Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    More interesting is, that Russian army will next year also evaluate Centauro and Freccio IFV

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:15 am

    BTR-82/A is not IFV, but APC to carry troops near front line and not to support troops on battle field.

    You are quite right in theory but in practise there is no difference.

    There are no vehicles that carry troops that will go blazing into enemy territory with soldiers firing from inside them... that was tried with the first BMPs in the Middle East and was a disaster.

    All so called IFV deploy troops short of the front line and retreat a bit and give covering fire when the troops meet trouble.

    The 30mm cannon on the BTR-82A like the one on the BTR-80A and the BMP-2 is for direct fire support of ground troops. The 14.5mm HMG of the BTR-82 and BTR-80 is for the same thing... the Soviets and Russians use the 14.5mm HMG like the west uses a 20mm cannon... its performance is similar but trades some shell weight for penetration performance.

    The main difference these days is the wheeled vs tracked difference and this determines mobility options.

    For that role back door is not that necessary and the side doors are good enough.

    During an ambush you still want your troops getting out of the vehicle fast when they need to, because being in a vehicle when the enemy has plenty of anti armour weapons is like bunching up when the enemy has lots of artillery.

    After all a lot of helicopters in that role have side doors (I know, not a good comparison).

    It is an excellent comparison and proves my point exactly. The Hind has a small cabin with side doors and for recovering one downed pilot or two it is fine. When you are deploying a platoon however it is seconds on the ground that count so even though they have less armour Mi-8 and Mi-17 helos are used to deploy troops because less aircraft are needed for any number of troops and side and rear exits means less time on the ground wetting yourself for the pilot.

    What is actual role of BTR-90? Is it a wheeled IFV like BMPs or an APC like BTR-80? With Berezhok turret it is armed as IFV and have better armor than BTR-80, but that still does not mean, it will do a role of IFV.

    For the light brigades the vehicles need to be fast and mobile and deploy troops fast. They also need to provide direct fire support because there will be no tanks or BMPs or other heavier vehicles there. I would think a mix of vehicles would be preferred that some troops will be in vehicles like the Tigr-M perhaps with a Kord in a remote roof position for fire support, along with BTR-82/As for troop transport... they will drop off troops and retire 500m to provide direct fire support etc, and also some BTR-90Ms with 100mm gun and 30mm gun and missiles. There should also be a wheeled air defence vehicle too and perhaps a few mortar carriers etc etc. Needs to be fast an mobile with enough firepower to overwhelm quickly.

    All just my opinion of course.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:15 am

    Have read on another forum that the BTR-90 will not be produced for the Russian Army and that the BTR-82/A vehicles are stopgaps till a new vehicle is developed.

    The BTR-82 solves most of the obvious problems while keeping the price to a minimum... it might not have thermal sights but it will be connected to the C4IR"net".

    Apparantly the new vehicle is called Gilza which should deal with the biggest problems like much better mine and IED resistence, heavier armour, a front mounted more powerful engine in the 600hp range (presumably because of the extra armour) and rear doors as well as side doors though the weight increase will probably eliminate the Amphibious capability which is obviously significant.

    The implications being that perhaps the BMP-x might also sacrifice its amphibious capability for better armour too... the BMP-3s design was seriously compromised because of the need for amphibious capability... to have decent frontal armour and the turret up front the engine had to go to the rear of the vehicle which had a serious effect on rear entry and exit for the soldiers on board.

    Scrubbing the amphibious capability would allow the design to become much more nose heavy, though a rethink might lead to a reduction in armament as well, but heavy front armour with a front mounted engine will make amphibious capability impossible because it will simply be too nose heavy to balance in the water.

    Perhaps external guns and external ammo bins could improve internal volume for troops and firepower for the troop carriers, or perhaps a "firepower" vehicle like the BMP-T does have a place but it will likely be heavy direct fire capability as an external 30mm high elevation gun could be fitted to most armoured vehicles, a seperate firepower vehicle that has the turret of the BMP-3M with an external gun arrangement and external autoloader in a bustle arrangement that seperates the HE shells from the crew might be a good solution.


