with gas turbine supercharging, as on MT-LBU.

                In Malaysia were delivered not with Yaroslavl engines. Those do not seem to complain.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 June 2013 12: 04
                  +1
                  So they are all with Yaroslavl, and MT-LB and MT-LBU
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 5 June 2013 12: 09
                    +1
                    The "Mongoose" MTLB is taken only as a basis. There are many alterations. I have to ask a friend. They received several of them in Bolgrad (though they are already not there along with the infantry).
          2. fartfraer
            fartfraer 5 June 2013 13: 12
            +2
            I don’t know what's with the armored personnel carrier, but the MTLB doesn’t have it. This common misconception is confirmed by one shot. They shot and checked. 5,45 takes the bottom of this tractor, the board was ricochet. Machine gun 7,62 makes a hole in the board. Personally present during a test bombardment, so I say that the armor is not there.
            I'll clarify right away, I'm not going to shout that her RPG will destroy (mtlb), because its functions are completely different - this is not an armored vehicle, it is a tractor. minimum 7,62. that's what I'm talking about
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 June 2013 13: 24
              +1
              Quote: fartfraer
              5,45 takes day this tractor

              Enchanting!
              Dear, the same thickness of the same composition and technology of manufacturing armor gives the same protection.
              Try to shoot at the bottom of the BTR-80 and 5.45.
              1. fartfraer
                fartfraer 5 June 2013 15: 39
                +3
                dear, I say what I saw myself personally. I don’t know the composition of the armor, but my eyes haven’t let me down yet, like my memory. Continue to rely on my knowledge, I still trust my experience
        2. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 5 June 2013 11: 24
          +2
          Ty, ZUshki upstairs, closer to the stern welded and gud)) we have so a good half of the "metals", in Kaspiysk they were remaking.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 31
            +3
            Not only the memory, you can also put "Cornflowers" on top of the armor.
            1. fartfraer
              fartfraer 5 June 2013 13: 16
              +3
              in this regard, "matalyga" is a super-duper thing, I wrote already, but I repeat, I met an MTLB with a tower (like the BMP-2), the scope of imagination of army craftsmen is practically unlimited. But all this is from a lack of normal specialized (the same behi) equipment more often Total.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 5 June 2013 13: 34
                +4
                These are serially produced and delivered to the troops samples. The plucks are called
                MT-LB 6MB



                MT-LB 6MA
                1. fartfraer
                  fartfraer 5 June 2013 16: 05
                  +1
                  Well, yes, even like that and I saw it. Here I like these devices more as a technique of a motorized rifle company. Not a BMP, of course, but not a "bare" "metal"
                2. bask
                  bask 5 June 2013 20: 56
                  +3
                  Quote: Spade
                  These are serially produced and delivered to the troops samples. The plucks are called
                  MT-LB 6MB

                  Good tracked chassis, highly passable for the far north and the Arctic.
                  But completely unsuitable for war.
                  Almost complete absence of mine protection. 600 grams of heat / volt will not withstand undermining. Armor breaks through from any distance with an armor-piercing bullet of 7,62 mm. Not to mention large-caliber 12,7 mm.
                  In the war zone, the use of this chassis is contraindicated.
                  1. bask
                    bask 5 June 2013 21: 08
                    +1
                    The energy of the blast wave, its effect on a flat bottom, armored car ..
    2. AK44
      AK44 5 June 2013 13: 26
      +3
      Quote: fartfraer
      at the end of 2005 in the 291th mountain regiment in linear companies there wasn’t a BMP, armored personnel carrier. only mtlb.

      At the end of 2007, too. On cross-country metal (MTLB) will give 100 points to any armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles. To the Alps (Alpine mountain range) to libertine only at MTLB (horseradish will pass another technique), or on foot. Great car, just one PCT for her is clearly not enough, and the cardboard armor. True, a little later, metals with Cords appeared in the regiment. In general, if this car is brought to mind, it will still serve!
      PS Man, have you served in Greyhound? In which unit?
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 5 June 2013 16: 03
        0
        in the nine.
        in the 8th company there was a matalyga with a cord like. and we only have a pkt, and there you know, you just touched this pipe with a sight and that's it, you will hit the "sky"))
        Well, tanks drove into the Alps .. from overclocking))
  7. Algor73
    Algor73 5 June 2013 10: 25
    +1
    Do not forget that it is not equipment that is fighting, a soldier is fighting. There will be no more battles like the Battle of Kursk. The equipment is mobile and protected. I support the statement of Akima
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 5 June 2013 11: 27
      +6
      Yes, of course it won’t.
      How are you going to "pointwise" capture countries commensurate with Russia? well, like two brigades per region?
      Do not tell, if it breaks, then Kursk and Stalingrad, everything will be.

