Military Review

Media: Russian BTR-82A, located in Syria, need enhanced protection

55
Judging by the development of the situation, the Russian military contingent will be in Syria for a long time, so you need to think about enhancing the protection of the BTR-82А stationed there, writes in its article for Messenger of Mordovia Lev Romanov.


Media: Russian BTR-82A, located in Syria, need enhanced protection


According to the author, these armored vehicles "are used in Syria in the form in which they were used in a peaceful environment, in particular, they still have not received additional protection in the form of lattice and reflective armor steel screens."

“It is worth noting that a large role in the negative perception of such protection was played by events in Ukraine, where, at first, light armored vehicles began to“ sculpt ”various lattices, bed nets, and sometimes even something resembling grave curbs. As a result, the effectiveness of such a “defense” was almost zero, and there was more harm than good from it in the extreme conditions of the battle, ”writes Romanov.

However, well-designed screens, such as those developed at Steel Research Institute, significantly "reduce the effectiveness of the most common RPG-7, LNG-9 jet grenades, as well as RPG-18 disposable grenade launchers and their counterparts," he notes.





According to the author, referring to the experts, it is important that “the use of lattice and reflective screens reduces the likelihood of a very dangerous phenomenon that occurs when rocket-propelled grenades get into light armored vehicles - a breach of armor, which is fraught with serious consequences for people inside the machine” .



Another positive quality of the screens - they are easily mounted even in field conditions.



“Such protection was tested in numerous armed conflicts and was highly appreciated by the personnel,” concludes Romanov.
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Altona
    Altona 1 February 2016 12: 16
    44
    Why didn’t they think ahead of time? Either the fighters forget to accompany the bomber, then there are no screens on the armored vehicles.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 1 February 2016 12: 18
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      Why didn’t they think ahead of time? Either the fighters forget to accompany the bomber, then there are no screens on the armored vehicles.

      Checking is everything and everyone .. hi
      1. Hon
        Hon 1 February 2016 12: 59
        +2
        Quote: MIKHAN
        Checking is everything and everyone ..

        and who was checked then?
        There is a BTR-90 with enhanced armor, and you can install screens on it. but they refused to accept it, because the landing hatches from the sides, but it’s necessary from behind, therefore, the BTR-82A is armed with hatches from the sides too, but they are cheaper
        1. the most important
          the most important 1 February 2016 19: 53
          0
          Quote: Hon
          There is a BTR-90 with enhanced armor, and you can install screens on it

          Or maybe you need to completely abandon the armored personnel carrier ??? People are more expensive! I believe that only BMPs are needed - tracked and wheeled! With appropriate weapons and a mass of about 20 tons to support infantry in battle.
      2. iConst
        iConst 1 February 2016 13: 19
        +6
        Quote: MIKHAN
        Quote: Altona
        Why didn’t they think ahead of time? Either the fighters forget to accompany the bomber, then there are no screens on the armored vehicles.

        Checking is everything and everyone .. hi

        - Yeah, the current effect of lattice screens was discovered yesterday.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 February 2016 12: 27
      13
      Quote: Altona
      Why didn’t they think ahead of time? Either the fighters forget to accompany the bomber, then there are no screens on the armored vehicles.

      Because the article indicates only the advantages of screens. But about their shortcomings is silent.
      1. Screens are easily damaged - uneven terrain, bushes and trees, buildings and their remains. There were photos of the factory screens on the BTR-4 after the BTR went once an attack on the real terrain - corrugation, wave and deformation with a loss of protective properties.
      2. Screens increase the size of the car - which is especially critical in urban areas. In addition, the mechanical drivers are used to the dimensions of equipment without screens ...
      3. Screens, with the external placement of motorized archers, prevent them from dismounting from the armor. Yes, this is not according to the charter. Yes, this is dangerous. But the problem is that getting out alone with all the equipment from the interwheel can be even more dangerous (especially when the APC is damaged). In addition, the landing on the armor is much better visibility.
      1. atalef
        atalef 1 February 2016 12: 40
        +5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Because the article indicates only the advantages of screens. But about their shortcomings is silent

        If they put it - then it is required.
        the question is, if it is required in Syria - why it seems like it is not needed in Russia?
      2. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 1 February 2016 12: 44
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        1. Screens are easily damaged - uneven terrain, bushes and trees, buildings and their remains

