APC general
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why is the BTR-80 so much worse than its counterparts?
>barely stands up to anything other than small arms fire
>barely has any firepower
>troop compartment is cramped af
>turns into an iron coffin when lit
Was it purely a strength in numbers gimmick or is there something I'm not getting?
>>30383548
what the hell are you comparing it to? the BTR-60 through -80's US equivalents are the Striker and M113, which are just as poorly armored and even more lightly armed. it's NOT an IFV and is not supposed to tank shots nor post a significant threat to enemy vehicles.
armored APC's is about being protected vs NBC's
Not about being able to go into fire
>troop compartment is cramped af
could be worse.
>>30383601
I'm not talking tank shots, I'm talking 50 cals.
I get that the M113 is crap, but why not just stick to BMPs?
>>30383627
So it's actually more of a pimped out humvee?
>>30383688
BMP is an IFV, not an APC. Humvees don't even qualify as APCs, they're not armored. APCs are basically metal boxes for carrying troops around and protect them from small arms fire, shell fragments and so on. IFVs like the BMP take it a step further, add a 20-35mm gun and some missiles.
I always wonder how the BTR-50 fared as far as APCs go.
It's the size of a small house so I always imagined it'd be kind of roomy.
>>30383688
Yes, they're pimped out humvees that don't suck dick. IFVs are supposed to follow infantry into combat and keep up with tanks, APCs are meant to transport infantry quickly in and out of combat
Why are they called Infantry Fighting Vehicle when their distinguishing features all involve being able to fight vehicles? Shouldn't they be called VFVs?
>>30383548
>Why is the BTR-80 so much worse than its counterparts?
Its really not, remember that its counterparts is the M113 which suffers from much of the same problems as the BTR.
The point of an APC is to get troops to the fight, hence "Personal Carrier", not do the actual fighting. As long as it gives the required mobility to the infantry and provides NBC and some light protection it is fine. Start adding too much armor and firepower and you end up with an IFV, which fills a completely different role.
>>30383795
They're designed to support infantry. You should read it as "fighting vehicle assigned to infantry units", rather than "vehicle that fights infantry". Even so, most have an autocannon that's effective mainly against 'soft' targets like infantry, the anti-vehicle role is really secondary, left over from Cold War doctrine where they had a secondary purpose as mass produced ATGM platforms.
>>30383601
>which are just as poorly armored
No.
>>30383795
Because they fight alongside infantry, unlike other vehicles which fight independently of infantry.
>>30383683
at least with the bmp you exit through the rear, cant do that in the btr.
>>30383870
>No.
Striker is rated for 14.5mm
BTR-80 is rated for 12.7mm
M113 is rated for 7.62mm
No APC can stand up against anything larger then a HMG unless its one of the Israeli tank-based designs.
>>30384097
14.5 is an HMG caliber, and it is better armored than the BTR.
>>30384097
The LAV III is getting an upgrade that will provide protection up to 30 mm though not sure if it is all round or not
>>30383548
Are those US troops? whats the context of this picture?
>>30384204
im guessing serbs
>>30383754
I think its really quite smaller than a small house.
Isn't it built off a PT-76 chassis?
>>30384204
Soldiers from A Company, 40th Engineers, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany, check out a Russian BTR 80, Commanded by LT Aleksei Terebov, Military Police Platoon Leader, 1st Battalion, Airborne Brigade, 76th Airborne Division before a joint patrol with 3rd Platoon, B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, from Baumholder, Germany during Operation Joint Endeavor.
>>30384142
Yes, slightly, so? He's still right in general, APCs are protected against HMGs at best (if we discount MBT conversions like the Israeli designs) so yes they are all relatively similarily poorly armoured.
Some newer upgrades are beginning to change that like the LAV that is supposed to be protected against 30(?)mm. But to say the BTR series is poorly armoured compared to its counterparts is bogus.
>>30384238
I am saying that bmps are less armored than strykers, thats it.
Strykers, for their size and weight, are VERY well armored.
>>30384238
I'd take a BTR-80 anyday over an open top truck. Look at the Ukranians, at the beginning of the war they moved troops in open top trucks and got hosed by small arms fire.
>>30384271
I am not really sure about that to be honest. Stryker is, as that other anon pointed out, rated against 14.5mm which coincidentally is the standard Pact HMG caliber.
BTR against 12.7mm which coincidentally is the standard Nato HMG caliber.
I wouldn't be surprised if they both can stand up to pretty more or less the same punishement regardless of the nominal rating which seems to be mainly derived from the favourite opposite HMG.
In any case they seem to have been designed with a very similar protection standard in mind which very clearly is anything up to an HMG.
>>30384332
>which coincidentally is the standard Pact HMG caliber.
I disagree, and would say the 12.7mm is the russian standard HMG caliber.
The 12.7 is the kord, DShK, and the NSV.
14.5 is pretty much only used in an AA role or mounted weapons with the KPV.
>>30384332
>Stryker
Could it survive a shot from a typhoon 20mm?
