BTR-80 Russian Army Vehicle is Worse Than You Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2022
- Did the BTR-80 fail in combat or was it poor fighting doctrine? In this episode we explore the Russian Army's history with mechanized wheeled vehicles and their performance on the battlefield. Did the BTR-4 surprise us with how the Ukrainian Armed Forces in combat against Russia?
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
Instagram: / cappyarmy
Associate Producer: Andrew Tucker
#military #vehicle #army - Zábava
Troops riding on top of APCs isn’t new. In Vietnam grunts would usually ride on top of M113s instead of inside them. This was because of the danger of mines. The vehicle crew would often line the floor of the troop compartment with sandbags instead for extra mine protection.
Very true , there are some days I wish I had sat on the roof
@@Taskandpurpose everything you say about russia is dead wrong , are you a paid American propogandist ? Russia is destroying mercenary in ukraine out of 80,000 only 10 k left these are America canada and all nato mercenary and the mercenary are crying when they get bombed i wonder how the afghans felt , please do research on russia they are the number 1 army in the world
Which added so much weight the suspension was seriously overloaded, making it prone to premature failure.
@@Taskandpurpose
I think Carolina Patriot just called you fat...
Also, it was hot as hell and sitting up top was preferred to being crammed inside
Cappy's killing me already with that AAR: "-What was supposed to happen: Win-. What actually happened: Blyat". That was simply excellent.
Lol I’m glad someone saw that
"special operation (totally not war)"
Call me a nit picker... why, after all I am one, but I digress here - the last tetter in Russian "блядь" (lit. "a whore", albeit used in "feck [it]" manner) has a "д" (d) sound at the end, not "т" (t), and so-called "soft-sign" (ь) that (in this case) softens the "д" (d) - so it's pronounced more like [bly]adze, but the the "dz" is pronounced much softer.
So anyway, the best transliteration would be [blyad'], and this is how Google Translate transliterates it too. Well, who gives... ;-)
I also hugely enjoy those little details and jokes :)
What actually happened: Russia IS winning
I'm a former Russian army soldier. With due respect the only BTR-80 I've seen was an afghan war monument. They are considered obsolete. Nowadays we use BTR-82A and BTR-82AM
All the BTR-82 of all modifications have automatic fire control mechanism. But on our vehicle it didn't work. But there were some vehicles in our regiment with operational fire control.
Hey is it true russian soldier is underequipt in the ukraine war?
@@fbi8372 no, Ukrainain soldiers themselves say they are unequiped and that the Russains are more well-equipped and trained.
The 30mm autocannon adds a ton of firepower to a mechanized infantry group.
I was a conscript BMP-2 gunner in the Finnish defence forces and when we trained against motorized jaeger forces, that did not have autocannons on their patria APC:s the difference in doctrine was staggering.
We were able to be much more aggressive force, because we had the the support of the cannons and ended up being much more manouverable since the mechanical element was with, and worked with, the jaeger team and not somewere in the backlines.
But as said. It’s a differend doctrine and motorized units can be even faster than mechanized ones if need be. The whole armed forces and training has changed since then, many times over.
Why does Finland have BMP2?
@@Nathan-jh1ho Because. Also T72, Mig-21, artillery, and much else. The downside of having Russia as a direct neighbour, buying their stuff to keep them happy.
@@johanj3674 That's not the biggest downside. The worst downside is russian horde migrating west every 20 to 30 years.
@@johanj3674 The T-72 and MiG-21 were phased out a long time ago. Sweden, too, procured the BMP, be it the older BMP-1.
Hello, Finnish neighbors. A prolonged large-scale war is won by: 1.mobilization capabilities of country(big population), 2. The ability of industry to move quickly to wartime, 3. The militarization of society:patriotism and propaganda(independence media), the ability of the country's infrastructure to function during wartime, 4. The independence of the country's economy from foreign imports(metals, grain, military education, science, atom, space, trucks, planes, ships, energy) , 5.Maximum amount of military equipment with the lowest technical data: 100 peasants with pitchforks will kill 1 knight(throw to front a cheap vehicle, which is not a pity to lose)in a large-scale long-term war, it is not the best military equipment that wins, but the cheapest in production ....