        Damn, I can’t find a photo from the anti-terrorist operation zone, where Ukrainians use a strong rope network as an anti-cumulative screen. Also an interesting solution, though.
        And since we are talking about Syria, here is the BTR-80 of local modernization.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 1 February 2016 13: 30
          +1
          Well, this modernization is based on the work of the Research Institute of Steel. A small batch of equipped BTR-80 is now somewhere in warehouses (the team moved to BTR-82A). There, for an armored personnel carrier, effective protection not only by gratings is achieved, but also by spot-spaced dopbronirovanie.
      3. Maxom75
        Maxom75 1 February 2016 12: 44
        0
        Then maybe it’s better to think about KAZ on an armored personnel carrier? Although expensive it is a toy, but effective. it’s a pity there will only be a landing party in the field of its action. ((
        1. atalef
          atalef 1 February 2016 12: 50
          +1
          Quote: Maxom75
          Then maybe it’s better to think about KAZ on an armored personnel carrier? Although expensive it is a toy, but effective. it’s a pity there will only be a landing party in the field of its action. ((

          Armored personnel carriers with KAZ are produced only in Israel.
          1. yushch
            yushch 1 February 2016 14: 36
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            Quote: Maxom75
            Then maybe it’s better to think about KAZ on an armored personnel carrier? Although expensive it is a toy, but effective. it’s a pity there will only be a landing party in the field of its action. ((

            Armored personnel carriers with KAZ are produced only in Israel.


            Yes, we are in the know ... as always, modestly and tastefully hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. doework
          doework 1 February 2016 12: 58
          0
          Regarding the cost of armored personnel carriers - expensive!
          1. atalef
            atalef 1 February 2016 13: 12
            +3
            Quote: doework
            Regarding the cost of armored personnel carriers - expensive!

            Life is more expensive.
      4. twviewer
        twviewer 1 February 2016 13: 19
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Screens are easily damaged - uneven terrain, bushes and trees, buildings and their remains.

        easily fixable trifles, if the supports were fastened with "bolts", and not welded to the body as in the last photo
        dimensions are not always critical, a matter of habit, and gatherings can be prepared in advance
        so on uvz handicraft still work and work :)
      5. Kite
        Kite 1 February 2016 13: 26
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Because the article indicates only the advantages of screens.
        you+
        - and because the screen (in the initial state) can and will protect, from only one type of ammunition. How many more will anyone offer a weight to protect the full?
        If the reservation is shatterproof, then you need to understand why the car was created, that this is not a cheap tank, but a completely different class of BM.
      6. Sorokin
        Sorokin 1 February 2016 14: 23
        +1
        Moreover, in the movement, landing is very dangerous. Do you grab your gear and drag, and do you block the rest of the way? And according to the driver, the horizontal dimensions are not so critical. The fact that they are bent in size and pokotsat to the grandmother do not go. Something like this. (sorry I taxied myself in due time)
    3. Conductor
      Conductor 1 February 2016 14: 02
      0
      Most "homemade" and factory versions of screens are just complacency. Grilles can be effective with sufficient armor thickness Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles (which is not observed on Soviet tin cans), because the cumulative jet formed even at a certain distance from the armor can easily pass through it. Although in most cases the grenade simply "squeezes" into the gaps.

    4. TsUS-Air Force
      TsUS-Air Force 1 February 2016 14: 42
      +2
      the NDZ boxes were empty during the storming of Grozny
    5. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 1 February 2016 16: 23
      +1
      as always, until the thunder strikes .... Russia does not cross itself
  2. feokot1982
    feokot1982 1 February 2016 12: 18
    +4
    Tanks without KAZ, armored personnel carriers without screens .....
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 February 2016 13: 45
      -2
      Savings on the production of armored vehicles - on the new BMP and BTR tanks this will all be.
  3. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 1 February 2016 12: 18
    +4
    Before voicing my opinion on this article is not an article, the news is not news, I would like to get acquainted (at least briefly) with the protection characteristics of the proposed Steel Research Institute and the opinions of experts, which are enough on the forum. Colleagues, did anyone exploit these screens in combat conditions? ..
  4. Andy
    Andy 1 February 2016 12: 20
    +9
    Is this news this BTR80 / 82-thin-armored? recently neighing with amer cars with a net, and now we need it? but in general there is no clear separation of functions: BMPs operate in conjunction with tanks in the first orders, and their armor is miserable, armored personnel carriers are vehicles for delivering personnel, patrolling the rear, and security functions. that is, everything is on paper, but in real life on the tank we deliver, and the armored vehicles go on the attack.
  5. Michael67
    Michael67 1 February 2016 12: 20
    +2
    Someone is calculating the development of events for the future? The price is minimal, the efficiency is high. It is necessary to hang. Well, "God protects the saved"!
    1. avt
      avt 1 February 2016 12: 35
      0
      Quote: Michael67
      ? Minimum price, high efficiency. It is necessary to hang.

