Military Review

Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T

102
Not long ago, the general public for the first time saw photos of a promising infantry fighting vehicle based on the Armata universal platform. The official "premier" of this technology should only be held on 9 May, so for now the public and specialists can only speculate and try to find out all the possible details using only the scarce materials available. In anticipation of the first official show of new combat vehicles, you can recall the previous attempts to create such projects.


As part of the Armata project, several types of equipment are being developed, including a heavy class infantry fighting vehicle. The prerequisites for the emergence of such techniques are simple. In the armed conflicts of the last decades, which were characterized by numerous clashes in the cities, the existing armored vehicles did not prove to be the best. The available reservation was not sufficient to protect against grenade launchers or large-caliber small weapons. Thus, promising armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles should have reservations with a higher level of protection. Strengthening the reservation also leads to an increase in the weight of the structure, as a result of which an armored personnel carrier or heavy infantry fighting vehicle can have a combat mass at the level of tanks.

A heavy BTR-T armored personnel carrier during a demonstration at the exhibition VTTV-2003, Omsk, June 2003


Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T on the track of the landfill. Omsk, June 2003


BTR-T enters the conveyor to be sent to the landfill. Omsk, July 1999


There are several foreign projects (primarily Israeli), in which it was proposed to build heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on the basis of existing tanks. Thus, the Israeli industry built new equipment based on captured T-55 tanks, as well as its own Centurion and Merkava. Armored carriers "Ahzarit", "Timer", etc. well proved in operation, and also became an example for foreign designers of armored machinery.

In the nineties, employees of the Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Omsk), seeing some success in Israel, began to develop a new heavy armored personnel carrier on a tank chassis. The BTR-T project, created under the leadership of D. Ageev, meant the re-equipment of the medium T-55 tank using a number of special equipment. After such alterations, the tank was to become a highly protected vehicle for the transportation of fighters and their fire support in battle. The draft BTR-T provided for measures aimed both at changing the destination of the base vehicle and at increasing the level of protection and certain other characteristics.

For obvious reasons, during the construction of the BTR-T armored personnel carrier, the armored hull of the base tank had to undergo the greatest changes. To accommodate the landing and new weapons had to develop a special superstructure, designed to be installed instead of the native roof of the T-55 tank. The superstructure had an interesting design, intended to increase the level of protection during attacks from the side. Thus, the sides of the superstructure were made double, with a large separation of sheets horizontally. In fact, the inner sheets were a continuation of the hull sides of the tank, and the outer ones were located at the side of the side screens. Between the inner and outer side plates there was a volume to accommodate various equipment and property. As a result, instead of the “classic” shelves above the tracks, there were relatively large boxes located along the entire hull, from the frontal part of the hull to the stern.

Additional booking was provided not only on the sides of the car. New protection modules appeared on the front hull sheet, a new roof and anti-mine protection was used. The latter was an additional armor plate mounted at some distance from the bottom of the hull. Exact information about the level of mine protection is not available, but it is known that the modifications of frontal armor, including the installation of the dynamic system “Contact-5”, made it possible to bring its equivalent level to 600 mm. Thus, the BTR-T could conduct military operations in the same order with modern tanks of various types.

The layout of the hull after the conversion of the base tank should have remained the same, although with a number of serious reservations. All habitable volumes, inside which the crew of the vehicle and the landing force were located, were located in the front and middle parts of the hull. In the stern, the engine compartment was still located. This arrangement had both advantages and disadvantages. Its main advantage was the comparative simplicity of converting tanks into heavy infantry fighting vehicles. The main disadvantage was the inconvenience of the landing due to the impossibility of arranging a full-fledged stern hatch.

The heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T was supposed to keep the power plant of the tank, on the basis of which it was built. Thus, it was planned to use diesel engines B-55 of various modifications with power up to 600-620 hp on the advanced technology. Transmission also had to remain the same, without any changes. It included the main multi-disk clutch, five-speed gearbox, final drives and planetary turning mechanisms. The general characteristics of the mobility of a heavy armored personnel carrier should have remained at the level of the corresponding parameters of the base medium tank.

After all the modifications, the combat weight of the vehicle was to increase to 38,5 T. The dimensions of the BTR-T corresponded to the size of the T-55 (excluding the gun). The length of the hull was 6,45 m, width - 3,27 m, height - about 2,4 m. A slight increase in combat weight in combination with the use of the old engine made it possible to maintain mobility at the level of the base T-55. The maximum speed of the armored personnel carrier BTR-T reached 50 km / h, power reserve - 500 km. The car could drive up to 32 °, climb a wall 0,8 m high, move a ditch 2,7 m wide and cross the ford to 1,4 m. It was possible to cross water obstacles along the bottom, at a depth of no more than 5 m.

To provide fire support for the assault force, the BTR-T armored personnel carrier had to be equipped with an original combat module. On the roof of the hull it was planned to install a low-profile tower with the necessary armament. For a more efficient use of the internal volumes of the hull, the shoulder strap of the turret was shifted to the port side. In the podbashchenny space there was a workplace of the gunner, which rotated with the tower. As planned by the authors of the project, the BTR-T could be equipped with weapons of various types. He could carry machine guns of various types and calibers, small-caliber automatic guns and guided missiles.

At various exhibitions several prototypes of a promising heavy armored personnel carrier with various weapons were repeatedly demonstrated. It is known about the existence of a combat module with a remotely controlled NSV machine gun, as well as turrets with an automatic 2A42 cannon of 30 mm caliber, a machine gun and the Cornet missile system with a mount for one rocket container. Promotional materials featured other configurations of the combat module using similar weapons. The armored personnel carrier could be equipped with modules with a machine gun and rockets, a gun and two missiles or two 30-mm guns. Also, PKT machine gun and automatic grenade launchers were offered as weapons for the BTR-T. Probably, the development and construction of one or another variant of the combat module should have continued after receiving the appropriate order.

Regardless of the combat module used, the BTR-T armored personnel carriers had to be equipped with smoke grenade launchers. On the stern of the enlarged track shelves, four groups of three 902B “Cloud” launchers were envisaged. They were supposed to be used for camouflage in battle, in order to further increase survivability.

Inhabited volumes of the base tank T-55 did not differ in large size, which, among other things, affected the capacity of the BTR-T. Due to the hull superstructure, it was possible to increase the available volumes by providing accommodation for the crew and landing force. Own crew of a heavy armored personnel carrier was to consist of two people: the driver and commander-gunner. The first was located "in the old place", the second - in the tower. In the habitable volume managed to place only five places to accommodate paratroopers. One positioned between the commander-gunner and the starboard hull. Four more places were placed in the stern of the habitable volume, at the sides.