I seen the Russian video about why the engine was placed at the back of vehicle, the main reason is to cross over tranches, front heavy vehicle will stuck while crossing, so they decided to put it in the back. And infantry shouldn't be inside during battle so it doesn't matter where doors are placed. It is basically build for WWII battles in mind, like everything in soviet doctrine.
To be fair it was sort of a newer concept compared to WW2 right ? The engine in the back to help with river crossings seems like a waste since no one tries swimming then In a combat scenario it seems . Great comment thanks for adding to the info
@@Taskandpurpose He said trench crossing, not river crossing. :-)
@@Taskandpurpose Soviet uniform and AK tells that it was indeed build for WWII. Soviet uniform was changed after the war in Afganistan begun. Make a research about how soviet unfantry uniform changed after WWII, you will be suprized how little it changed until the 1980ties.
Thanks, their engine placement makes perfect sense with trench crossings in mind. It looks like they focuses on the less critical mission aspects compared to soldier survivability.
admittedly a novice here ... but there's an irony to the whole armored vehicle dilemma: armored vehicle designed to protect troops ➡ troops have to get out/be sent ahead to protect armored vehicle ➡ putting them back in the danger that armored vehicle was designed to protect them from... 🤔
the BTR 82A (the version with a 30mm) does have stabilization, however the BTR 80 (the older version with a 14.5mm turret) does not
And it certainly does not penetrate 8 inches of armor like he says it does.
It doesn't really matter considering they don't have the resources either way to apply the 82A's to the majority of their army. Just like how they have thermal, and night vision, yet can't afford to implement it effectively.
@@targetaps he was talking about the Ukrainian btr4 which I think has the 25 mm
@@IbnWobbler 30mm or 25mm, it aint going through 8 inches of armor.
@@targetaps he must confused it with centimeters.
The BTR-82 introduced in 2009 (not 1982) is a seldom seen variant with a 14.5mm heavy machine gun in a turret cradle - the modern Russian army's main variant is the -82A with 30mm 2A72 cannon. (Both have a secondary PKTM machine gun too.) The BTR-80 which precedes both of these was introduced in 1985 by the Soviet Army. Its 14.5mm HMG and co-axial PKT/PKMT is set in a cone shaped turret.
The idea for the BTRs was for them to operate in groups/packs, with a few 30mm turret vehicles in support, while the others quickly deliver troops and provide suppression fire, similarly to the way we operate a group of MRAPS. They’re quick and provide just enough protection to a platoon to quickly get into a battle and get out.
Javelins aren’t really an impact on these as they were always susceptible to RPG fire anyway. Having dismounted infantry go ahead of them defeats the whole purpose of the APC/IFV - fast, protected delivery into combat. They aren’t for general troop transport. Their best use is as marine and airborne combat vehicles and for recon.
I suppose you can expect an enemy that has small arms to also have anti tank weaponry as well. I don't know if it so much as defeats the purpose as it puts an extra layer of protection around the vehicle. Which gets you from point A to point B without being at risk from snipers and pot shots. The way I see it, mechanized infantry is good because you can be highly mobile and protected from small arms fire. You can skirmish and defend against other similar vehicles and even some tanks. It's a good platform that can be used as moving cover and increases individual soldier survivability just a bit.
Not building in mine protection, good thermal optics, and camo though is a big mistake. Because one of the greatest luxuries is being safe outside of direct confrontation with anti tank weapons and other mechanized infantry or big gun vehicles. It keeps you alive on the way to your destination, and then your goal is to keep it alive so you don't have to be picked off one by one via pot shots and sniper fire if you want to leave or move in any particular direction. APS, trophy, mine protection and an RPG cage are all significant upgrades which could help it do that job better.
The mech infantry to me just makes it easier to survive on your way to the direct conflict. It doesn't slug it out, that job is for infantry and tanks rocket arty, regular arty, missile systems and other armored fighting vehicles. It's invaluable and it's better than a technical at the same thing. So it's worth having if you keep it current.