      It is necessary, as a class, to withdraw the armored personnel carrier from the first line with a replacement for MRAP. On the "Typhoons" they should be transplanted for safe movement in their rear in conditions of increased sabotage danger, and in the first line only BMPs and at the level of protection like those what the "chief flamethrower" did for his T-72s following the results of the Chechen campaign. And this is all patching holes with a waste of funds.
      Quote: Andy
      BMP- operate along with tanks in the first order and the armor is fraught, armored personnel carriers - delivery vehicles, patrolling the rear, security functions. that is, everything is on paper, but in real life on the tank we deliver, and the armored vehicles go on the attack.

      That's it ! good It is also fierce to ask for specific planning of the applied forces and means!
  6. shans2
    shans2 1 February 2016 12: 23
    +5
    for armored steel in 7-10 mm such lattices are meaningless.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 February 2016 12: 37
      +3
      Quote: shans2
      for armored steel in 7-10 mm such lattices are meaningless.

      Not really. The task of these screens is not to attribute the trigger point of the kuma fuse (there really is no point in that - even a defocused jet will pierce the armored personnel carrier's armor), but to destroy the Kuma warhead before the fuse detonates - to destroy the funnel itself or break the fuse circuit. Screen with cutting elements.
      1. Shark Lover
        Shark Lover 1 February 2016 14: 31
        +1
        Alexey, but the armor of the armored personnel carrier is bulletproof, it was not intended to protect against RPGs. It's another matter whether the screen will help against bullets of 12,7 and higher caliber with a BZT bullet, we pierced an armored personnel carrier even with a PC (7,62) with a B-32 bullet. Then, remember the bulwarks on the Behahs, which are for buoyancy. Have you seen many intact ones during operation? A march of 100-200 km across the crossroads, half will carry, but what about the screens? Through the forest, copse, hazel? It's just that half of the equipment is demolished before reaching the border, but the money is solid and it is even more difficult to drive with torn bars. There are a lot of disadvantages. Then, if you put it right before the fight, then you can. Mobile, block system. I wonder how much she weighs? By the way, protection on the sides works well, boxes with cartridges, especially those with large caliber. And you carry the ammunition, it does not interfere and protects. Weighed everything from cilia to stern. Here it is better not to be guided by theory, but by practice.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 February 2016 19: 17
          0
          Quote: Shark Lover
          Aleksey, but the armored personnel carrier of the armored personnel carrier is anti-bulletproof, it was not intended for protection against RPGs. Another thing is whether the screen will help from bullets of caliber 12,7 and higher, a BZT bullet, we punched an armored personnel carrier even with a PC (7,62) B-32 bullet.

          And here there is one caveat.
          A 12,7 caliber bullet suggests either an expensive rifle, or a rather heavy and oversized KKP. These are all piece things and not very common. Yes, and they can pick armored vehicles for a long time. I recall the results of the tests of the PTR on the T-26 in 1939: of the 38 bullets that pierced the armor, only one hit a critical point - it injured a crew member.
          But RPG in reusable or disposable execution is almost every fighter. And the impact of his grenade on the armored shell is much more serious. So it is necessary to protect the armored personnel carrier at least from the most widespread type of weapon.
          Quote: Shark Lover
          Then, here remember the bulwark on Behach, which are for buoyancy. Have you seen many integers during operation?

          Pffff ... I still remember the bulwark on the T-72. Or rather, I don’t remember. smile
          Quote: Shark Lover
          By the way, protection on the sides works well, boxes with cartridges, especially those with large caliber. And you carry the ammunition, it does not interfere and protects. Weighed everything from cilia to stern. Here it is better not to be guided by theory, but by practice.