For embarkation and disembarkation, the crew and the landing forces were to use a set of hatches in the hull superstructure. The driver and the commander had their own hatches, located behind the frontal sheet and on the tower, respectively. For the landing, two hatches were provided, located in the rear sheet of the superstructure, between the rear parts of the fenced shelves, as on the domestic airborne combat vehicles of the first models. When disembarking, paratroopers had to lift the manhole covers and secure them in a vertical position for use as additional protection. After exiting the hatch, the paratroopers had to walk along the roof of the engine compartment and descend to the ground through the stern or side of the car.

The habitable volume was equipped with air conditioning and protection against weapons of mass destruction. For observation of the environment, the crew and troops could use a set of periscopic instruments. The characteristic design of the sides did not allow to equip the BTR-T with an embrasure set for firing personal weapons. Nevertheless, this opportunity became the price for a significant increase in the security of the crew and paratroopers.

BTR-T on the track of the landfill during the show at the exhibition of ERW-2003. Omsk, June 2003


Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T at the exhibition platform of the exhibition VTTV-2003. Omsk, June 2003


View of the tower with the armament of a heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T from the left side. Omsk, June 2003


The BTR-T armored personnel carrier has enhanced protection not only in the front, but also along the sides. Omsk, June 2003


On the BTR-T additional fuel tanks DPM, in contrast to the base tank T-55, hidden under armor. Omsk, June 2003


The lower part of the body of the BTR-T, in addition to rubber-fabric screens, has additional protection in the form of steel plates for the entire length of the transport-combat compartment. Omsk, June 2003


The first demonstration of the prototype heavy BTR-T armored personnel carrier took place in 1997 year. The shown armored vehicle was built by Omsk specialists on the basis of the T-55 serial tank. In the future, prototypes of the new armored personnel carrier were regularly demonstrated at various exhibitions in order to attract potential customers.

In the promotional materials mentioned a whole set of advantages of the proposed armored personnel carrier. It was argued that the proposed project allows the armed forces to be equipped with modern highly protected equipment for the transportation of fighters and their fire support. Given the proliferation of T-55 tanks, it was possible to assume that the BTR-T project would be of interest to a large number of countries. Through the use of a tank chassis, it was possible to ensure a sufficiently high level of protection and mobility at the level of medium and main tanks of common types. Customers were offered a choice of several combat modules with different weapons, which should have attracted additional attention to the new design.


The drawings of the heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-55 tank were completed by V. Malginov. 1 scale: 35


The production of the BTR-T vehicles from the existing T-55 tanks could be deployed at any production facilities with the necessary equipment. Thus, equipment for the Russian armed forces could be built in Omsk, and the needs of foreign customers could be met by cooperation. In this case, KBTM could supply ready-made sets of equipment necessary for re-equipping the tank, and the customer's industry had to re-do the armored vehicles using the supplied components.

Nevertheless, the BTR-T armored personnel carrier was not without flaws. First of all, the outdated platform can be considered a minus. The medium tank T-55 has long failed to meet modern requirements for such equipment and therefore cannot be effectively used for its intended purpose. However, with certain reservations, the T-55 can be a good platform for other classes of technology. It is possible to estimate the similar potential of this tank only taking into account the conditions of the intended use of equipment on its base. The materials on the new project mentioned the possibility of creating a similar combat vehicle built on the basis of the chassis of other domestic tanks.

A noticeable disadvantage that the armored personnel carrier has transferred from the base tank is the relatively small amount of manned compartment, due to which the BTR-T vehicle is capable of carrying only five paratroopers. In addition, the layout of the corps could have a negative effect on the performance of combat missions. Because of the engine compartment in the stern it was necessary to make landing hatches in the middle part of the hull. Because of this, the paratroopers had to dismount through the roof of the hull, risking injury or being killed.

The start customer for the BTR-T heavy armored personnel carrier could be the Russian Ministry of Defense. At the ground forces storage bases there was a sufficiently large number of unused T-54 and T-55 tanks, which could be used as the basis for advanced armored personnel carriers. However, in the late nineties and the beginning of the two thousandth our country did not have the financial ability to order a sufficient amount of such equipment.

Tower BTR-T. right view. In front of the commander's hatch is the mounting bracket for the ATGM unit. Omsk, June 2003


The left front part of the BTR-T hull, visible hatch and viewing instruments of the driver. Omsk, June 2003


The front sheet of the BTR-T hull is equipped with dynamic protection units of the T-80U type tank. Omsk, June 2003


View of the tower BTR-T in front. To the left of the remotely controlled machine-gun, the 1PN22M is visible. Omsk, June 2003


On the starboard hull of the BTR-T on the starboard side there are access hatches to the internal equipment of the vehicle. Omsk, June 2003


BTR-T rear view. The hull's stern leaf remained unchanged, the same as on the T-55 base tank. Omsk, June 2003


Potential customers from foreign countries also showed no interest in the new Omsk development. The BTR-T armored personnel carrier had both advantages and disadvantages. Probably, the disadvantages of the car outweighed, with the result that it could not become the subject of contracts with third countries. Even the widespread use of T-55 tanks in service in many countries did not contribute to the receipt of orders.

During a long time news About the project BTR-T did not arrive. There were grounds to consider it stopped due to the lack of prospects. However, in the fall of 2011, interesting information about the construction of armored personnel carriers based on medium tanks appeared. It was reported that the armed forces of Bangladesh completed the re-equipping of 30 T54A battle tanks in the version of the heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T. The details of this alteration and the peculiarities of the participation of Russian enterprises (if such were) remained unknown.

The project to create a heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T was not crowned with success. The Russian army was not able to acquire such equipment due to the difficult economic situation, and in addition, it had claims to some features of the structure, like the absence of embrasures and the landing of troops through the hatches in the rear hull superstructure. Foreign countries also did not order ready BTR-Ts or purchase sets of equipment for retrofitting existing tanks. Probably, the reasons for the refusal to buy were the same as in the case of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Nevertheless, the BTR-T project, despite its unsuccessful completion, made it possible to collect a lot of useful information about the creation of heavy-class armored personnel carriers. It is possible that the developments on the unsuccessful BTR-T project a few years later were used in new projects, and also made it possible to shape the appearance of promising technology of a similar purpose, including heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on the Armata platform.

Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T







On the materials of the sites:
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://id-bedretdinov.ru/
http://topgun.rin.ru/
Author:
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. -Dmitry-
    -Dmitry- April 2 2015 06: 33 New
    +7
    As far as I know, the weaponry is a much better option, on the basis of the T-72 - BMO-T, a flamethrower fighting vehicle. What did this BTR-T give up so much?
    Here on the site, on the right, even a BMO-T photo flashes under the heading of a heavy BMP based on Almaty ...
    1. Hairy Siberian
      Hairy Siberian April 2 2015 07: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: -Dmitry-
      Here on the site, on the right, even a BMO-T photo flashes under the heading of a heavy BMP based on Almaty ...

      Also recently mistakenly looked at this photo. I thought that it was the so-called “mule” for running around the “Almaty” platform. As a result, I picked up cons.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev April 2 2015 11: 46 New
        -15
        And I repeat once again: why make a fuss of this whole zoo from BTR, BMP, BMO and MBT? I have already proposed the great idea of ​​a single tank - a full-fledged MBT with aft landing compartment for the standard compartment. Embrasures, suspended chairs and a huge aft hatch with a door as a ramp as a standard entrance. It turns out very simply, cheaply and most importantly - the protection of fighters is radically increased. After all, the current armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are just tins that even KORD freely and beautifully breaks through.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 2 2015 12: 39 New
          +9
          Quote: Basarev
          full MBT with aft landing compartment on the standard compartment.

          ?

          Let's estimate: for a T-90, the weight of one cubic meter of armored volume is 1,78 tons. We will accept the "standard department" equal to 8 people. 1.78x8x1.5 = 21 tons.
        2. Massik
          Massik April 2 2015 15: 06 New
          +4
          full MBT with aft landing compartment on the standard compartment. Embrasures, suspended chairs and a huge aft hatch with a door as a ramp as a standard entrance.
          Even in trifles, this is not acceptable. How do you imagine embrasures in a 10 cm piece of metal with equivalent armored curtains? Where to transfer them and at what height will the tower rise for 360 degrees?
        3. SIvan
          SIvan April 2 2015 15: 36 New
          +8
          Quote: Basarev
          And I repeat once again: why make a fuss of this whole zoo from BTR, BMP, BMO and MBT? I have already proposed the great idea of ​​a single tank - a full-fledged MBT with aft landing compartment for the standard compartment. Embrasures, suspended chairs and a huge aft hatch with a door as a ramp as a standard entrance. It turns out very simply, cheaply and most importantly - the protection of fighters is radically increased. After all, the current armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are just tins that even KORD freely and beautifully breaks through.

          Such a thing will weigh 70-80 tons, or even more. It is not suitable for our roads and climate.

          Now, it seems to me, they are doing reasonably. There are three single platforms.
          1) Heavy tracked (Armata): tank, heavy infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled guns, etc.
          2) Medium tracked (Kurganets-25): BMP.
          Note that Kurganets has very good side screens (http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-11675.htm). This is no longer tin, CORD will not break.
          3) Wheeled (Boomerang): BTR, wheeled BMP, wheeled BMTV (car with a tank gun)

          What's the problem?
        4. 79057330785
          79057330785 April 2 2015 16: 52 New
          +4
          In Israel there is a Merkava with similar capabilities, but they have not given up heavy APCs. If you create such a machine, it will turn out to be heavy and very expensive. Have to sacrifice something.
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket April 2 2015 17: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: 79057330785
            In Israel there is a Merkava with similar capabilities, but they have not given up heavy APCs.

            Yes, because in Merkava you can only transport 3-4 people in uncomfortable poses (squatting), and even then for short distances.
            At the same time, you also have to “sacrifice” part of the tank’s ammunition.
        5. cosmos111
          cosmos111 April 2 2015 17: 52 New
          +5
          Quote: Basarev
          the idea of ​​a single tank is a full-fledged MBT with a stern landing compartment for a standard compartment

          the idea is not new ... ukro-py already embodied this device, in metal ... probably already rusting somewhere in the Donbas ...

          BMT (BTMP-84,3 + 5 landing), on the chassis of MBT-72, development of 2001 of the year

        6. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 2 2015 22: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: Basarev
          full MBT with aft landing compartment for standard squad

          Too complicated technically and too large.
          Quote: Basarev
          current armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are just tins

          So they want to make a more secure option.
        7. Alekseev
          Alekseev April 4 2015 08: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Basarev
          and a huge aft hatch with a door

          And if, especially in a battle in the city, etc., they will shoot from behind? lol
          It has been said more than once, including here, that there will be no “radical" rescue of fighters if they decide to hide from fire in a heavy vehicle. It is not possible to create such miraculous judo tanks, only in a humorous program with a crew of Heroes of Major, Zhrankel and Drankel, such and that is possible only against the Zulus.
          That reduce the likelihood of defeat in certain conditions - can.
          Only in certain. It is easy to imagine how to decrease with a minus sign, the probability of defeat when using such "armored hippos" when crossing rivers, actions on wooded and swampy areas, etc.
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 4 2015 08: 14 New
      0
      Quote: -Dmitry-
      in service is a much better option, on the basis of the T-72 - BMO-T, a combat vehicle of flamethrowers. What did this BTR-T give up so much?

      Here it is all about the price of the issue.
      A machine based on the T-55 (T-62) can quite perform tasks for which a heavy armored personnel carrier is needed, although it will be slightly worse in terms of performance characteristics than created on the basis of 72-ki. But cheaper.
      Why not do for sale and for the acquisition of spare parts?
      Moreover, our reserve to complete with money from export.
      A T-72 (T-80, T-b4) upgrade to a level that meets customer requirements and sell 80% relatively inexpensively. Everything is better than rusting on BHVT.
      It’s not so simple: both competition and effective modernization production, but where it’s easy now. Kick "effective menagers" to find and appoint intelligent people and it will work! People (Indians and Negroes) reach for us! laughing
  2. -Dmitry-
    -Dmitry- April 2 2015 06: 58 New
    +9
    http://topwar.ru/8823-boevaya-mashina-ognemetchekov-tyazhelaya-bmo-t.html
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 April 2 2015 21: 45 New
      +1
      The drawings of the heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-55 tank were completed by V. Malginov. 1 scale: 35

      drawings, highly protected vehicle "Ladoga", ready BTR-T ??? NOT ???
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 April 2 2015 22: 43 New
        0
        and one more, the BTR-T project

        as the basis: BREM-80U armored repair and recovery vehicle ...
        we remove, all repair and evacuation equipment ,,, only GSh and an armored chamber ...

        in layout and ergonomics, it will be even better than BMO-T ...
        клик
  3. Vladimir.
    Vladimir. April 2 2015 07: 21 New
    +3
    Hmm ... To be honest, the whole car is a complete nonsense. You would already then to the T-72 dess. the squad would stick and there would be a semblance of a "Merkava MK.4." In a city, such a tank would be better than any armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle.