@@Butterkin in fact its initial purpose was troop transport to frontlines and move along it on maneuver, not combat. Weapon was "just in case". Idea was to give infantry a transport, protected from hits of small arms and shrapnel itself, not to protect squad at fullscale fire contact. Regular trucks are just too vulnerable for frontlines zero and one. So it not supposed to have heavy guns and fancy optics, 'cause it was just TRUCK with options.
@@Uncle_Smallett I'm just saying, if we're going to ride on top of it it might as well be a truck. Then it can rely on speed and still be decent troop transport. Anti tank weapons and mines have really screwed doctrine and strategy up. But that's why we must adapt.
You adapt and get rid of the useless vehicle or you upgrade it to continue to fill the role. You wouldn't just field it anyway when it's as good as a truck. Trucks are cheap and plentiful, a few modifications here and there and you have speedy troop transport.
If you stick with mech infantry you need the extra protection. APS, reactive armor, better optics, underside mine protection, you need speed, you need mobility and you definitely don't want to feel safer on top rather than inside. It defeats the purpose, wastes money and can potentially obscure the vehicles other capabilities from being used. I've seen lots of footage of this riding on top of tanks strategy going very badly. The idea that you can more easily jump off the vehicle or respond to an ambush is farcical.
When you make something to do everything all at once it never does one thing truly well
WMD protection mostly
In the Polish military, we are warned about leaving while moving.
Beacuse the wheels can trample you
tak, ktos inny to samo potwierdzil
It can also break your bones if you land wrong or in a hole.
Did they paint feathered wings on the sides?
I would insist on having a bleeper attached to the vehicle handbrake so you know when it is safe to jump out. Those wheels are BIG!
@@ebikeengineer man of culture i see
5:11 from a former BTR operator I know that they frequently run over men that didn't get fast enough out of the small door between the wheels. Dismounting very fast from inside was trained, but lead to many accidents. Besides that sunshine and fresh air is actually good for your health and from the top of the vehicle your field of vision is much better.
until a javelin comes raining down killing literally everything and everyone.
@@-Hesco Easier to jump off then jump out.
@@-Hesco if you're on top you might see it coming and jump off in time. I think it depends on if you think you'll be more likely attacked by small arms or AT.
What a great Armored Personnel Carrier if it's safer as Personnel to be Carried outside of the Armor than inside of it. ;)
@Skydaddy Myth-Busters I think he probably means training. Not much for it, if your taking out your own.
They are fun to drive though. When I was stationed in Germany the Poles were shedding their BTR-80s, I seriously thought about getting one. (The Polish -80 had a 400hp diesel engine instead of the 2x 90hp engines of the -60). I've driven a couple, and they are surprisingly maneuverable when you tie in the front 4 wheels for steering. Oh, Clinton killed that idea when he banned imports of former WP equipment...another great idea shot to hell.
What do you mean you thought about getting one?😂😂
You mean like actually buying one and taking it home?
God bless America...
@@tirionfordring8737 Yes, it's an 8 ton truck in the US.
@@TheRealBillBob Yes, they were going IIRC at about $10K for a new one. A lot of guys were buying UniMogs as well and shipping them home
@@tirionfordring8737 you can operate BTRs and even tanks back in russia no problems after demilling and registering it as a tractor or whatever (no public roads 4 u). There are hundreds of civilian BRDMs used for hunting/fishing for example.
The BTR-60PB variant was the first of the BTR-60s to have a fully armored roof and the 14.5mm KPV mounted in the little turret, and it entered service in 1966. The BTR-70 entered service in 1972, and both the ‘60 and the ‘70 proved vulnerable due to their gasoline engines. A lot of the illustrations used here purporting to show the BTR-80 show BTR-60PBs.
2:49 - this is Ukrainian BTR-4, later the author also shows a video with it's effective use. From this video, you might get the impression that this is a modification of the Soviet BTR-80, but this is not true. BTR-4 is devoid of some of the shortcomings of the Soviet BTR - the engine is installed in the middle, troops compartment is at the back, troops enter and leave the vehicle through the rear doors. The combat module with a 30 mm cannon is automated and stabilized. But it is still not sufficiently protected compared to Western counterparts, although it surpasses Soviet BTR.
