The flaw is not as bad as many thinks, and in some cases is advantage. For example, if vehicle is ambushed by side, troops can exit throu the other side. The advantages of rear exit is somewhat overestimated anyway, due to usually quite wide arc of possible enemy fire, which couldnt be completely covered by front-aligned vehicle.
IFV questions
- Thread starter ROCK45
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
side
Chrom I don't know a lot about armor vehicles I'm learning but wouldn't a door or hatch not be as strong a solid wall? So in theory wouldn't the side of BTR-? be weaker or at least at the door/hatch? I guess if they come under attack the driver could turn to let out troops but wouldn't expose more of the vehicle to further attack? I thought giving an enemy less of a target in combat is better. Unless you can explain the benefits I would have to agree with the poster who mentioned this flaw. Watching the military channel the convoy in Iraq seem to get hit from the side more. I do see one good point you mention that of course is if your attacked from one the other having a way out the other side isn't a bad thing. But on the flip side if the driver turns toward the attack exposing a smaller target and assume a little thicker armor maybe it would provide cover for troops exiting out the back. I guess like the glass of water is half full or half empty.
Can I assume the 30mm auto cannon and other weapons used on a BMP-3 can be mounted on a BRT-90?
Does one vehicle (BTR-90/BMP-3)have more armor protection against mines then the other?
Thanks
Chrom I don't know a lot about armor vehicles I'm learning but wouldn't a door or hatch not be as strong a solid wall? So in theory wouldn't the side of BTR-? be weaker or at least at the door/hatch? I guess if they come under attack the driver could turn to let out troops but wouldn't expose more of the vehicle to further attack? I thought giving an enemy less of a target in combat is better. Unless you can explain the benefits I would have to agree with the poster who mentioned this flaw. Watching the military channel the convoy in Iraq seem to get hit from the side more. I do see one good point you mention that of course is if your attacked from one the other having a way out the other side isn't a bad thing. But on the flip side if the driver turns toward the attack exposing a smaller target and assume a little thicker armor maybe it would provide cover for troops exiting out the back. I guess like the glass of water is half full or half empty.
Can I assume the 30mm auto cannon and other weapons used on a BMP-3 can be mounted on a BRT-90?
Does one vehicle (BTR-90/BMP-3)have more armor protection against mines then the other?
Thanks
BTR-90 carry 30mm cannon by default. In fact, BTR-90 carry BMP-2 turret and FCS. There is also BTR-90 version with BMP-3 turret and 100/30 mm cannons. As for sides... no, doors are not less armored than the rest. The sides of BTR-90 is not as thick as frontal tank armor - so there is no problem making doors exactly as protected as normal armor..
As for drivers turning towards attack - sometimes they can, sometimes they cant. Either way in the case of wider enemy distribution it is almost impossible to provide protection for troops exiting rear, while it is much easer in case of sides exit.
As i said, it is probably disadvantage in more cases than advantage - just not always disadvantage, and not nearly to some deree as sometimes portrayed.
Do not mistake BTR-90 and BTR-80. Despite they similar name and look, they are completely different vehicles. One is APC, other is true wheeled IFV.
P.S. Believe me, USSR designers werent complete idiots, they last experience was Afganistan war. So there were a good reasons why they gone with sides exits, and there were a good reasons why army accepted that.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
BTR Series
Chrom - Thanks interesting stuff do you know what a BTR-90 cost? Do you know why a country like Greece would buy 400 BMP-3 and not split part with BTR-90? It's safe to assume tracked vehicles cost more to operate and Greece is a old country that must have a lot of roads. I wonder why so many tracked vehicles if both carry the same or close to the same weapons, any ideas?
Anybody
Now I need to compared other wheeled vehicles to the BTR-90 just like I would fighter aircraft, any ideas?
Thanks
Chrom - Thanks interesting stuff do you know what a BTR-90 cost? Do you know why a country like Greece would buy 400 BMP-3 and not split part with BTR-90? It's safe to assume tracked vehicles cost more to operate and Greece is a old country that must have a lot of roads. I wonder why so many tracked vehicles if both carry the same or close to the same weapons, any ideas?
Anybody
Now I need to compared other wheeled vehicles to the BTR-90 just like I would fighter aircraft, any ideas?