    I am silent about weapons. In Afghanistan, armored personnel carriers were burning with traditional weapons, so they created the BTR-90. But I don’t see the point in this machine. The armored personnel carriers should not even go on the attack line. Why should he have such armor despite the fact that he has no weapons?

    A useless machine, an ordinary BTR-90 will be 1000 times better and more useful. And with dynamic protection it will surpass BTR-T many times as necessary.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 2 2015 07: 40 New
      18
      Quote: Vladimir.
      , an ordinary BTR-90 will be 1000 times better and more useful. And with dynamic protection it will surpass BTR-T many times as necessary.

      And now turn on the brain for a minute and think why DZs are not installed on the APCs.
      1. Polar
        Polar April 2 2015 08: 35 New
        14
        Because when it is triggered, it will put all of its landing ... :(
        1. Manul
          Manul April 5 2015 01: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: Polar
          And now turn on the brain for a minute and think why DZs are not installed on the APCs.

          I’ve been thinking for more than one year .. Can’t we even install at least one airborne defense belt .. Is it possible that someone from our landing will die more from it than from a projectile that disabled the technique of movement on the battlefield ???
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Professor
      Professor April 2 2015 08: 42 New
      +7
      Quote: Vladimir.
      A useless machine, an ordinary BTR-90 will be 1000 times better and more useful

      That's for sure. The BTR-90 is more convenient to ride on armor. For more he is not good. request

      PS
      Something no one criticizes BTR-T for the inability to swim, such a useful quality in conflicts of the last 70 years. wink
      1. bolat19640303
        bolat19640303 April 2 2015 09: 46 New
        +5
        You are right the ability to swim armored personnel carriers in recent conflicts was practically not useful. My opinion is that the idea of ​​this armored personnel carrier is to reliably protect personnel, no more. This unit does not accommodate a full-fledged motorized shooting squad. If the landing party (5 people) and the squad leader (he is also a gunner) dismount, then who supports with fire, destroys the identified targets? Another question - if the commander-gunner remains in the car, then who commands the squad?
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov April 2 2015 10: 26 New
        +6
        Quote: Professor
        so useful quality in the conflicts of the last 70 years.

        By the way, it came in handy, for example, in Chechnya
        1. Professor
          Professor April 2 2015 10: 29 New
          -2
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          By the way, it came in handy, for example, in Chechnya

          Yah. I have not been to Chechnya for a long time, but I remember the water obstacles that had to be overcome by swimming.
          1. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 April 2 2015 14: 53 New
            10
            Well, yes ... Oleg, I think that you have never been to Chechnya at all. Otherwise, we would know that there are two pretty decent water obstacles on its territory. This is the Sunzha River (passing directly through Grozny) and the Terek River (separating the northern and central lowland regions of Chechnya) ...
            Another thing is that these wayward rivers (especially in spring and summer) and overcoming them by swimming with light armored vehicles are associated with greater risk than overcoming flat rivers ...
            But this does not mean at all that floating armored vehicles are not needed in the ground forces. Russia is large and there are plenty of water barriers in it ...
            1. Professor
              Professor April 3 2015 06: 49 New
              +3
              Quote: Chicot 1
              Well, yes ... Oleg, I think that you have never been to Chechnya at all.

              It was in 1987 year. I saw both Sunju and Terek. Both can now wade ford. This is not the Dnieper or the Southern Bug.

              Quote: Chicot 1
              But this does not mean at all that floating armored vehicles are not needed in the ground forces. Russia is large and there are plenty of water barriers in it ...

              Where has it come in handy in the last 70 years? I know only one example.
          2. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov April 2 2015 15: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            Yah. I have not been to Chechnya for a long time, but I remember the water obstacles that had to be overcome by swimming.

            Less to you for trolling cheap
            1. Professor
              Professor April 3 2015 06: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Less to you for trolling cheap

              "Plus" to you for indicating a specific military operation where armored vehicles swam across water obstacles in Chechnya.
          3. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak April 2 2015 15: 43 New
            +9
            professor "Oh well. It’s been a long time since I was in Chechnya, but I remember the water obstacles that had to be overcome by swimming."
            During the first assault on Grozny, the very water obstacles were crossed .... which of which ... you)))) do not remember.)))
          4. Antonov
            Antonov April 2 2015 18: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            By the way, it came in handy, for example, in Chechnya

            Yah. I have not been to Chechnya for a long time, but I remember the water obstacles that had to be overcome by swimming.

            You do not remember this, but he will give you a bunch of novels. In his convincing manner.
          5. The comment was deleted.
        2. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak April 2 2015 15: 50 New
          12
          Especially for the professor.))) In confirmation of your words.))) This is forcing Sunzha.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov April 2 2015 18: 01 New
            +2
            Quote: Nagaibak
            This is forcing Sunji.

            Weak in the photo, it was more serious and the crowds. But plus for the photo anyway, it's good
            1. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak April 2 2015 19: 54 New
              +4
              Alexander Romanov "Weak in the photo, it was more serious and the crowds. But plus for the photo anyway, it's good."
              I’ve found one.))) The road is a spoon for dinner.))) And there’s a video ... where it’s more serious and the crowd.)))
            2. Antonov
              Antonov April 2 2015 21: 45 New
              10
              I told you that he will give a bunch of novels, but you did not believe. Yes, and with a serious comment

              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Quote: Nagaibak
              This is forcing Sunji.

              Weak in the photo, it was more serious and the crowds.

              "More Older" is how? With floating tanks?