I think it was worth mentioning in the video.
No
@@grimskid Yes.
Exactly.
During the conflict, there are videos that show that Ukrainian BTRs are performing well.
Absolutely. And all the epic videos we saw, were captured from the Ukrainian BTR-4 combat modules.
If your doctrine is "Always forward" or maneuver warfare/ deep battle, then the BTR and T-72 are well suited for the task. Once you get slogged down, you lose the advantage of having light and nimble vehicles. You have to have your losses count for something; which is to achieve a breakthrough or tie up the enemies forces so that other battle groups can slip around.
Wouldn’t say it’s super realistic. But you learn this fast in the game Squad. Especially on the Russian side. Unlike LaVs, strykers and bradleys/warriors, the btr and bmp are paper. You can literally kill them with 50s under 100 yards and you don’t need to know where to aim.
@@manofcultura The BMP-2 has more armor than the base armor of the Stryker and LAV.
It's always forward when it comes to moving across open ground. Whenever the planet or the enemy or supply lines challenge that your going to suffer significant losses and troop morale goes in the shitter. And there is also the weird, documented cases where always forward doesn't actually carry over to combat. In an infantry ambush Russian forces have routinely shown that despite having light armor and a cannon, they will stop and dismount to engage statically instead of charging into the ambush which is what the ambusher almost always wants least.
Russian army always plans to go fast and zoom zoom. In reality, they're always slow as shit, but they never seem to realize that WW2 tactics don't work.
@@ronnietrek6376 interesting point. that was somewhat of blood and guts our blood his guts General George Patton's point of view. he lost a lot of lives in the beginning but he thought and many agree with him that in the long run by being fast he saved more lives than if he went slower. in the Pacific Theater of World War II the US Marine Corps had the same mindset as Patton and would have supported the fast and quick right flank, they Army on the other hand tended to protect the Left Flank. towards the end of the Pacific Theater the Army was used for mop-up operations after the Marines had gained the ground and suffered heavy losses.
Boss, we appreciate your getting straight to business, w/I all the spot ads.
It's weird how none of the titles/thumbnails ever interest me, but after I watch the whole video can't believe how good it was.
Very good narating, pacing, and editing.
Riding on top of the APC was a standard procedure for US infantry in Vietnam and IDF in Lebanon!
The bottom of the APC was covered with sandbags to add some very effective anti-mine protection.
What was the IDF doing in a different country? Looking to kill more children and magically claim more territory they pretend "god" gave them?
Not to mention didn't those things have a kind of dreary nickname? Being gasoline powered and all? Something to do with an oven or g.i.'s cooking inside em? Fuck..I could only imagine. Thank you for your service btw.
Vietnam was almost 50 yrs ago tho.
And both countries still use the same equipment. Still forward deployed today.
@@Barbaroossa The basic problem has not changed: APC only protect from small arms fire and shrapnel. For any other threat, staying outside of the APC is much safer.
Also APC are used because they are the inexpensive, not because they are a good solution. Even Israel can’t afford its excellent $3 millions, 60 tons Namer IFV!
The Ukrainian BTR-4, despite being named BTR and looking a bit similar to the BTR-82, is a different design to the Soviet/Russian BTR family. In fact, the BTR-4 is more closely related to the West German TPz Fuchs.
Also though T-72 is classified as MBT, it is noticeably lighter then most MBT's having only 44 tons, closer to lightweight Asian standard between ~50-55 tons (similar to European Lynx120). When T-72 weight only as much as M47 Patton 46 tons, what was already classified as Medium Tank. For comparison Tiger weight 56 tons and Tiger II weigh 68 tons. When Abrams Sep 3 and Leopard 2a7 weight 66 tons.
The BTR-4 is a redesign of BTR-3, which in turn is basically identical to a BTR-82.