      You don't have to go far, Syria is your example. How is the "point" fighting there? The cities are already in ruins, and the total number of the belligerents is no more than 200. Try to neutralize an army of 000 million people.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 5 June 2013 21: 54
      +1
      "Do not forget that it is not equipment that is fighting, the soldiers are fighting. There will be no more battles like the Battle of Kursk. Equipment needs mobile and protected. I support Akim's statement" - I do not agree - the Yankees have developed and are actively implementing the doctrine of a massive surprise strike on all carriers of nuclear weapons. The doctrine presupposes striking both nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons. As you understand, after that the general search units come into play.
  8. waisson
    waisson 5 June 2013 10: 29
    12
    while serving in the UN at the MS, the Americans often came up to us, they looked at the BTR-80 with interest, they enthusiastically praised the only thing that did not suit this operator’s place, that is, crowding.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 5 June 2013 21: 59
      +1
      Unfortunately, the BTR-82 is actually the limit for the modernization of the good old 80th. Compromiser - it has a number of significant disadvantages: weak side armor, low level of mine protection, narrow hatches for the landing.

      I agree on one thing - it is necessary to upgrade at least to the level of BTR-80A all available BM storage bases.


      PS: I’m not specifically talking about the lateral positioning of the landing hatches of the BTR-80, because The armored personnel carrier is primarily intended for the delivery of motorized rifles to the combat area.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. HAIFISCH
    HAIFISCH 5 June 2013 10: 52
    +2
    Quote: waisson
    so why should we wait for something alien when we can improve our time-tested

    This is a question for effective managers, although with the advent of Shoigu there may be more order in this matter.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 12
      +1
      Do you think that Shoigu is cooler than Deripaska? I don’t think so. BTR-82 continues to purchase.
      1. the47th
        the47th 5 June 2013 11: 34
        0
        Quote: Spade
        BTR-82 continues to purchase.

        Because BTR-82 does its job.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 38
          +2
          Which one? Brings money to Deripaska? That is yes.
          1. the47th
            the47th 5 June 2013 12: 34
            +2
            Provides fire support to infantry.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 5 June 2013 17: 04
              -2
              Isn’t it easier then to put a gun on a truck?
        2. bask
          bask 5 June 2013 20: 33
          +2
          Quote: the47th
          Because BTR-82 does its job.

          Not what kind of job he does.
          It has a flat bottom like a table, and there is a guarantee that everyone will end up with an assault on an anti-tank mine. Here they go on armor in the 21st century, like on an armored personnel carrier 60,70,80, Why not change them.
          An armored personnel carrier should deliver fighters to the deployment site under cover of armor, and not on the armor ...
          Therefore, the shape of the bottom should be V-shaped, as it is most effective against land mines and IEDs.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 6 June 2013 08: 53
            +3
            And what is the bottom if it explodes under the wheel? just at a right angle, the shock wave will meet with the bottom, the trawls need radio suppressors or the bottom with a crumple zone.
            1. Firstvanguard
              Firstvanguard 8 June 2013 19: 54
              +1
              In the pimple, pulled up with this fan-shaped bottom am Whatever bottom you don’t do, they will add a couple of BB tags to the bookmark and one horseradish will be a jar with paste No. Protection against anti-tank weapons such as RPGs, RPKs is an urgent problem. soldier
  11. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 5 June 2013 11: 02
    +7
    NOO! Someone would not say anything, but OUR BTR - ALL BTRam BTR !!!