          So the space between the side and the cutting screen is much better suited for transportation abnormal and stray. smile
    2. serezhasoldatow
      serezhasoldatow 1 February 2016 13: 12
      0
      I join your opinion.
  7. iouris
    iouris 1 February 2016 12: 26
    +7
    And this problem has a first and last name.
    Let me remind you that not long ago they laughed at the "dill" that handicraftly cooked such screens.
    But still, this is a palliative, not a way out. It is necessary to strain the remaining brains.
    1. gray smeet
      gray smeet 1 February 2016 12: 30
      +7
      And what to strain - do not direct to the front armored personnel carrier! - that's the whole strain of the brain! use heavy infantry fighting vehicles with tanks at the front.
      The tanks are on fire, be healthy, but then the armored personnel carriers are compared ...
      1. kil 31
        kil 31 1 February 2016 12: 39
        +5
        Quote: gray smeet
        , the said armored vehicles "are used in Syria in the form in which they were operated in peaceful conditions

        I fully support. What a habit of sticking lightly armored vehicles where you shouldn't go.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. a.hamster55
      a.hamster55 1 February 2016 12: 53
      +1
      However, it is necessary to calculate + and - of the proposed "protection against breakage of the armor, which is fraught with serious consequences for the people inside the vehicle." That is, so that the ammunition does not penetrate thin armor with a mass and does not work inside?
  8. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 1 February 2016 12: 33
    +9
    It’s great, of course, and it would be nice to include sets of screens in the scope of this modernization. But all this is not for having the best and for export. Or maybe it's time to put these APCs on pedestals, and arm themselves with new modern machines ???! By and large, it would be worthwhile first of all to use APCs for their intended purpose, namely as armored vehicles, and not as infantry support on the battlefield.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 1 February 2016 13: 14
      0
      KMK, Boomerangs in Syria are redundant, although some amount would have to be sent to verify them. Boomerangs are good for overcoming water obstacles, rugged woodland, but not for desert. For the desert, the T-15 will be most suitable. KVM.
  9. cap
    cap 1 February 2016 12: 35
    +1
    The main thing is to slow down the head. The whole point of the grid. The efficiency of the cumulative jet decreases.
  10. Andy
    Andy 1 February 2016 12: 35
    0
    “Such protection was tested in numerous armed conflicts and was highly appreciated by the personnel,” Romanov concludes.

    Ukrainians "tested" in the ATO. even vidyuhu talked about the design and testing. the uncommitted truth, because the "designer" needs to add a penny ...
    1. gray smeet
      gray smeet 1 February 2016 12: 38
      -1
      Yes, it wouldn’t hurt to put more logs, for the crew’s confidence!
      1. ICT
        ICT 1 February 2016 19: 47
        +1
        Quote: gray smeet
        Yes, yes, to lay still logs


        somewhere in asia
  11. Hooks
    Hooks 1 February 2016 12: 40
    0
    The author claims the need to strengthen the protection of armored personnel carriers deployed in Syria. But it is not clear from the article - how was he convinced of the configuration of the equipment located there? Maybe it's not so bad?
  12. Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 1 February 2016 12: 40
    +2
    Until the thunder strikes (again and unfortunately) ...
  13. Cananecat
    Cananecat 1 February 2016 12: 40
    +2
    A very large gap in the pictures, such screens are optimal on flat terrain, but not in the mountains or in the city.
    And if they were steel, could they develop something like a patch armor with a gap of 50-70 mm ... or are there not enough brains for this?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 February 2016 13: 06
      +4
      Quote: Canecat
      And if they were steel, could they develop something like a patch armor with a gap of 50-70 mm ... or are there not enough brains for this?

      And what will the 50 -70 mm gap give you? The cumulative stream after it will not pierce 500 mm, but only 150-200? Great joy for the APC with its 10 mm main armor ...

      The only way to protect thin-armored vehicles - cutting screens. On an armored personnel carrier, even a weakened DZ with additional armor is scary to install - too thin main armor + suspension may not withstand the growth of mass.
  14. kapitan92
    kapitan92 1 February 2016 12: 49
    +6
    ......... "Such protection was tested in numerous armed conflicts and was highly appreciated by the personnel", .......
    Competent and "timely" conclusion !!! The question immediately arises, why only now, in Syria, the topic of add. protection of the BTR 82. And the BTR 80, 70 did not need it and was EVERYTHING normal?
    The invaluable experience of the war in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Donbass where is he? Experience on the blood of our guys !!! It is necessary to put generals and designers on "armor" more often, maybe they will "move" faster!
    1. doework
      doework 1 February 2016 13: 01
      +2
      Russian generals are strong in their hindsight ... you can't see a damn thing in the offices that is in demand there, on the front line! fool
    2. Rom14
      Rom14 1 February 2016 13: 20
      +1
      For such miscalculations of the generals, the trenches are to be digged., Damn it, their brains are dried up .. The Turks were bombing an airplane - a knife in a crap, and now what, shaking it on the head?
    3. Rom14
      Rom14 1 February 2016 13: 20
      0
      For such miscalculations of the generals, the trenches are to be digged., Damn it, their brains are dried up .. The Turks were bombing an airplane - a knife in a crap, and now what, shaking it on the head?
  15. Alexez
    Alexez 1 February 2016 12: 49
    0
    Quote: cap
    The main thing is to slow down the head. The whole point of the grid. The efficiency of the cumulative jet decreases.