    I wonder if this new vehicle is the same vehicle planned called Typhoon for light brigades, or if Typhoon will supplement or eventually replace the Gilza.

    I guess the question of amphibious capability comes down to how the light, medium, and heavy units will be expected to operate/used.

    I would think the light and perhaps medium could be air deployed or deployed by sea which would make some amphibious capability useful. I rather doubt the Heavy Brigade will require amphibious capability so if it is not equipped with BTR-T type vehicles then any BMPs will likely get extra armour packages to improve protection to near tank levels which will make swimming difficult. The problems of the Bradley getting heavier come to mind and these problems will need to be dealt with.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:29 am

    While continuing to develop a new family of platforms such as light (Typhoon), medium ("Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25") and heavy ("Armata").

    Of course it could be that this Gilza could actually be a Boomerang or Kurganets-25 type vehicle for the medium brigades with BMP levels of armour... it might even have 10 wheels?

    Of course some truck trailers use double wheels to spread the load so perhaps an 8 x 8 layout but with the front 4 wheels being double wheels, or perhaps the middle 4... or all 8 wheels being double wheels?

    I don't know much about trucks... certainly a mine that takes out one wheel will also destroy a wheel right next to it and two wheels like that would be harder to change, but it might allow lower tire pressure to be used which is good for cross country performance... you don't want to end up with a very well armoured vehicle that can't leave a sealed road because it will sink like a rock.

    I remember reading a US army eval of a BTR-60 and the guy claimed it was the ultimate RV and he had it bouncing across all sorts of rough country and sand and mud and snow. If he got stuck there was a winch that could be tied to a nearby tree, or you could use a ground anchor if there was no tree handy.

    His eval made me want to go out and buy one actually... Embarassed
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3145
    Points : 3235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  medo on Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:38 am

    Have read on another forum that the BTR-90 will not be produced for the Russian Army and that the BTR-82/A vehicles are stopgaps till a new vehicle is developed.

    The BTR-82 solves most of the obvious problems while keeping the price to a minimum... it might not have thermal sights but it will be connected to the C4IR"net".

    Apparantly the new vehicle is called Gilza which should deal with the biggest problems like much better mine and IED resistence, heavier armour, a front mounted more powerful engine in the 600hp range (presumably because of the extra armour) and rear doors as well as side doors though the weight increase will probably eliminate the Amphibious capability which is obviously significant.
    [quote]

    Intertesting news. I hope Russian army will go for BTR-82A armed with 30 mm gun,than BTR-82 armed with 14,5 mm machine gun. Both BTR-82/A have stabilized FCS with II night channel (I hope 3rd gen II tube), so maybe luck of thermal sight is not that big deal, when it is in function of APC and not of IFV. Gilza will be the one to do the job as wheeled IFV.

    I more think they will use BTR-82/A and Gilza together, because BTR-82/A is still amphibious and Russian army need them for operations around their large rivers for river crossing to secure bridge building. The same could go for their IFVs, where they will use with tanks heavier IFVs, but BMP-3M will be used for operations, where amphibious capabilities are a must have.

    Anyway, placing C4ISR "net" inside tanks, BMPs, BMDs and BTRs will make those vehicles far more capable to engage targets around them, but the quality of their C4ISR "net" will depend on their recce capabilities.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:20 pm

    As far as I know they will use the two models of the BTR-82 together (both the 14.5mm and 30mm gun armed versions) and that both vehicles are seen as complimentary.
    I have read the BTR-82A with the 30mm gun actually has a system similar to ANIET where the rounds have fuses that can be set as they are loaded to detonate them at a specific range, but that would be a feature of the ammo so I would expect such a setup could be part of other vehicles using the standard 30mm calibre (with the necessary electronics, fuse setting equipment and of course the right ammo).

    If they are a stopgap for the Gilza then I suspect when the Gilza is ready it will replace the BTR-82s in production and service.

    As far as I can tell the BTR-90 was very expensive but had many fundamental flaws of the cheaper vehicle so it was cancelled and the Gilza is being developed.

    This means that the Gilza might be expensive too but without the flaws of the BTR series, which means it is certainly possible it might be produced together with the BTR-82s I guess depending on how the BTR-82s go.

    Previously I believed the Russian Army was going to make the BTR-90s and BTR-82s together while working on a new vehicle that was going to enter service after 2015, so I think BTR-82s and Gilzas could be produced together too, I would think as they make Gilzas they will replace the older model BTRs and perhaps keep producing BTR-82s because they are cheaper than Gilzas and as you point out their amphibious design and lighter weights will likely mean more aircraft can carry them whereas a Gilza will probably be 5-10 tons heavier depending on how much extra armour is fitted which means 25-30 tons so it is too heavy for the An-12.

    I suspect that work on QWIP technology could lead to much cheaper night vision equipment that could be fitted to wheeled light vehicles of all types so the current lack of full night vision on the BTR-82s is probably only short term too, with performance comparable to a thermal imager, but when the technology matures prices in the CCD range like a cam corder.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3145
    Points : 3235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  medo on Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:07 am

    As far as I know they will use the two models of the BTR-82 together (both the 14.5mm and 30mm gun armed versions) and that both vehicles are seen as complimentary.
    I have read the BTR-82A with the 30mm gun actually has a system similar to ANIET where the rounds have fuses that can be set as they are loaded to detonate them at a specific range, but that would be a feature of the ammo so I would expect such a setup could be part of other vehicles using the standard 30mm calibre (with the necessary electronics, fuse setting equipment and of course the right ammo).

    Something similar as Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun have? This is very useful against aerial targets, but less against ground targets. With C4ISR "net" it could do some AA job, but for that role a turret with two barrel GSh-30-2 30 mm gun and Igla missiles will be better suited. I know that turret was shown on modernized MT-LB, but BTR-82 could also use it.


    I suspect that work on QWIP technology could lead to much cheaper night vision equipment that could be fitted to wheeled light vehicles of all types so the current lack of full night vision on the BTR-82s is probably only short term too, with performance comparable to a thermal imager, but when the technology matures prices in the CCD range like a cam corder.
    [quote]

    Any improvements in this direction are wellcomed to improve night capabilities for reasonable price. Anyway, 3rd gen II tube with intensifying 50.000x or more gives good night capabilities for night operations. Total darkness is rare in nature, maybe in heavy fog, but in that case thermal imager won't see much better.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:45 am

    Something similar as Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun have?

    Yes, like the AHEAD rounds.

    The real question is about the construction of the round.

    With ANIET it was a new fuse and a new fuse setting system and some new electronics in the fire control system, so you got a standard 125mm HE shell and fitted the new electronic fuse and then you lased the target to get the range and that information was used to set the fuse as it moved in the autoloader from the underfloor magazine to the gun.

    If the target was behind a concrete wall for example you lased the range to the wall and then added 2-3 metres so the round detonated past the wall. You then raised the gun to shoot over the wall and loaded the round which had its fuse set to detonate above whatever was behind the wall and then you fired.

    Because it is a standard shell most of the effective shell fragments go sideways because it is the walls of the shell that fragment while the nose has the fuse and the tail has the fins to stabilise the round in flight.

    They have introduced a new shell that has lots of fragments in the nose behind the fuse so if you fit the ANIET fuse to it it becomes like a flying claymore mine with lots of metal fragments flying forward.

    With the new round if a group of infantry are advancing... say 1.5km away you can lase the front guy and deduct 300m from that range and set the fuse. When the front guy is 1,250m away you fire the shell and it should detonate 50m in front of them and spray thousands of small fragments at them like a super shot gun shell.

    I have not seen the new 30mm shell but as it is a fixed shell rather than just a fuse I would expect it is designed to direct fragments forward like the new ANIET shell and the AHEAD shell.

    The real question is how accurate is the timer in the fuse.

    The Russians have had a similar shell for some time that has lots of little fragments in it but it detonates at a fixed distance rather than using a timer fuse and it is often used against infantry on the ground or soft aerial targets.

    It might even be useful against UAVs as the range can be very accurately assessed with laser rangefinder so the spray of fragments should make UAV kills easier (due to their small size).

    This is very useful against aerial targets, but less against ground targets.

    Would be useful against an infantry charge and soft targets. With aerial targets it would also be useful against small light UAVs.

    I think it might just be like tube fired anti tank rounds... it doesn't make an IFV a tank destroyer, but it is another specialised and useful type of ammunition that you might use or you might not.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:01 pm

    Tigr-M and BTR-82 in production and sent to troops

    http://www.amz.ru/Sobitiya.files/Page3883.html
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3145
    Points : 3235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  medo on Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:41 pm

    Are those barrels on Tiger-M air filters for NBC device? I hope Russian army will also install remote controlled weapon stations as it is trend now in this class of armor vehicles.

    One question about BTR-82/82A. Does FCS TKN-4GA have laser range finder? It is a must have to work with ballistic computer and stabilization for precise fire on the move.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:33 am

    Does FCS TKN-4GA have laser range finder? It is a must have to work with
    ballistic computer and stabilization for precise fire on the move.

    I would expect so... especially if the rumours about the ANIET type 30mm ammo are true.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:05 am

    medo wrote:Are those barrels on Tiger-M air filters for NBC device?

    Those are just fuel exhaust , would help while passing through foot deep water.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3145
    Points : 3235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:35 pm

    How is BTR-82A comparable with Ukrainian BTR-4? Iraq and Thailand buy quite a number of them.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:44 pm

    medo wrote:How is BTR-82A comparable with Ukrainian BTR-4? Iraq and Thailand buy quite a number of them.

    Yeah quite surprising BTR-4 has won good number of orders and Russia could not promote their BTR-90 or 82A.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:33 am

    Hopefully the Russian military will keep the factories so busy for the next few years they wont have the production floor space to care.
    The Gilza should eventually be a much better vehicle than the BTR-80 series, and once its design is perfected I suspect there might be a cheap and an expensive version like the BTR-82/BTR-90 combination, but with the improved layout/exit options provided by the new layout.

    With new production BTR-82s entering Russian service I suspect their biggest problem will be what to do with all those BTR-60s and BTR-70s and now BTR-80s they have. Being amphibious they will be rather useful to lots of military forces around the world. Donating them to countries and then getting spares support contracts would be a good way to get into new markets... especially with Russias no strings attached approach to weapons. Countries like Vietnam and Cuba etc could get them as gifts for old friends... we are talking about thousands of vehicles here... the vehicles in poor condition can become target range targets, or converted to civilian off road recreation vehicles.
    The amphibious performance means countries that have soft and/or wet terrain will appreciate them... even if they traditionally buy from the west... a gift of free vehicles in reasonable condition will certainly lead to spares orders and ammo orders, and might lead to upgrade orders and perhaps later to follow on orders.
    These free gifts could lead to orders for popular Russian weapons like small arms and light ATGMs (Metis-M sells very well AFAIK) and of course MANPADS seem to be hot items as well, though proliferation of decent MANPADS is a security issue.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:55 am

    Nice video of BTR-80a , seems its more than a stabilised gun update but a comprehensive one




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:57 am

    Why does Russian army operate both BMP-3 and BTR-80/90 APC , both are APC so why operate two types ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:43 am

    At 0:22, that's a very small bomb Surprised

    @Austin, the BMP-3 can carry troops, but the difference is armament and protection. The newest BTR-80s (and probably 90s) are all-around resistant v.s. 14.5 mm bullets. The BMP-3 has that, but can also take a 30 mm round to the front. Armament wise, the BTR-80 traditionally has a 14.5 mm HMG, while the BMP-3 has a 100 mm low-velocity gun and a 30 mm gun along with a bunch of other smaller guns.