        3. padded jacket
          padded jacket April 2 2015 17: 59 New
          11
          IFVs in Russia (in any case most of them) must necessarily be floating (we do not have a desert like in Israel).
          1. raf
            raf April 3 2015 18: 43 New
            0
            Like in that song: “It’s not difficult to overcome the impassability; you go along the road”!
      3. Malkor
        Malkor April 2 2015 14: 49 New
        -4
        The armored personnel carrier should now be occupied by MRAP cars
        1. Malkor
          Malkor April 2 2015 21: 44 New
          +1
          An armored personnel carrier is a conveyor to the front line, in fact MRAP, and it’s just for PR in the West that they invented a new word and sawed a bunch of dough under it. This does not exclude the presence of a combat module on an armored personnel carrier. For combat, you need heavy (for a breakthrough in the ranks with tanks) and light (for the development of operational offensive, airborne and marine corps) BMP. BTR-T nothing, you need a full BMPT. If we will carry people and supplies to the BTR-T, we will go broke.
          Why minus that ??
      4. artura0911
        artura0911 April 2 2015 22: 31 New
        +4
        and your soldiers are not so comfortable on the armor huh?)))))))
      5. Astrahanec
        Astrahanec April 3 2015 19: 23 New
        +1
        You know how to spoil the holiday of our Uri-patriots)))
    3. bazilio
      bazilio April 2 2015 10: 54 New
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir.
      APCs shouldn't even go on the attack line

      in a big war, yes, but in local conflicts, when battles are fought with partisan formations and most often in settlements, an attack line can occur anywhere. The question is, how much is this BTR-T protected upper part of the hull. When conducting battles in settlements, a blow from above (from roofs, windows, etc.) is very likely and fatal.
    4. Petrix
      Petrix April 2 2015 12: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir.
      A useless machine, an ordinary BTR-90 will be 1000 times better and more useful

      Let's look at the conditions of urban battle (There are many clips of war in Syria). Tanks here are used as fire support, infantry fighting vehicles - as transport. The tank as a transport is unsuitable, and the BMP is poorly protected. But for lack of another use BMP.
      BMP-T is designed to work under enemy fire, BMP - for marches, quick transfer, to work between the rear and the front.
      Based on this, to solve transport problems, roughly speaking, you need, for example, the following ratio: 100 trucks, 50 infantry fighting vehicles (MPI, armored personnel carriers), 10 infantry fighting vehicles.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack April 2 2015 07: 37 New
    0
    why not bmot use ???? is this cheaper?
  6. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre April 2 2015 08: 14 New
    +5
    The main problem for such an pepelats is not its severity or insufficient weapons.
    All efforts are crossed out by the lack of safe entry / exit for transported infantry.
    The same Israelis did the right thing when remaking old tanks: they simply turned the car back to front and made a normal stern hatch.

    If ours are so hovering with the front MTO (supposedly unresolved weight distribution problem), make a centrally located MTO and BM on top of it. The crew is in front in an armored capsule, and the transport volume in the rear.
    1. Professor
      Professor April 2 2015 08: 43 New
      -1
      Quote: abrakadabre
      The same Israelis did the right thing when remaking old tanks: they simply turned the car back to front and made a normal stern hatch.

      Who turned backwards? Whom? Where?
      1. Prank
        Prank April 2 2015 09: 20 New
        +7
        Quote: Professor
        Who turned backwards? Whom? Where?

        Come on, man made a reservation. Cry.
        “Ahzarit” is your solid example of how to make something more or less suitable for maintaining a database from something completely unnecessary.
        1. Professor
          Professor April 2 2015 10: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Stalker
          Come on, man made a reservation. Cry.

          Jordanians, those and so unfurled backwards.
          Heavy armored personnel carrier Thames. Jordan.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 2 2015 10: 20 New
            +6
            Quote: Professor
            The Jordanians, those and so unfurled backwards.


            And what did it give them?
            Based on the photo, you can’t envy meh.water. Driving a car with such a "nose", especially in urban battles, is very difficult.
    2. Prank
      Prank April 2 2015 09: 16 New
      +4
      Quote: abrakadabre
      The same Israelis did the right thing when remaking old tanks: they simply turned the car back to front and made a normal stern hatch.

      A little bit wrong, it’s the Ukropians who have deployed their sixty-four “backside” ... however, no matter how you unfold it, it will turn out the same way with trusting Thais with the deliveries of “Strongholds”.
    3. tchoni
      tchoni April 2 2015 09: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: abrakadabre
      The main problem for such an pepelats is not its severity or insufficient weapons.
      All efforts are crossed out by the lack of safe entry / exit for transported infantry.

      The main problem of this pepelats in the approach. What was it worth replacing the dviglo transmission and goose (up to the heap) with more modern and reliable? What was it worth not trying to stick a "super-gun" in the turret, but installing a DBM on the roof of the cabin? and you would find a place for the landing, and to pass into the stern, as in the “Akhzarite” you would find .... And you look your customers more often they would turn ....
      1. Prank
        Prank April 2 2015 09: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: tchoni
        What was worth replacing

        Quote: tchoni
        What was worth not trying to stick

        Israel didn’t create tea for its hard-earned ones - the striped mattress would spit money for him, but in Omsk, excuse me, they were sitting on a suction. As they were able to get a salary without getting to build, they built it.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni April 2 2015 10: 39 New
          +3
          Quote: Stalker
          Israel didn’t create tea for its hard-earned ones - the striped mattress will spit money for him, but in Omsk, excuse me, they were sitting on a suction

          So they would saw what they could sell. Well, think for yourself: why order a bad redevelopment that DOES NOT increase the reliability and manufacturability of using the tank (if the tanks are old and decommissioned, then the dviglo and transmission are the same there .. The gusanka goes 3 thousand or more) It’s easier to simply choose a cannon from the tank with (such as the rotation mechanisms of the tower, sights, ammunition, etc., and the tower is stupidly welded) and hang a set of any contact, or simply weld the boards with the screens on the sides. And on the anti-aircraft machine gun to deflect protection like Meriakan hamers (saw sheds on the roof). And do not go to which Omsk ....
          And as for the Israelis, I can say that those people know how to count ..
          1. Massik
            Massik April 2 2015 15: 11 New
            +2
            So they would saw what they could sell.
            You are now on a salary of 5 tr to plant. Let's see how much you can "cut" ...
            1. tchoni
              tchoni April 2 2015 16: 43 New
              +3
              I lived on such a salary ... And worked fine ...
              I'm not talking about that now. And that there is nothing to be surprised if you changed the wipers on a rotten penny, cut off the roof, put in wheels and try to sell it as a replacement for the 911 piston, but nobody buys it from you.
              That the factory did not find half a million dvigun? - I'm sure the director's Mears costs 10 times more ... Or the same automatic machine per box? Yes, at the stage of prototyping and testing, all this can be bought at disassembly.
              And do not draw parallels between the lack of salaries and the lack of money at the enterprise ... You know where they went in the 90th.
              1. ssergn
                ssergn April 2 2015 18: 36 New
                +3
                You don’t have to talk about people, they are in the 90 and they moved well on the Volga, and you push the Mercians. These enterprises (the defense industry of Omsk) really survived in 90. Not only was there not enough money for the heat supply, but also elementary for e / energy, heating of the workshops. Do not forget that the cadres scattered, only the most devoted remained. In Omsk, it was real, even at the beginning of the 2000's zn 7-10 tyr was the norm for workers. There was no GOZ, so they experimented in the hope of selling something.
                It is now in the defense industry's defense industry until the 20 of the year, and then ... It’s a pity for people, a pity for the lost time.
                1. tchoni
                  tchoni April 3 2015 09: 01 New
                  0
                  Yeah. Hard workers survived ... And those who were at the helm preferred to hold a steering wheel in their hands more comfortably ....
        2. Evgen_Vasilich
          Evgen_Vasilich April 2 2015 15: 57 New
          +4
          the work was carried out in the 90s, at KBTM’s own funds, wherever they could find finances for a new dviglo and transmission, especially since in the Moscow Region it was believed that these eggheads were crazy, figs and not support, so they did that they did ... it’s good that at least the layout studies later fit in BMO-T. and in general, this topic is painful and has not been developed as it should in our tank building, let's see what the Uralians pile there with the T-15, but for now it's just a transfusion from empty to empty. And comrade D. Ageev is a competent person, who even then took care of an attempt to create a highly protected landing vehicle for the battlefield. When using cheap raw materials - outdated tanks ... Dima, if you read this, hello to you !!
          1. tchoni
            tchoni April 2 2015 16: 47 New
            +1
            You better say that no one seriously wanted to engage in marketing in the good sense of the word ... They didn’t analyze or think of it.
            The errors of this armored personnel carrier came in handy at BMOT, and then not everyone took into account. In particular, the landing out there is not sugar .... But they did not begin to sculpt an epic cannon and a tower in the middle of the landing.
            Quote: Evgen_Vasilich
            work was carried out in the 90s, at KBTM’s own funds, wherever they could find finances for a new dviglo and transmission
            This is a penny within the plant, especially such as Omsk. They pay more for one electricity per month than the dviglo costs ...
            1. ssergn
              ssergn April 2 2015 18: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: tchoni
              that no one seriously wanted to engage in marketing in the good sense of the word.


              Yes, SOMEONE was involved in marketing there. And yes, there is nothing wrong with good marketing, the same exhibitions - this is marketing, pushing into the MO is also marketing, as the main customer is MO. Again, marketing needs funds.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni April 3 2015 08: 59 New
                0
                Quote: ssergn
                Yes, SOMEONE was involved in marketing there.

                And they didn’t have a director? The same Genosse Shumakov - a man is not poor and not stupid ...
                Tell me better: I just wanted money quickly. What they did - they did based on their wartime philosophy, when there was no time ....
  7. vkl-47
    vkl-47 April 2 2015 08: 25 New
    +5
    Tired of this vanging already. After a month you’ll see everything. There’s nothing to guess at.
  8. bmv04636
    bmv04636 April 2 2015 08: 55 New
    -2
    I wonder why a heavy BMP does not make a medium-engine layout (control module (armor capsule) -motor module-landing module with uninhabited combat module)
    1. SIvan
      SIvan April 2 2015 15: 52 New
      +5
      I wonder why a heavy BMP does not make a medium-engine layout (control module (armor capsule) -motor module-landing module with uninhabited combat module)

      And how do you think the engine should be connected to the tracks if it is in front?

      Heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform. Here, it seems, the motor in front. Apparently, the tank was really deployed backwards.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 April 3 2015 11: 19 New
        -1
        Quote: SIvan
        Apparently, the tank was really deployed backwards.

        The charm of “Armata” lies in the fact that it can be installed anywhere you want - you want to put the MTO in the rear or in the front, so it conditionally has no such concepts as “front” and “rear”))))
  9. bionik
    bionik April 2 2015 09: 20 New
    +5
    Israeli

    Ahzarit based on the T-55.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 2 2015 10: 12 New
      +4
      Quote: bionik
      Israeli

      Ahzarit based on the T-55.


      The guys from Israel reacted more thoughtfully to the equipment for leaving the armored personnel carrier for the landing.
      By the way, this machine is also intended for fighters of assault groups operating in military units.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni April 2 2015 10: 41 New
        +1
        They not only thought out the output equipment, but also the general operational reliability and convenience.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 2 2015 11: 17 New
        +4
        They simply replaced the engine with a more compact one. And a corridor appeared for the landing.

        There is a better solution - somewhere on the network I read about a project with electric transmission, two diesel generators on the sides and a central corridor for the landing.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni April 2 2015 12: 01 New
          +1
          A box. friction clutch changed and goose. What prevented Omsk from doing the same?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov April 2 2015 12: 20 New
            +5
            The lack of a compact engine and financial constraints.
            1. tchoni
              tchoni April 2 2015 13: 43 New
              -2
              Oh, as they say in Odessa (and this is closer to Israel than Omsk), I beg you. If the device was sawed up as a commercial, who prevented from delivering something bourgeois? the same scan has a good line of diesels there, and for half a fortune ... Chrysler, a Mercedes ... Well, or our yamz, then it’s doing normal ... And the size ... Who prevents to slightly increase the MTO up and put the engine in excess of torsion bars ... (and as I understand it, this is the main feature of the T-54-55). The benefit of the reserve by weight due to the tower drank is enough.
              Just say that you wanted to grab a piece more solid, while sweating less ...
        2. cosmos111
          cosmos111 April 2 2015 18: 33 New
          +5
          Quote: Spade
          There is a better solution - somewhere on the network I read about a project with electric transmission, two diesel generators on the sides and a central corridor for the landing.

          No problem laughing .
          клик
      3. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi April 2 2015 15: 03 New
        -2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Quote: bionik
        Israeli

        Ahzarit based on the T-55.


        The guys from Israel reacted more thoughtfully to the equipment for leaving the armored personnel carrier for the landing.
        By the way, this machine is also intended for fighters of assault groups operating in military units.