Its not related to anything other than a BTR in any way. The hull is literally repurposed from a BTR and it even retains the name. Its not a newly built but is heavily modernized vehicle. The internal layout is changed, the engine is moved to the middle, allowing for the soldiers to dismount from the rear in a more modern and safer way. Actual modern APCs/IFVs place the engine in the front that acts as armor if needed. That is impossible in a BTR hull, hence the BTR-4 retains the issue of having the 3 man crew still sit in the front with minimal protection. The overall protection also just the same every BTR had - small arms and light fragmentation, it cant even resist a .50cal.
Even the 30mm gun it uses is Russian, same one from a BTR-82, although its paired with imported 3rd gen IR sights and FCS.
Great analysis, great video....well done Trooper, well done.
6:54 Sheesh, that hatch literally right next to the tire seems like a disaster waiting to happen during a moving dismount.
Sadf ratels did pretty well against even Russian tanks despite no stabilised cannons , relatively small bore size , no air superiority and being out numbered at battle of the Lomba. ( Battle of the Lomba by Peter Mannal). Right terrain, training, good tactics and luck.
During the border war the Sadf had the best Vehicles in the world in my opinion..
The ratel was years ahead of time
Including our tactics…
And remember luck is a skill
I served during Hooper and Displace as a ratel gunner. They were totally survivable as far as landmines were concerned. Could keep on fighting if hit on the middle tyres. Would keep you safe from most aerial bombardment and small arms. Our saving grace was the incredibly thick bush which sometimes reduced visibility to 10m. We were very well trained. For a bunch of adolescent conscripts we performed admirably.
They were incredibly reliable.
I guess they weren't called Ratels for nothing. (Ratel is Afrikaans for honey badger)
I had an uncle tell me about seeing a Ratel hit in a week spot in the armor(can't remember where) by an RPG and seeing pink gue running out of it. It worked for the Border war but I think against modern Anti tank missiles it's very vulnerable.
Goes to show that you can do everything right with all the wrong equipment, and still lose a war.
We need Armored vehicles to protect light infantry from machine-gun fire, but first we gotta advance light infantry to protect armored vehicles from light infantry missiles...um...
The difference between open field fights and urban fights
It actually makes sense if you don't think about it in terms of rock paper scissors (incoming RPG beats our vehicle, our vehicle beats enemy infantry, enemy infantry beats our infantry, our infantry beats enemy RPG gunner).
You have to think about it in terms of the weaknesses of each element. To defeat a squad of dismounted infantry you need a lot of firepower. (Where defeat doesn't necessarily mean killing them all, it can also mean putting down enough suppressive fire that they can't afford to engage you back.) I.e. several light arms, 1 or 2 machine guns, vehicle mounted guns, ... Those things are easy(er) to spot from a fully armored box where you don't have to worry about keeping your head down. A vehicle with an auto-cannon brings a lot of firepower to quickly kill those things, but has such poor 360° awareness that the enemy can easily sneak up on it with an RPG. A squad of infantry has eyes looking in every direction. They may not have the zoom of vehicle's gun optics to tell them what type of gun the guy on the mountain side 500 meters away is carrying, but with that many viewing angles it's a serious gamble to sneak up on them through an alleyway or around a hedgerow, equip your RPG, aim it carefully (so that you don't waste the one shot you have before you have to spend 10 seconds reloading) and expect nobody to notice and quickly take care of you.
Also, a vehicle's engine is quite loud and you can hear it well enough to locate it when it gets to lets say within 150 meters, while to locate infantry you have to spot them, which typically happens at lets say 100 meters. That (and the fact that optics on vehicles have better zoom than infantry scopes) are reasons why the vehicle is in the back. (I assume, being no expert at all).
BTR-82 was not introduced in 1982, It was first shown publicly in november 2009, it is an upgrade of earlier BTR-80A with new engine and some small differences in the turret.
Huge 5 five for another awesome video! Thanks, Chris.
Troops sitting on top... I believe the reason is because it's more comfortable than sitting inside it and it's a lot easier and faster to dismount. BTR has that tiny doors on the side and top that are hard to pass through, especially if the vehicle is moving.