    PS maybe not on the topic, but yesterday about 3 o'clock I watched videos about OUR special forces on YouTube. Western journalists and specialists RECOGNIZE that our special forces are the strongest in technology, strength training and shooting in the world at the moment. The toughest selection in the world. SShasty consider such training and, as a result, selection - intolerable for a person in principle! And then I was fucked by such a statement by a Western specialist who serves in the "strongest army" in the world (pay attention to the quotes winked )

    Let us not have everything as smooth as we would like. Let corruption be present where it is possible, and news releases with such material will not surprise anyone! But I love my country, whatever it is!
    1. UFO
      UFO 5 June 2013 22: 00
      +1
      [quote = LaGlobal] HER! Someone would not say anything, but OUR BTR - ALL BTRam BTR !!!
      Win-win! belay wassat laughing fool
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 08: 54
      +1
      Uryayayayaya! Yo!
  12. sashka
    sashka 5 June 2013 11: 11
    +2
    Cut across Africa, on the savannah. But we are in Russia. Or for each subject of the federation to make a new model. For the sixth of the Earth, you need something specific. For sure.
  13. Russ69
    Russ69 5 June 2013 11: 19
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Do you think that Shoigu is cooler than Deripaska? I don’t think so. BTR-82 continues to purchase.

    While there is nothing else, change the old 80s and 70s, something you need. The rearmament process is a long-term affair, even if the Kurganets is finished and put into production, the replacement will take at least 10 years.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 28
      +1
      Why change them? You can upgrade the 80th to the 82nd in the capitalization process. There the differences are minimal. In addition, the army has been significantly reduced, replacing the BTR-80 with the upgraded BMP-2 and BMP-3 is not a problem.
      1. bask
        bask 5 June 2013 20: 22
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        We have significantly reduced it; replacing the BTR-80 with the modernized BMP-2 and BMP-3 is not a problem.

        And what is better than BTR-80/82, BMP -2,3 (except for patency) besides patency?
        It is possible to upgrade and it is necessary. But there will be no seaworthiness of the BMP. The Afghan version of the BMP 2D.
        1. Installation of mine reservation 2nd floor.
        2. Laid on armor + DZ not explosive action + RE.
        3. Armament KPVT and 40 mm avt .. grenade launcher.
        4. On the part of the machines, a 120 mm gun paired with 14,5 KPVT.
        The main weapon of the 2S31 self-propelled guns ,, Vienna ,, is a semi-automatic rifled gun 2A80, caliber 120 mm. Fire from it can be conducted by all known types of mines of 120 mm caliber. Only the AMOS self-propelled mortar can compete.
        5. Or 57 mm S-60, with ammunition for remote detonation.
        Test for undermining not lower than STANAG 4.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 June 2013 20: 34
          0
          Quote: bask
          The main weapon of the 2S31 self-propelled guns ,, Vienna ,, is a semi-automatic rifled gun 2A80, caliber 120 mm.

          It is not for infantry.
          1. bask
            bask 5 June 2013 21: 32
            0
            Quote: Spade
            It is not for infantry.

            As one of the options.
            I prefer the 57 mm S-60, with remote detonation of ammunition.
            But the 120mm assault gun should be with the infantry.
            The asymmetric battle is fleeting and no one will wait for SPG income.
            The infantry simply needs its own cannon - 120 mm cal.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 June 2013 21: 38
              0
              Quote: bask
              The infantry simply needs its own cannon - 120 mm cal.

              And she has it. Each battalion has one mortar battery. In perspective, all self-propelled.
              1. bask
                bask 5 June 2013 22: 13
                0
                Quote: Spade
                the battalion has one mortar battery. In perspective, all self-propelled

                A mortar gun, must fire and direct fire.
                You can use a towed, 120-mm rifled mortar ,, Nona-K ,,.
                For immediate infantry support.
                TTX 2B16 ,, Nona-K ,,.
                Calculation - 5 people.
                Weight - 1,2 tons
                Length - 4,5 m
                Width - 1,7m
                Height - 1,3
                Gun - 120-mm rifled gun-howitzer-mortar 2B16
                Barrel Length - 24,2 caliber
                Rate of Fire - 8 - 10 rds / min
                Elevation angle - from -10 ° to + 80 °
                Horizontal guidance angle - from -30 ° to + 30 °
                The initial velocity of the projectile is 109 - 367 m / s.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 June 2013 23: 37
                  0
                  Quote: bask
                  A mortar gun, must fire and direct fire.

                  What for? Half-line shooting is most often more effective.
  14. Roll
    Roll 5 June 2013 11: 24
    +3
    angry Unfortunately, we have the most important problem, we cannot develop normal tactics for certain types of equipment and we have bad governance. Here are historical examples, if you compare a modern light armored car and a German motorcycle with a sidecar, then the German motorcycle loses in armor protection, maneuverability, an ordinary machine gun, the crew is 3 people, and how much blood they spoiled at 41, how many prisoners they took, how much panic they caused. And all because of competent tactics, and they were dear to us, and if they were replaced by light armored cars like the crab or the Chinese Tiger how much blood will they drink from us? Or a German Yu-87 thing, our designers were hobbled at 40 to buy this plane from the chances, the audience was out of date, And Hans added a siren to the bomb, a whistle on the bomb, the best front-line bomber of the beginning of the war turned out to be protected by the Luftwaffe aces. We don’t learn anything, unfortunately.
  15. Letnab
    Letnab 5 June 2013 11: 36
    +9
    I read the book, Notes by a Chechen general, Troshev wrote, there is a mention of wheeled vehicles in the rainy season, the debauchery in Chechnya .. and General Troshev indicated that all wheeled vehicles had stood up! In our country, all the same, equipment is required that can not lose driving performance in winter, spring, autumn and rain. A wheeled vehicle can only play a supporting role, somewhere to supplement.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 43
      +1
      This is yes. The wheels did not really show themselves there. There was a case, they overloaded boxes with ammunition on the "Desert Ships" PTS by the road, and they were taken to the firing ones.
    2. Roll
      Roll 5 June 2013 11: 45
      -2
      wassat And General Troshev didn’t guess to help the wheeled vehicles a bit caterpillar. For example, one tank and a dozen armored cars, even if they move to a place of fighting in a mud, a tank on a cable all armored cars or armored personnel carriers through dangerous sections to a light drag. And why to step into a mud? to please the authorities, or that the thaw like winter in Russia comes suddenly? And then, that the upcoming equipment loses all fighting qualities?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 5 June 2013 11: 56
        +3
        Quote: Rolm
        And General Troshev didn’t guess to help the wheeled vehicles a bit caterpillar. For example, one tank and a dozen armored cars, even if they are moving to the place of hostilities into a mud, a tank on a cable will drag all armored cars or armored personnel carriers through dangerous sections into a light one.

        There are "dangerous areas" tens of kilometers in size. But Troshev guessed. For example, battalion 503 of the MRP was completely transferred from the BTR-80 to the attached MT-LB from Mozdok. They also did the same with mortar batteries on the GAZ-66. All cash PTS 58 A were driven into the area of ​​hostilities.
        1. Roll
          Roll 5 June 2013 12: 19
          +1
          fellow Well, I did it cleverly, the wheeled vehicles fought to the rear in good weather, and the caterpillar was pulled slowly to the front to the roadway, when the caterpillar ended the tracked track to the rear for maintenance, and the wheeled vehicle to the front, everything was crazy, if you always do this.
        2. Timeout
          Timeout 5 June 2013 17: 18
          +1
          For example, a battalion of 503 SMEs was completely transplanted from BTR-80 to dowels MT-LB from Mozdok.


          I heard similar information, only in a slightly different context from Lizarov.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 5 June 2013 17: 56
            +1
            In the context of the fact that the BTR-80 were also unreliable, and almost all stood up? It was the same.
            1. Timeout
              Timeout 5 June 2013 18: 42
              0
              Simply, this is a statement of fact. Equipment from 1996 to KTO stupidly not serviced. Documents on this topic are simply unmeasured ...
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 5 June 2013 18: 50
                +2
                Quote: Timeout
                Equipment from 1996 to KTO stupidly not serviced.

                Her earlier stupidly stopped serving normally. In addition, even kapitalka doesn’t save much, because parts and assemblies are also stupidly unreliable. And the quality of work is frankly disregarding. Our Zampotech almost cried when the self-propelled guns were taken away to the capital workers.

                So the only option is new platforms. With relevant modern realities characteristics. Probable friends since the collapse of the USSR, everything has changed very much in the military sphere. And we stayed where we were.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 5 June 2013 22: 05
        0
        "And General Troshev did not think to help the wheeled vehicles to give a little goose. For example, one tank and a dozen armored cars, even if in muddy roads they move to the place of hostilities, a tank on a cable will drag all armored cars or armored personnel carriers through dangerous areas into an easy one. And why step into muddy roads. "to please the bosses, or that the thaw like winter in Russia comes suddenly? And then, that the equipment that has stood up loses all its fighting qualities?" - and how do you imagine towing a BM in the face of active enemy opposition?

        The rising BM is a FIXED fixed firing point - a fixed clipping target.
  16. ed1968
    ed1968 5 June 2013 12: 04
    0
    our equipment is not bad, the main thing is to conduct a competent modernization, strengthen the armor, put a high-precision sight and it adequately pushes the best Western models in a row. Perfect equipment, like small arms, isn’t all kind of defective
  17. Strashila
    Strashila 5 June 2013 13: 16
    +5
    An interesting discussion ... a wheel or a caterpillar, we can take a look at the experience of Cuba ... they made sweets from our technology for every taste. We have hundreds of armored personnel carriers and tanks in our warehouses for cutting, if we put it into mind, the army will get what it needs , and the budget saves money ... only the Chinese will suffer ... they won’t get our metal for a penny.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 5 June 2013 22: 09
      0
      It was not from a good life that they began the modernization of obsolete BM in all respects. And we cannot even conclude a state contract for the modernization of infantry fighting vehicles. And then everything that is practically not ready for battle in warehouses - this equipment has been mothballed for several years, or even decades. But even preservation requires maintenance - now, and since the collapse of the USSR, this is for the most part not.
  18. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 5 June 2013 13: 27
    +5
    Wheels ... Caterpillars ... Reminds a comparison that is cooler than legs or tails. That is, it is transfusion from empty to empty. It is necessary to change the combat control system. And now, like 70 years ago, in order for a platoon to receive support from an artillery battalion given to a battalion, you need to contact the company, the company will contact the battalion commander, the battalion commander will contact the artillery battery commander, and only after that support will be provided. And in this situation, believe me, the wheeled or caterpillar track of an armored personnel carrier of a platoon is a secondary issue. Look, for example, on Syria, where this control method is used - how many losses could have been avoided thanks to a timely strike with at least a mortar platoon at the positions of the bandits. But no ... soldiers continue to die, tanks and light armored vehicles burn.
    But our leadership sees all this and continues to indulge in the reorganization of divisions into brigades and brigades in divisions. That's just it does not solve the problem.
    Z. S. Sorry if I slipped into offtopic, it just got sick.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 13: 48
      +2
      Quote: Rakti-Kali
      And now, like 70 years ago, in order for a platoon to receive support from an artillery battalion given to a battalion, you need to contact the company, the company will contact the battalion commander, the battalion commander will contact the artillery battery commander, and only after that support will be provided.

      The battalion is given a division, not a battery.
      And the division commander is next to the battalion commander. The commander of the standard mortar battery of the division sits on the same KNP.
      The commanders of the batteries of the attached division are sitting on the company KNP next to the company.

      Accordingly, to call the fire, it is enough for the platoon to contact the company. And this is really happening for a long time, about 70 years, if not more.
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 8 June 2013 13: 41
        0
        Quote: Spade
        The battalion is given a division, not a battery.

        You live richly. Okay, they gave the artillery division to the battalion, and what about the rest of the battalions, what is the paw sucked on?
        Quote: Spade
        And the division commander is next to the battalion commander.

        The commander of the SME / SMBr is located at the regiment / brigade command post or at the division control point. Only the head of artillery can be on the CP regiment / brigade stopudovo.
        Quote: Spade
        The commanders of the batteries of the attached division are sitting on the company KNP next to the company.

        Combines work on batteries. The company employs observer-spotters from the artillery reconnaissance unit or from the platoon department of the division’s control.
        If a battery (well, or an artillery group of two batteries) is given to the battalion, it is the battalion commander who decides to open fire. Even if there is an art observer in the platoon, the decision-making chain for opening fire does not change - Up comes the platoon - company - battalion commander (deciding to open fire of artillery attached), down goes the battalion commander - battalion commander (group commander) (allocation of a fire detachment) - platoon of the senior battery officer’s control (calculations) - and only after that there is an order for the firing platoon commanders to open fire.
        Quote: Spade
        Accordingly, to call the fire, it is enough for the platoon to contact the company

        And a little patience until the work goes through the whole chain.
        Quote: Spade
        The commander of the standard mortar battery of the division sits on the same KNP.

        Did you mean "battalion"? And why is he sitting there? He has nothing to do on the battery, given the fact that there is no platoon for the control of the senior battery officer in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs?
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 5 June 2013 22: 11
      +2
      "And our leadership sees all this and continues to indulge in the reorganization of divisions into brigades and brigades in a division. But this does not solve the problem." - I agree - they turned the army into figs understand that - they liquidated the regiments and divisions, switched to "nibbled divisions" - brigades, but the charter, instructions, doctrines and instructions were not developed.
  19. Drandulet
    Drandulet 5 June 2013 13: 48
    0
    And after all, the German - Dutch Boxer GTK was tested during our tests, only such noise around it, unlike Italian cars, was not. How did it all end there?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 13: 50
      +1
      Nothing. Shoigu, when appointed to the post, decided to support the "domestic manufacturer" (c) - he does not want to repeat the fate of Serdyukov.
      1. Timeout
        Timeout 5 June 2013 17: 41
        +1
        Shoigu deep on the drum, whom to support. He is currently one of the unsinkable ministers. Western technology is certainly good, only who will sell them to us completely! And he perfectly understands it. Many people idealize foreign technology in themes, they say it has passed the test of fire. Only many do not think why the creators themselves adopted this technique in limited quantities. There are so many jambs in operation that the military, I repeat the military again! clutching his head. Again, I agree to drive the same 300 km on the BTR-80 than on the much-praised Striker. You know Russian Hodovka better than American. In short, all differences are best seen in nuances.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 June 2013 17: 59
          +1
          Quote: Timeout
          Again, I agree to drive the same 300 km on the BTR-80 than on the much-praised Striker.

          Firstly, the "striker" is by no means the best, rather the opposite. And secondly, I'm not sure that you will drive three hundred on the BTR-80.
          1. Timeout
            Timeout 5 June 2013 18: 27
            +5
            Without knowing your name, it’s difficult to communicate ... As far as I understand, we have an age difference of about 8 years. You are a professional gunner, and I am a former front-line intelligence officer. At one time I had to drive on the BTR-70 and 80 more than one thousand kilometers. Honestly, your mini-race in Chechnya is just a solid command and staff mistakes. If desired (good desire of the authorities), everything was decided without the victims that were. A little off topic, can you imagine I had to ride on Stryker and on Bradley, with all the high-tech stuffing, these are traveling cans. Believe me, there was nothing to compare. On the real battlefield, it can not be compared with Soviet-Russian technology in any case, either by performance characteristics, not by manufacturability, and maintainability in the field. As far as I understand in your personal experience matalyga, this is the best that was invented in the USSR, only in vain, each equipment in the ranks of the Soviet army still had its own niche. You simply rely on the experience of using equipment in the North Caucasus, only these conditions can not be considered.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 June 2013 18: 35
              0
              You talked with Lizarov, he was like the first battalion commander. Ask him what modern BTR-80s are in terms of reliability. How many of them fell in the fall of 99. And there it was not about thousands of kilometers.
              1. Timeout
                Timeout 5 June 2013 18: 50
                0
                Why should I ask? He was your battalion commander. You yourself know how then Zampotech flew in. And where all the spare parts went, you probably also know. And how did Kanchukov then communicate with everyone, from the Letech to the colonels associated with vehicles? Three were imprisoned or five? The problem was not the technique, but the usual maintenance.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 June 2013 19: 17
                  0
                  Not mine. About landings are not in the know. On the other hand, they didn’t plant anyone, and the armored personnel carrier of the reconnaissance squad too. Although everything was well with the service.

                  And this problem is precisely the technique. For example, the same BMP-2. Yes, it burned out a bit due to bad service. Yes, almost all cars gradually ceased to wind up with air and battery. But still they traveled. Although the doors in the stern were either torn open or made incapable of being used as tanks due to the fact that almost everything had been torn from the kick in the rear of the car.

                  And I’m not talking about moto leagues, there reliability was above praise. Although some Mozdok cars were so old that the mechanics at the bus stops went hammering the fingers of the goose dogs with a sledgehammer in place.
                  1. Timeout
                    Timeout 5 June 2013 19: 46
                    0
                    Finger clogging was with me! And the doors from the BMP were allowed on the armored shutters, too. As for the armored personnel carrier, regardless of the model, I had to see how the mechanics with synchronizers on 60s are suffering. How to break gears at 70 and 80. But the equipment was started at any time of the year or day in any way. As far as I understand you, there is simply no access to much information. I had to watch it all from urgency to the Higher School of Higher Education, and that’s almost ten years, of which 3 years are across the river! I have seen a lot, but what I saw already in civilian life, as an ordinary outside observer, gave much more information. I managed to touch and touch almost all the equipment that NATO is armed with, and frankly, I am not happy ... Our iron is applicable only in Russian conditions, but 100%. Everything else is exported adapted. And no one complains! Even the Saudis ...
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 5 June 2013 19: 52
                      +4
                      So you have to do your own thing again, that's all. New. Meeting modern requirements. And not to beat the BTR-80 from the inside with Kevlar, shout about "breakthrough technologies" and sell your own army at exorbitant prices.
                      1. Timeout
                        Timeout 5 June 2013 20: 02
                        +3
                        Now I completely agree with you! We need a new concept, but taking into account all past achievements. And without the participation of any kind of intermediaries. Previously, Oboronservis was winding up for delivery, now someone else will turn up. I just heard in 2010 that the cost of the same BMP-3 was less than 12 million, and the radio station was the most expensive in the kit! Well, now it’s not even worth talking about prices. In Russia, there are a lot of developments for domestic aircraft, just a lot of familiar forces do not miss everyone. And this is the whole paradox, and they believe that the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation does not develop technically ..
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 5 June 2013 20: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: Timeout
                        In Russia, there are a lot of developments for domestic aircraft, just a lot of things just do not pass everyone familiar forces. And this is the whole paradox, and they believe that the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation does not develop technically ..

                        No "familiar forces" and no paradoxes. Market laws. They already buy from them, and it is expensive. Why scratch, develop new? Serdyukov was somewhere right: to buy only fundamentally new, and while it is not there, to modernize what is already in the troops.
                        Not to buy a "new assault rifle with a plastic stock", but to buy the stock itself, and put it in its regular place in the troops. And let them think about a really new machine.
                    2. bask
                      bask 5 June 2013 21: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      TR-80 from the inside with Kevlar, yelling about "breakthrough technologies" and selling your own army at exorbitant prices.

                      As one of the options, being in the conflict zone, deduced for the state, motorized rifle divisions of the BTR MRAP.
                      For the transportation of personnel and goods, in the territory where it is known that terrorists are using IEDs.
                      RG 31, one of the best medium-sized MCIs in the world, STANAG 4a undermining under the bottom of 8 kg in t / e.
                      But in our troops there is no such armored vehicles, and I think it will not be in the near future.
                      So far, this is the regime in power. Dreams, only dreams.
                      MAP KAMAZ and Ural, typhoons, will not be massive because of their overly expensive prices in excess of 1 ml $$$.
                      The optimum price for such anti-mine armored vehicles is 250,00 300,00 thousand $$$, not more expensive.
                    3. bask
                      bask 5 June 2013 21: 48
                      0
                      RG31 STANG 4a.
                    4. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 5 June 2013 23: 52
                      0
                      Confuse too. MRAP is one thing. Patrol car. A technique that should be freelance. Off-road travels poorly, but it is not required from her.