Thanks
If we talk about non-US vehicles for the mentioned scenario i would propose:
Finnish AMV or XA-200
Austrian Pandur II
second hand German Fuchs or French VAB
Italian Puma
if one would accept MRAV/Patrol vehicles then also:
Southafrican Casspir
Namibian Werewolf (most likely the cheapest you can get?)
German Dingo
And if wheeled support for these vehicles, then also:
Southafrican Rooikat with 105mm maingun
Finnish AMV with AMOS twin mortar system
Finnish AMV or XA-200
Austrian Pandur II
second hand German Fuchs or French VAB
Italian Puma
if one would accept MRAV/Patrol vehicles then also:
Southafrican Casspir
Namibian Werewolf (most likely the cheapest you can get?)
German Dingo
And if wheeled support for these vehicles, then also:
Southafrican Rooikat with 105mm maingun
Finnish AMV with AMOS twin mortar system
I would also add the Piranha III or IV.
One can buy them without all the fancy electronics some customers put into the chassis and one can also put whatever turret/weapons station onto it one wants. Shouldn't be that expensive and a good vehicle.
For wheeled support one could also go for the 105mm Puma (Isn't there also a 120mm available but not in active service?).
IIRC AMOS is also not a cheap system but it's versatility may make it also interesting for countries with smaller budgets.
One can buy them without all the fancy electronics some customers put into the chassis and one can also put whatever turret/weapons station onto it one wants. Shouldn't be that expensive and a good vehicle.
For wheeled support one could also go for the 105mm Puma (Isn't there also a 120mm available but not in active service?).
IIRC AMOS is also not a cheap system but it's versatility may make it also interesting for countries with smaller budgets.
Hard to tell exact cost, as every year and every upgrade it rises. But several years ago BTR-80A cost was about 350k $$, and BTR-90 1.2 mil. Now it is probably close to 2 mil at least, with new BMP-3 turret, ERA, etc the price is probably comparable to BMP-3.
What is this 105mm Puma?
Centauro exists in both 105mm (in service, operated in Iraq - reports that US convoys loved having it as an escort) & 120mm versions. The latter is fully developed, IIRC, but has not been bought by anyone.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #31
Wheeled armor
Everybody who posted different wheeled vehicles thanks, I tons of stuff to look up. I really had no ideas there were so many different types and makers too.
Does anybody have a idea why Greece wouldn't have split the order? What does Turkey or the countries to the north of Greece have to counter these 400+ BMP-3s? It just seems 400+ is such a large number I wonder does Greece use them in place of tanks? Anybody know?
Thanks
Everybody who posted different wheeled vehicles thanks, I tons of stuff to look up. I really had no ideas there were so many different types and makers too.
Does anybody have a idea why Greece wouldn't have split the order? What does Turkey or the countries to the north of Greece have to counter these 400+ BMP-3s? It just seems 400+ is such a large number I wonder does Greece use them in place of tanks? Anybody know?
Thanks
What do you mean with splitting the orders? Like 200 BMP's and 200 Marders? The disadvantage is at hand: Increased costs for having two different logistics supply chains, two methods of training for the crews, very limited exchangebility of soldiers between the units (a marder gunner who would be shifted to a BMP bataillon to work as BMP gunner would have to be trained from scratch again, like a complete newbie).
Turkey's army is pretty comparable to the Greek in terms of land forces in my eyes. Leopard 1 & 2, M60T (Israeli Sabra), hundreds of IFV (mainly M113 stuff), AIFV, BTR-80 etc. Compared to them, 400 BMP-3 for Greece is not an overly big number.
Greece doesn't replace MBT's with their BMP's, they have Leopard 1's and 2's which they plan to use for many years to come (the Leo2's at least).
Turkey's army is pretty comparable to the Greek in terms of land forces in my eyes. Leopard 1 & 2, M60T (Israeli Sabra), hundreds of IFV (mainly M113 stuff), AIFV, BTR-80 etc. Compared to them, 400 BMP-3 for Greece is not an overly big number.
Greece doesn't replace MBT's with their BMP's, they have Leopard 1's and 2's which they plan to use for many years to come (the Leo2's at least).
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
Splitting the order
Thank you it makes perfect sense the way you explain it I see there's so much more I need to learn. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Thank you it makes perfect sense the way you explain it I see there's so much more I need to learn. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink