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.