                      But for the transport of goods, personnel, for special vehicles from the radar to the field kitchen, they are standard with reservations. Some only a cabin, some completely. Protection from mines is desirable, but optional - in front of the rear columns, sappers are required to clean the road, it’s cheaper to equip them with normal means of detecting VU
  • Drandulet
    Drandulet 5 June 2013 13: 48
    +1
    And after all, the German - Dutch Boxer GTK was tested during our tests, only such noise around it, unlike Italian cars, was not. How did it all end there?
  • Roll
    Roll 5 June 2013 18: 11
    +1
    Quote: mark1
    And then why would he need 8 wheels and a speed of 100 km / h? Likely to do dashes from trench to trench!
    There are different tasks in the war, and a quick movement from the trench to the trench does not harm the tank. If you have a weak reservation, look for shelter, but the gun is almost tank in the offensive, just right. Look at the experience of the Germans in World War II, their light tanks stopped 2 meters before our trenches and they crushed our firing points very effectively with fire. Mostly, our soldiers from the trenches crawled with a bunch of grenades about a hundred meters across the field to fill up the tank, and the Germans did not crawl, because our T-200s burst into the trenches where the Germans knocked them out. Each technique requires competent use.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 18: 29
    +1
    but this is not armored personnel carrier
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 09: 08
      +2
      Well, he has a bunch of flaws.
      Well, for example, after dodora on a mine, he will stand up, unlike the same 80s that are losing the wheel, and the most meager that the charge for these two cases must be the same. After this miracle a couple of RPG-18s get up, they will set the engine on fire and the fighters will have to dismount through the burning MTO (on its roof), so we actually approached the second minus. Namely, to the escape routes from the car. It will be necessary to dismount through the roof, and this is not a gut, even if the exit is partially covered by armor of pleasure because it is not partially covered, the exit is not covered (it’s like with a floor with an empty glass that is half full).
      The machine gun is not covered and depriving the machine of weapons will be quite tempting.
      Well, the cost of operation is incomparably higher than that of wheeled counterparts, and about the cost of the car, too, the song of sorrow is full.
      We add to everything low mobility and season with the need for bridges of strategic importance, and all the advantages are fading into the background.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 5 June 2013 19: 09
    +2
    In our country, a bunch of tanks need to hold a tender who will make the best of an armored personnel carrier tank, well done.
    there is simply no desire for anyone to do this. And the money will be allocated for this event and they will be stolen
    do not read, I wrote nonsense fool
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 June 2013 09: 10
      +1
      Set the ramp as the main condition, wide, so that you can drag the stretcher in, jump in two, or something else.
  • Andrew
    Andrew 5 June 2013 19: 41
    +3
    And why there is not a word about the BTR-90. They wrote that the protection is better than 82 and 80, the armor-piercing shot 7,62 withstands, and if you install new ceramic armor (the weight of 1,5 tons will not affect much, especially since our armored personnel carriers are the most powerful engines among analogues) the V-shaped bottom uniforms and weapons with a Bahcha module looks serious. Only the entrance to do with the stern.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 June 2013 19: 54
      +4
      It seems that it’s just that the development team can no longer be assembled to bring the car to mind.
      1. bask
        bask 5 June 2013 22: 48
        0
        Quote: Spade
        It seems that it’s just that the development team can no longer be assembled to bring the car to mind.

        That's right.
        BTR GPV
        As an example, in the development of a classic BTR. Modularity in design should be laid, with an average MTO arrangement.
        Wheelbases from 4 / 4,6 / 6 .8 / 8 10/10 depending on the tasks and installed weapons. The 8/8 variant has a combat weight of 24.5 tons, a length of 8.11 m. It can carry 16 fully equipped soldiers. The V-shaped body of the APC has STANAG 3 mine protection.


        THIS IS THE BTR OF THE 21ST CENTURY! WE WOULD BE SUCH.
        1. screw cutter
          screw cutter 6 June 2013 17: 02
          0
          SUV, sit on a pile of garbage. Clean police option.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 6 June 2013 17: 16
            0
            Well, most likely there is a system for changing the clearance there.
  • saved
    saved 5 June 2013 21: 27
    +1
    2S23 "Nona-SVK" - Russian 120-mm self-propelled artillery mount (ACS). 2C23 was created on the chassis of a wheeled armored personnel carrier BTR-80. Designed by the chief designer - Yu. N. Kalachnikov, it is produced in Perm at the Motovilikhinsky plant. Adopted in 1992. It was in service with the presidential regiment., Several mobile brigades including the marine corps ,,, And what's new? Pure to try Centauro how can you drive it? Is it advisable to make wheel tanks? Yes, why not, because the same NONA sends a projectile for 8-12 km. She generally can stay out of reach of a direct hit. The main thing is not to use a mobile phone for chopping nuts.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 5 June 2013 23: 23
    +1
    For wheeled armored vehicles, an important component is the propulsion reliability. on a less dry surface, the loss of one of two wheels still allows the machine to move. but if in the mud? a lot of armor has not yet been mounted on any wheeled vehicle. could it be better to pay attention to articulated machines?
    in armament, I think it’s not bad for wheeled vehicles to have semi-automatic guns with an uninhabited tower from 50-90 mm. these vehicles are of little use for fighting tanks. but to fight against their own kind and the destruction of infantry and little protected goals is enough. in solving many problems there are tanks. and for a quick response to an emerging hazard, the response and density of the fire is important. current technology allows you to make uninhabited towers.
  • screw cutter
    screw cutter 6 June 2013 17: 41
    0
    Beautiful. 1979 of release.
  • screw cutter
    screw cutter 6 June 2013 17: 43
    0
    The view from the rear, the gun on the rails was removed.
    1. max702
      max702 18 June 2013 00: 33
      0
      Ha, when he watched a movie in childhood, even then he could not understand what misery was, and at that age there was full confidence that the BMP-2 would have done better there.