    The whole point of the grill is to destroy the head part in contact with the armor, as a result of which a cumulative jet as such does not form at all.
  16. taf
    taf 1 February 2016 13: 03
    +2
    in a city or in the mountains they can make fun of the top, they can lay a landmine, or throw cocktails. and in general they can be killed in a war. use the technique as intended and you will be healthy
  17. Rom14
    Rom14 1 February 2016 13: 03
    0
    Quote: MIKHAN
    Quote: Altona
    Why didn’t they think ahead of time? Either the fighters forget to accompany the bomber, then there are no screens on the armored vehicles.

    Checking is everything and everyone .. hi

    Few were Ukraine to check? Apparently, the general staff has reduced the analytical department ...
  18. raid14
    raid14 1 February 2016 13: 07
    0
    It is not easier to put on the armored personnel carrier, instead of the RE, the NKDZ developed by the Scientific Research Institute of Steel specifically for lightly armored vehicles. Http://www.niistali.ru/products/military/nkdz/addon_era_bmp3_btr9
    0/
    Lattice screens are also an option, but work much worse, without reflective screens, penetration of armor is provided.
  19. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 1 February 2016 13: 36
    +1
    The customer (MO) is trying to get the products according to their technical specifications and agreed price, and even if shortcomings are identified at the level of field tests or combat use of equipment (as for example in this case), they raise the issue of modernization, up to and including refusal of production.
    If l / s transportation is included in the product application concept, then this is its main task, everything else, including combat use without the support of heavy armor, is real, and commanders already include their heads here.
    If there is a need for screens, then you need to establish production, there are no options.
  20. keinz
    keinz 1 February 2016 13: 45
    0
    garbage is everything, burns from the air with a direct, if only rebounding ... not to mention the tandem ..
  21. CRASH
    CRASH 1 February 2016 14: 22
    0
    Such screens will save them from RPGs, but the Americans and Co., delivering the last ISIS TOU, have not yet seen the Jewels, but the TOU is undermining the target, so to speak, beating at the softest. And in urban areas with RPGs, they beat the same from top to bottom.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 February 2016 15: 35
      0
      "TOU undermines over the target, so to speak hits the softest" ////

      Such TOU were not delivered to Syria. Delivered ordinary -
      pierces the forehead of the tank with a direct hit.
  22. Algetxnumx
    Algetxnumx 1 February 2016 14: 28
    +1
    Quote: atalef
    if it is required in Syria - why doesn’t it seem like it is required in Russia?

    And that Russia is currently at war with someone, you are our caring and show for your armored personnel carriers, it also "catches" large-caliber bullets and small-caliber projectiles, such as a 30 ml cannon.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Damask
    Damask 1 February 2016 15: 26
    0
    Yes, if manually set the effectiveness of such "protection" was practically zero , and if the factory is 100% protected, what's the difference
  25. hartlend
    hartlend 1 February 2016 15: 41
    0
    Quote: Alget87
    According to the author, these armored vehicles "are used in Syria in the form in which they were used in a peaceful environment, in particular, they still have not received additional protection in the form of lattice and reflective armor steel screens."

    The very author of the article, Lev Romanov, was everywhere, he knows everything. Each military equipment has a purpose, and protection is selected for it. The armored personnel carrier has bulletproof protection. If the Syrians and the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces weigh the armored personnel carriers with gratings (which is generally not bad), then the equipment performs tasks unusual for it. Still confused by the division into peaceful and non-peaceful conditions, as well as reflective armored steel screens. It may be easier to choose a more armored vehicle, which, unlike armored personnel carriers, can carry all this armor on itself. This applies to the defense of the Russian military contingent (about which the author writes).
  26. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 1 February 2016 15: 48
    0
    Until the thunder strikes, the man crosses himself.
  27. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 1 February 2016 19: 42
    +2
    no need to make tank out of armored personnel carrier