        Not anymore. An old man all the same. Today, the “Akhzarits” were transferred to the reservists of the mechanized brigades “Alexandroni” and “Carmeli”.
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 April 2 2015 18: 25 New
          +5
          Quote: wanderer_032
          The guys from Israel reacted more thoughtfully to the equipment for leaving the armored personnel carrier for the landing.

          Yes, and ours. Could-if they wanted ... but on .. not to anyone, this is not necessary ...
          in power alone in ...- effective managers ...

          "Object 1200" (wheeled BMP prototype) 1961 of the year of issue ((to the question whose idea))) ... where then was "Ahzarit" ???
      4. The comment was deleted.
  10. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 2 2015 10: 04 New
    +2
    A noticeable drawback that has passed to the armored personnel carrier from the base tank is the rather small volume of the inhabited compartment, because of which the BTR-T machine is capable of transporting only five paratroopers

    This machine was intended for assault groups, which come into effect, as a rule, in the conditions of community centers, or for carrying out assault operations on specially fortified engineering objects.
    The strength of the assault group is just 5 people.
    I think that during the storming of Grozny in the 99th, the military would not refuse such vehicles. But there was no money for their purchase. I had to do with what was in service.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 2 2015 10: 08 New
      +4
      Weapon options that could be installed on the BTR-T.

      1. Kornilovets
        Kornilovets April 2 2015 11: 07 New
        0
        Like an infantry support vehicle, it could have had its revenge in the assault units ... But the landing, a weak spot ...
    2. cosmos111
      cosmos111 April 2 2015 18: 43 New
      0
      Quote: wanderer_032
      But there was no money for their purchase.

      there was money in the country, albeit small ... BUT THEY BROUGHT
      and in life, the soldier they didn’t give a damn about the family ... they chopped boblo while dad plumped to the edge ...
      ____________________________________________________________________________
      I repeat: the simplest and most economical option, the production of BTR-T, from MBT ((with a more convenient entry-exit))), the production of the landing squad, as in the self-propelled guns of the Second World War Bronerubka !!!

      on the GSH picture it is T-54 / 55
      ((I can find where I did ... they write Afghanistan .... but it looks more like Chechnya I)))
      клик
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 3 2015 00: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: cosmos111
        in the photo of the General Staff it is T-54/55 ((I can find where it was done ... they write Afghanistan .... but it looks more like Chechnya I)))
        клик


        Definitely afgan. And this car is redone from self-propelled guns SU-122-54.



      2. Andrei
        Andrei April 3 2015 00: 37 New
        +3
        In the photo, apparently, the BMR-1 is a converted SU-122-54.
  11. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 April 2 2015 10: 14 New
    +2
    In Kharkov, they made a more than decent heavy heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-64, both tracked and wheeled and, in my opinion, it has no competitors.
    Of the tanks converted into armored personnel carriers, this vehicle really represents original and full-fledged armor for infantry.
    1. Kornilovets
      Kornilovets April 2 2015 11: 09 New
      -2
      This is similar to the BMP-2 base, rollers, layout, apparently additional armor is installed, and an accelerated engine ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Kornilovets
        Kornilovets April 2 2015 13: 21 New
        -4
        as I understand it, some specialists in BMP.
      3. tchoni
        tchoni April 2 2015 13: 45 New
        +6
        This is based on the T-64, and the rollers ... they are not bmp
    2. tchoni
      tchoni April 2 2015 13: 47 New
      +2
      I wonder why this yoba did not light up in the ATO? like for the city the most? Maybe a layout? Maybe something else?
      1. Prank
        Prank April 2 2015 14: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: tchoni
        I wonder why this yoba did not light up in the ATO? like for the city the most? Maybe a layout? Maybe something else?

        The only instance. Therefore, he did not light up ... or he already answered with God.
  12. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 April 2 2015 10: 21 New
    +2
    Vesch is good and necessary, of course, but five fighters will not be enough
    But the Ukrainian version will be better, 12 people, 30mm protection in a circle + RPG (if not lying), and again, a budget alteration from what is in storage. In any case, it’s better than ordinary cardboard BMPs. And you can ensure mass, and not a dozen or so for all the armed forces.
    1. Kornilovets
      Kornilovets April 2 2015 11: 11 New
      -6
      And it looks more like a T-64 base.
      1. small
        small April 2 2015 11: 56 New
        +4
        Rather, the base is T-55. The photo has 5 rollers, and the T-64 has 6 rollers.
      2. -Dmitry-
        -Dmitry- April 3 2015 07: 34 New
        -4
        What place is interesting ??? Chassis T-64, namely the size of the rollers seen ????
  13. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 2 2015 11: 13 New
    -3
    I wonder how they decided, the issue with the transmission, and where they moved, the engine, the sunroof - the gangway, it seems exactly in the middle ...
  14. Major_Vortex
    Major_Vortex April 2 2015 11: 34 New
    +7
    In this sample with the mounted armor removed, the engine is already in front:



    unlike the tank:

  15. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 2 2015 13: 32 New
    0
    The urban version of the T-72 was first shown at a training ground near Nizhny Tagil.

    At the Russia Arms EXPO 2013 (RAE 2013) training ground, on Wednesday, the general public for the first time demonstrated in action a version of the modernized T-72 tank, adapted for fighting in the city. The tank is equipped with modern Relict dynamic protection, in addition, an additional bulldozer blade creates additional protection for the front of the hull. It is intended for the analysis of rubble, barricades and collisions with damaged equipment from the aisle.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni April 2 2015 13: 51 New
      +1
      But it would not hurt to cover the sides of the tower (from this shell there is an excellent gap in front of smoke grenade launchers). And the frontal shield on the machine gun.
    2. Massik
      Massik April 2 2015 15: 16 New
      +1
      In the presence of the ancient 7ki and PG7VL grenades, there is no problem getting to this miracle at 60-80m and filling the grenade into an unshielded part of the tower.
  16. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 2 2015 13: 35 New
    0
    Read more.

    Currently, the protection of tanks from anti-tank weapons attacking on-board projections is relevant. Therefore, the sides of the machine are covered by a set of modular screens of dynamic protection. They are installed both on the hull and on the tower. The rear of the hull and turret is also covered by special trellised screens.

    To protect the commander when working with the anti-aircraft machine gun, a special bulletproof cabin was developed. This is a very relevant measure, as the local conflicts of recent years have demonstrated the need for additional protection for the anti-aircraft machine gunner.