    Their jobs are different too. The BTR-80 is specifically designed to get troops in and out of the battlefield, while providing just enough protection and firepower to strug off basic Infantry. The BMP-3 is there to bring troops too, although in limited numbers, but it's main job is to provide support for those troops, blowing up enemy positions, shooting at tanks, hitting helicopters, etc.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:46 am

    ^^^ If what you say is true why does Europe and US operate these types of vehical , AFAIK Europe operate BTR types and US operates BMP types Bradley.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:00 am

    Yes, we have a similar operating model.

    For general troop transport, we use the M113.

    For the Infantry support, we have Bradleys.

    HOWEVER, the Stryker is going to replace the two and become a modular chassis.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3145
    Points : 3235
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:10 am

    BMP-3 is IFV and BTR-80/90 are APC, so their rule in battlefield is different. Russian tracked APC is MT-LB, which is equivalent to M-113. IFVs like BMP-2/3, Bradley, Warrior work together with tanks, drive infantry to work with armor units and protect infantry and tanks with their own armament. They are usually better armored than APCs, which operate behind and drive infantry and supplies protected with armor against infantry attacks comparing to usual trucks.


    HOWEVER, the Stryker is going to replace the two and become a modular chassis.
    [quote]

    I doubt Stryker will replace Bradley, because wheeled vehicles could not do properly the job of tracked vehicles, which could have heavier armor and stronger armament, because they are more stable and have lower pressure or ground.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:19 am

    Why does Russian army operate both BMP-3 and BTR-80/90 APC , both are APC so why operate two types ?

    In WWII most infantry walked. Even the German Army had to walk most of the time.

    With time forces became more mechanised but even in the 60s and 70s the vast majority of soldiers went by truck in the west.

    In the Soviet Union they developed the BMP vehicle which was relatively well armoured but with serious firepower, and was not cheap. If you have a 3 million man Army and an expensive APC then the majority will either walk or travel in trucks.
    US forces at the time went in M113s which were basically a box on tracks for the high priority forces and trucks for the majority.
    Soviet forces introduced the BTR series as being cheap enough to get into service to replace trucks in the role of troop transport.
    Examples of cost cutting include using a widely available truck engine to power the BTR-60 but it was so underpowered they had to use two engines. This made it harder to maintain and operate but it was relatively cheap with plenty of spare parts and most mechanics were familiar with how the engine worked.
    The BTR-70 replaced it and kept the twin engine design though they became diesel engines for fire safety.
    Finally in the BTR-80 they had one engine, which simplifies the transmission of the vehicle.

    Compared with the western equivalent of the BTR, which for the most part was a truck the BTR was much better protected from small arms and mines. There are plenty of photos of the BTR in Afghanistan with wheels blown off by mines and the vehicle is still fully operational.
    The BTR also has much better firepower than the average troop truck, and in many ways it even had better firepower than the M113, in the sense that while the turret was manually operated it was a protected position unlike the gun fitted to the M113 and had both 30 cal and the very powerful 14.5mm guns. In many ways the 14.5mm was very much like a western 20mm gun with less HE capacity but higher muzzle velocity so the AP rounds tended to be better than the 20mm rounds of the time.

    Through experience however it has been found that the BTR series have good mobility where roads are OK.
    There are no APCs that you can actually fight from unless the enemy are completely pathetic so the lack of armour compared with the BMP was not that important.
    In both cases the vehicle transports the troops to where the enemy is and when the troops deploy and advance the vehicle provides fire support.
    The better optics and better firepower made the BMPs more effective, and as their units would be fighting a tougher enemy they generally needed that.
    The BMP-2 was the favourite vehicle in Afghanistan because of its high elevation fire power and its armour was better than that on the BTRs, but there weren't many places a BMP could go that a BTR couldn't and they were much cheaper.
    I have a manual from an old tank game called M1 tank platoon. Its description of the BTR was that it was a turkey of a vehicle and that if the Soviet Union had a Congress it wouldn't be in service. The BTRs armour was no worse than that on the M113 and on roads it was faster and cheaper to operate and had better fire power. The difference of course is that it shouldn't be compared with an M113... it should be compared with a truck... it has better armour, better cross country ability, better fire power, and better mine resistance.

    In a normal Motor Rifle unit there will be tanks and BMPs and BTRs... without the BTRs the troops would be in trucks. Units in East Germany would have the better BMPs and BTRs, while the units in the middle of nowhere would have old tanks and old BMPs and old BTRs.

    Yes, we have a similar operating model.

    For general troop transport, we use the M113.

    For the Infantry support, we have Bradleys.

    Actually when the BTR was in service you hadn't developed Bradleys yet... it was M113s and trucks.

    The US didn't "invent" the Bradley till after the Soviets introduced the BMP-2...

    Russian tracked APC is MT-LB, which is equivalent to M-113.

    Not really. The MTLB is a prime mover... an artillery tractor. It is designed to tow a gun and carry the crew and some ammo. In deep snow it is used in lieu of BMPs but that is rare.

    The M113 was the BMP and the Truck was the BTR in the US military.

    I doubt Stryker will replace Bradley, because wheeled vehicles could not
    do properly the job of tracked vehicles, which could have heavier armor
    and stronger armament, because they are more stable and have lower
    pressure or ground.

    There is a tracked vehicle being developed to replace the Bradley. Wheeled vehicles have the benefit of excellent mobility where roads exist, high speed, good resistance to mines, very low operating costs, low maintenance costs, at the cost of reduced armour and generally reduced fire power.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6087
    Points : 6493
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:37 am

    Thanks Garry ,medo ,IronsightSniper for your replies.

    Incidently Indian Army still uses lorry to transport majority of their troops , I guess its only the rich nations that can afford a BTR to transport majority of troops.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:14 am

    BTRs mean that the troops that would otherwise go by trucks can keep up with the rest of the force when it comes to a river with no bridge for example.

    I remember a report written by a US officer after evaluating a BTR in a test drive and he said it was the ultimate RV (recreation vehicle). It would bounce over fairly rough country with ease.

    The new BTR-82 just improves some things that were relatively easy to fix and make some changes that made sense now. Fixes include removing the main gun stoppage of 50 round belts of ammo by using a continuous 500 round belt of 14.5mm ammo. A small fix but makes the gunners job much easier and provides an improvement in fire power. The turret is now fully electric with power traverse and elevation and stabilisation for the weapons and sights. The old manual controls were not that heavy but the addition of an auto tracker and fire control system and weapon and sight stabiliser means firing on the move is much more accurate, which again improves the fire power of the vehicle.
    Regarding changes that needed to be made include the replacement of the anti radiation liner with a kevlar anti spall liner and improvement of side and rear armour was also a good idea for now.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:17 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Yes, we have a similar operating model.

    For general troop transport, we use the M113.

    For the Infantry support, we have Bradleys.

    [quoteActually when the BTR was in service you hadn't developed Bradleys yet... it was M113s and trucks.

    The US didn't "invent" the Bradley till after the Soviets introduced the BMP-2...

    I wasn't even talking about who did it first Garry, I was talking about what we have and what they have, calm down.. :p
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16050
    Points : 16681
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:35 am

    I wasn't even talking about who did it first Garry, I was talking about what we have and what they have, calm down.. :p

    I am perfectly calm.

    The question was why the Russians/Soviets operated both BMPs and BTRs which are both armoured vehicles used to transport troops.

    I felt a history lesson was necessary to explain why a large powerful nation like the Soviet Union that built entire submarines out of an expensive material like Titanium would bother with such a cheap simple vehicle.

    It certainly was a cheap and simple vehicle, but more expensive and useful than the alternative... which as I pointed out was at the time for all other armies a truck or for some actually walking.

    The west likes to talk about Russia adopting western style this or that, yet hardly mentions the reverse, like the west adopting Russian style assault rifles, and Soviet style IFVs.

    Sponsored content

    Re: BTR-80/82 APCs and variants: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:53 am