GarryB wrote:The BTR vehicles were designed to be cheap... if you want to compare them, then compare them with western troop transport of the time... trucks.
In comparison the BTR was more mobile, had much better firepower, better protection, and were fully amphibious.
The BTR-60 had two engines because those were widely available standard engines and it was cheaper to fit those two petrol driven engines than develop a new one.
To say it was cheap to buy is not to say it was simple to operate as early models were tempermental with their twin engine designs and transmissions.
Being wheeled however they were much cheaper and only slightly less mobile than tracked IFVs.
The BTR-80 introduced a single diesel engine with enough power to make it a useful relatively reliable vehicle and the new BTR-82 has improved protection, introduced spall liners, improved the gun setup (continuous ammo belts for both weapons) with a powered stabilised gun mount and new night capable optics.
The BTR was an APC built to a budget.
Mine resistence wasn't terrible... quite often BTRs were seen in Afghanistan with 2 or more wheels blown completely off by mines, but other problems like lower grade metal in the wheel arches resulting in risk to the crew behind that armour.
If looking at introducing into service for say... Scotland... I would suggest a BTR-80 or upgraded BTR-70 would be useful vehicles that would not be too expensive to buy and operate... there should be a few thousand extra on the arms market in a few years. With a bigger budget the BTR-82 looks like a useful vehicle too.
Some good points garry, as for Scotland i think the BTR 82 would be ideal and buying the 82 over the others would increase its service life/requirements. Something highly mobile and amphibious would be ideal for scotland. Not long intill the vote less than 100 days.