    On this modernized tank there are still means to suppress the channels of improvised explosive devices. This will save military vehicles, their crews in the so-called "high-explosive war".

    This modernization can be carried out in places of operation of military equipment, in fact, anywhere in the world.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr April 2 2015 23: 01 New
      +1
      The commander’s turret without a machine gun and a birdhouse weighs one and a half hundred kilograms. That is, in order to look around the situation through the command device, the commander twists this turret. Now we attach a machine gun and an armored booth to the commander’s turret ....

      And to make machine gun control from inside the tank is not destiny.
  17. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 2 2015 14: 13 New
    -2
    I do not understand something.
    The Armata platform, like, has 7 rinks.
    One more than the T-72. Which is logical.
    And this TBTR is short. What does Armata have to do with it?
    1. tchoni
      tchoni April 3 2015 09: 03 New
      +2
      And what do you not understand? the point is that the Omsk armored personnel carrier is not needed if there is an armata ...
  18. yehat
    yehat April 2 2015 14: 14 New
    +1
    It seems to me that all variants of heavy armored personnel carriers that preserve the layout of the tank and are made in the style of a shell will be deliberately unsuccessful, if only because of the cramped and inconvenient for the landing.
    Whatever the armor, there are other requirements.
  19. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 2 2015 14: 24 New
    +2
    As far as one can judge from the photo, the landing of infantry from the new infantry fighting vehicle will be carried out through hatches in the roof of the car. Under enemy fire, this is a sure way to commit suicide ..... unless, of course, catapulted armored capsules are not used for landing. Or are there other opinions?
  20. Deniz
    Deniz April 2 2015 15: 15 New
    -2
    I don’t understand, why do you need Armata, if there is a T-90MS? What is the one that the other from Jewelin or the shell is equally dead? A t-90 on the profile, as it were below. More important, in my opinion, not the physical dimensions or design, but the filling. Fire control system, sighting systems, data exchange, thermal imagers? Or not? I'm just not a tanker, so I did not go deep into studying this issue.

    Same thing with this heavy armored personnel carrier. In the same place, the soldiers can’t turn over and not breathe.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix April 2 2015 16: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: DeniZ
      I don’t understand, why do you need Armata, if there is a T-90MS?

      As I understand it, Armata is primarily a unified platform and not only for tanks (cost savings and modular flexibility), and only then the modernization of tanks.
    2. tchoni
      tchoni April 3 2015 11: 24 New
      0
      Quote: DeniZ
      What is the one that the other from Jewelin or the shell is equally dead?

      There is hope that only iron will die in the armature, and the crew will remain, if not healthy, then at least alive.
  21. rennim
    rennim April 2 2015 17: 02 New
    +2
    BTR-T is an excellent alternative to simple BTR. Considering that at one time thousands of T-55 and T-62 were re-melted instead of being converted into such a wonderful machine. And they would have saved many lives during the inter-century.
  22. Denimax
    Denimax April 2 2015 18: 29 New
    +2
    Quote: quilted jacket
    IFVs in Russia (in any case most of them) must necessarily be floating (we do not have a desert like in Israel).

    There was once a talk about the creation of quick reaction troops. Such personnel officers need protected, heavy equipment. And genility needs to plan operations more carefully. With the involvement of all military branches.
    This is an eternal debate, floating or heavy. Where are the engineering troops that build the bridges?
  23. Denis Skiff M2.0
    Denis Skiff M2.0 April 2 2015 19: 01 New
    0
    BMP BMD BTR-s is armor on wheels for a fighter. and each machine has its own task, capabilities and abilities. and it will be good if the variety is, the choice will be. expensive, but for some reason you’ll defeat the hell.
  24. The fat man
    The fat man April 2 2015 21: 03 New
    0
    For those in the BMP
    preparation for overcoming a water barrier
  25. The fat man
    The fat man April 2 2015 21: 05 New
    0
    Overcoming the water barrier Merkava
  26. The fat man
    The fat man April 2 2015 21: 07 New
    0
    wink not bad right?
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak April 3 2015 20: 12 New
      0
      Fat man is "not bad right?"
      Again Israeli streams?))))
  27. The fat man
    The fat man April 2 2015 21: 11 New
    0
    and lastly, cousin Izzy, the son of Aunt Sarah, is looking for the missing Sheikel laughing laughing
  28. The fat man
    The fat man April 2 2015 21: 13 New
    +1
    Chur not be offended
  29. Thekakojto
    Thekakojto April 2 2015 22: 43 New
    +6
    "Ahzarit" your

    Yes, our ahzarit. those on which I happened to drive accelerates to a speed of 20 km / h from the hill and with a tail wind of 30 km / h
    but in general, it turned out something suitable for local conditions. but I hope the Russian Federation will go the other way.
    do not forget that Israel does not fight with adequate armies. and such a crawling target will suffer greatly in the presence of modern weapons. those with whom Israel has recently been “fighting” are armed with antediluvian means.
    the shot of a single hail rocket from a makeshift pipe causes a storm of emotions within the country.
    and it’s difficult to imagine that a full package of hailstones will fly into the square.

    this certainly does not apply the merits of the soldiers of Israel and the use of captured equipment.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni April 3 2015 11: 25 New
      0
      Quote: TheKakojto
      and it’s difficult to imagine that a full package of hailstones will fly into the square.

      Tank hail package must withstand.
      1. midshipman
        midshipman April 7 2015 14: 45 New
        0
        This is how ??? Ahhh, he's IMMORTAL!
  30. Stilet
    Stilet April 9 2015 22: 25 New
    0
    For example: ARL V39 without a gun - why not an BTR-T? For urban battles and tank support, a small, but mobile nimble and well-armored tracked vehicle armed with an automatic cannon (or two) and a machine gun is more likely needed. The crew of 2-3 people and do not need landing. With this BMP and armored personnel carriers will quite cope. After all, if you look - a heavy BMP-T, where will the landing force take it? judging by the reservation, it’s in the thick of it ... and whoever gets out of it under the crossfire, and if it doesn’t come out, then not all .. therefore, if they are not allowed to get out, then why go there? she will not be able to support the tanks because the weapons are weak. Some kind of cycle turns out ..
  31. tankuz
    tankuz April 22 2015 08: 49 New
    0
    And I got such a heavy armored personnel carrier based on a tank). This is the model of course)))