>>30384403
While I agree that 12.7mm is the standard Soviet/Russian HMG caliber the amount of 14.5mm weapons in Russian formations was very significant and filled many of the roles that NATO used 12.7mm for, making a direct 'standard HMG/standard HMG' comparison somewhat difficult. As such a Western formation could reasonably expect to come under fire from 14.5mm weapons when facing mech infantry, while Soviet formations did not face a comparable threat that needed countering.
In short the Soviets gained little by armoring past 12.7mm while the US gained a real amount of protection.
>>30384403
meh you are probably right, not really sure about which one was more ubiquitous. I always just viewed the KPV as -the- Soviet HMG because of its early introduction compared to the NSV.
>>30384641
probably, not really sure to be honest. I am sure there is some more detailed info on its protection than "rated against 14.5"
>>30384711
>In short the Soviets gained little by armoring past 12.7mm
SLAP
A-am I welcome here?
>>30384745
SLAP entered service after the USSR fell and well after the BTR-80 was designed. The follow on BTR-90 did have improved armor but at that point Russia had no money.
Why are there so few heavily armoured APCs (like the Israeli ones based on MBT chassis)? I would think that in the current day of fighting insurgencies that involve a lot of city fighting and ambushes with explosive/AT weaponry those would be highly useful.
>>30383683
Those doors aren't thick with steel, they are gas tanks.
>>30384711
In all honesty, no.
The amount of 14.5mm machine guns in the russian military has been basically relegated to the ZPU and some BTRs.
The reason the stryker is at that level of protection is for artillery strikes, and due to the realistic fact that takeing the max rated strikes en mass will lead to breakthroughs.
A 14.5mm rated armor will stand up to 12.7 better than 12.7 rated armor in battle conditions.
>>30384816
No, only your wifes son, the AMPV is.
BTR's are truly shit. There was a documentary on youtube I remember where Israeli officers in 1982 inspected knocked out Syrian Army BTR's and couldn't believe that its frontal armor was penetrated by 7.62mm MG fire.
>>30383754
BTR-50's performed very badly in the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, 1982 Lebanon War, Desert Storm, Yugoslav Wars, Chechnya, etc..
>>30384842
Israel is ~400 miles from end to end, they do not have to go very far.
>>30384816
Is that a FIST-V?
>>30384842
Logistics, cost and IFVs.
Israeli expects to fight over close to its central supply system at relatively short distances and along its own land boarder. Other armor-producing nations do have these expectations and expect to either fight either overseas (US, UK), ship equipment across large internal areas (Russia, China, France when they like NATO), or fight across large distances (pretty much everyone). This means that the logistics burden of operating comparable heavy APCs would be far greater for these nations.
Procurement cost for heavy APCs is much larger then for a conventional lighter APC and nations have limited budgets to mechanize the infantry.
Finally IFVs are already in wide use and other then the BMP series they provide a reasonable amount of protection to the infantry. All these issues add up and even Israel uses a large number of conventional APCs.
That all said there are a couple of MBT based design coming out of Ukraine and Russia but none have seen mass issue yet.
>>30384997
That sounded a lot funnier in your head than it turned out.
>>30385054
Yes it is an M7A3.
>>30383548
>is there something I'm not getting?
Yes. BTRs equip(ped) the motorized units, not the mech units. In other words, it's a basic APC/IFV for basic motor infantry. For most of the service history of the BTR-60/-80/-80A/-90/-82, their equivalent units in other countries were riding in unarmored trucks and/or equally shitty light APCs.
Russia has BMPs for the Mech units. BMP also has shit for protection, but it brings a ton of off-road mobility and firepower at least.
>>30384960
>has been basically relegated to the ZPU and some BTRs.
you mean all btr's except for the up gunned 30mm ones which is a lot of 14.5 mm HMGs
>>30386556
Dont forget the BRDM.
>>30384189
>30mm
Nice!
>>30384189
Nice, so it will only be able to drive on roads or hard compacted surfaces with all the added surface pressure.
>>30384271
So it uses magical armor that weighs less than any other armor produced?
>>30384275
In there defense they were unknowingly driving into columns of T-90A's, T-73BMs and a Russian arty kill box.
However, the BTRs got the Ukrainians mobilized extreamly quick. I believe they were credited with the longest and fastest over land road march in modern warfare. The Ukrainian General at the time was a grad of the US War College and did a kick ass job until the Russian regulars started showing up and his air support got shot down.
>>30386745
Want to try again but actually address what was said?
>>30386753
The quickness of the Ukranian mobilization is arguably the only reason they exist as a nation and Russia didn't invade.
>>30386745
Mostly its just not amphibious while the BMPs and BTRs are.
>>30384854
Not anymore.
>>30386817
Ukraine is not a "nation"
>>30384842
For cities it's better to have MBT conversion turned into heavily-HE armed(think of short-bore gun, multiple machine-guns and coax grenade launcher or maybe even flame thrower) and well armoured support vehicle, but not used for transport. Infantry will be dismounted during city fights anyway.
>>30385092
Hey, it drew a smirk from me at least.
>>30386753
>T-90A's
The only evidence of that is from a single, rather political, article that draws heavily on Ukrainian Army sources.
Given the difficulty of IDing tanks during fighting, the lack of photographic evidence and the terrible OPSEC by Russian forces in Ukraine the presence of T-90A seems unlikely. There is photographic, geolocated evidence of Russian personal as well as Russian supplied ammunition, small arms, heavy weapons, T-72B3 tanks and even Pantsir-S1 SAMs, given this track record it seems hard to believe the Russians could have successfully hidden the deployment of T-90A.
>pic very related, a Pantsir-S1 parked in the middle of a fucking street.
>>30386574
BRDM-2 a cute! A CUTE!
>>30386854
vatnik detected
>>30384271
The BMP have more armor then a Stryker on its frontal arch.
>>30386953
>given this track record it seems hard to believe the Russians could have successfully hidden the deployment of T-90A.
Well they did not. Atleast on social media.
http://sled-vzayt.livejournal.com/3367.html
https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-t-90-tanks-136th-motorized-rifle-brigade-luhansk-region/
>>30386953
>>30386753
Are we talking about the same guys that did an enormous loop through sep territory and got ambushed on the way out?
Pretty sure there was a vice video of this, the one with the guy hanging from they powerlines. You know the one.
>>30383548
I was under the impression that the entire BTR line was actually fairly successful in it's role as an APC in a European theater of war. It very clearly performed poorly in today's wars and insurgencies but it was never designed for those roles. Analogous designs such as the M113 performed poorly in similar roles and I suspect that the LAV-25 would perform as well as it's closest competitor at the time had it been produced so widely and seen nearly as much action with such a diverse cast of theaters, environments and nations.
These vehicles are not MRAPs, they were designed to get infantry from point A to point B across rivers with decent speed while being somewhat protect from small arms fire and chemical weapons all while being cheap to produce. I find it baffling why people insist on pointing out the obvious, of course these vehicles are going to get shredded by just about anything.
>>30387082
>The BMP have more armor then a Stryker on its frontal arch.
The claim that a BMP-3 can stop 30mm (without specifying if it was 30x165mm AP or APDS) is based on both the wavebreaker and the main fuel tank being sacrificed.
>>30387198
>The claim that a BMP-3 can stop 30mm (without specifying if it was 30x165mm AP or APDS) is based on both the wavebreaker and the main fuel tank being sacrificed.
oh shit not that I mean. I have read that the BMP-2 and 1 can both stop 14.5mm rounds from the front and take one some 20mm rounds.
>>30384142
>larger than a HMG
>>30383548
Actually BTR-80 wipes the floor with M-113. 14.5mm MG, NBC protected cupola.
>>30384842
Because no countries except Israel fought and won real wars after WWII. Arabs had some, but they were so crushingly defeated that were not able to extract any experience, also they rely on foreign AFV producers, beggars can't be choosers.
>>30387336
>it is not a real war unless you are the agressor and have the backing of a superpower
>>30383548
With what competition?
M113s, FV432s?
The majority of APCs for every country in the 80s were also metal boxes.
They moved men from A to B and protected them from bullets and shrapnel.
>>30386797
>>30386823
Stryker base model protection is proof against 7.62 ball against all but frontal arc.
COIN kits anyone can make. Russians apparently just don't give a fuck.
>>30384275
The USMC suffers the same problem, in Iraq they rode around in their M939s until they got MRAPs.
>>30387694
You all forgetting another function of BTR. Unlike Humvee or open truck, BTR is amphybious, without any need for preparation. That means that BTR with all crew and infantry onboard, can cross rivers or perform rapid beach landings without any wait for engineers. So, BTR is quite awesome CARRIER, and not the fighting vehicle it is not intended to be.
Picrelated, on the other hand, seems to be quite adequately protected.
>>30386753
>>30386817
ha ha
>>30386753
>>30386817
ha ha ha
>>30386753
>>30386817
ha ha ha ha!
>>30387683
>COIN kits
You mean applique armor that is standard equipment.
>>30391804
>>30391819
A fascinating web brigade narrative that avoids Russia's direct involvement in the war.
>>30391979
Nice conspiracy tier shit you got there. Whats next, the moonlandings were faked?
>>30392018
>""""""moon""""" landings
>>30392018
You would be talking about the screen-caps.
>>30392018
>Implying Russia isn't involved
Wow I thought I could go a whole day without reading something completely retarded... you have proved me wrong.
>>30392078
Here you go, proving my point that you a conspiracy faggot. Probably a faggot coming from /x/.
Dont forget to buy additional rolls of foil because you never know when the """"""""Russians"""""""""" (Substitute for Aliums) decide to invade your country!
>>30392228
You are not very good at this.
>>30392218
The only way Russia was involved in the Ukraine was in the Crimea. Sure, Putin denied Russia's involvement at first but he admitted it afterwards.
Not in the case with the seperatists fighting against the Ukrainians.
>>30392215
>Implying.
>>30392271
>You are not very good at this.
At what?
>>30392285
>The only way Russia was involved in the Ukraine was in the Crimea.
And all the decicive battles in Donbass, as well as providing most of the seperatists heavy weaponry (with unit markers intact).
>>30391819
>Kiev gernment propaganda
>Russian tanks coming to the aid
>implying it is a lie