Being safer when a missile hits you on the outside? Very unlikely... Yes, HEAT works by focusing that inverted cone into a small area, but it is still activated by explosion. And explosion tends to go all the way, spherically. Plus, the pieces of the missile will fragment and go all over the place. With top attack ammo, even worse cos it will detonate more or less right among the guys sitting there. APFSDS might be a different story cos it's basically a dart. However, since BTR is lightly armored, the amount of spalling on the inside is very likely to be low. It will just whizz through and exit the other side. Like shooting a cardboard with a rifle from 2-3m away...
As landmine precaution... Maybe, but I'm still sure the shock wave and the power of explosion will cause a lot of internal damage to the exposed soldiers, throwing them to fly through the air in the process...
So, yeah... I'd say the reason is comfort and ease of dismounting, with the type of protection called "pray we don't get hit". That is why it is more useful as fire support rather than troop transport.
It’s interesting to me because that would never fly in the US military . Even though I feel like I’d be safer from an IED on the roof probably . No thanks to the sunburn though if I’m being honest
@@Taskandpurpose I'm no expert on this but I think there's pros and cons to both, in afganastan where your more likely to hit a landmine or be hit by an RPG that will trap you inside and cook you alive with the fuel and ammo it should be somewhat safer on top (in theory if it's not a catastrophic hit that instantly fireballs the thing (you would be dead inside or outside))in the sense the shaped charge will send spall and the molten copper jet into the troop compartment but up top a mine blast will be contained and the jet won't go up through the roof armor and a HEAT round might get one person if they are directly in the path with the compartment also absorbing most of the spall and copper jet, if your main concern is indirect fire or small arms is your primary or at least the more common threat being inside is probably way safer as unless you take a direct shell hit your vehicle should stop almost all shell fragments and bullets under .50BMG (possibly smaller anti material rounds like .338 Lapua Magnum might be able to go through some soft spots on the BTR but it's considered one of the smaller anti material rounds today and even .50 wouldn't reliably go through the front armor unless it's one of those fancy SLAP rounds), in cases where both threats are equity valid to me at least being inside makes more sense as even when outside there's still a chance of injury or death from an RPG/ATGM or mine that could at least in theory also vaporize you on the outside if there's immediate cook-off (fuel or ammunition being directly hit by the copper jet and chain detonating)
@@Taskandpurpose Only reason I could think of that it would happen in the US is if shit hit the fan and they needed to GTFO with too many people to fit inside. Perhaps moving mass casualties similar to how Apaches have had people strapped to the outside for evac. How many stretchers do you think could fit on top of a Stryker?
I have wondered many times why both the Russians and Ukrainians often ride on top. Dismounting from the BTR side doors seems indeed unpractical and unsafe. However the Russians and Ukrainians also often ride on the roof of BMP-2's and MT-LB's, those do have rear doors.
EOD reply here, while yes the shape charge will still cause a general explosion the force of that will dissipate reasonably quickly so if you're on the side of the vehicle that gets hit you're probably at least wounded... If you're on the other side you likely would only be stunned from the overpressure.
I'd rather be on top than inside with a shape charge or EFP impact to the side or front. But, I agree the javelin and other top attack missiles are not the same and you're more likely to survive those inside.
Where is the new Eastern-front update video Cappy?!. We all want that. We all DEMAND that! hehe. Cheers my lovely man.
hoping to have that out this weekend
@@Taskandpurpose Can l have you out this weekend
I will give you the update.
Ukraine is getting dominated. Like they have from day one. End
Task & Purpose but how will you spin ukraine getting its ass handed by russia this time ? Lol
Strykers!!! And that whole bit around the @3:00 mark with Rob’s insight & Cap’s analysis “strykes” me as correct. It’s what we did as Stryker 11Bs, anyway: dismount & clear the buildings so we could set up shop ‘downtown’ in the heart of it all. Covered very nicely in Konrad’s experience re: Sadr City.
Super interesting Chris! Good shit
Got to ride in a few in Bosnia joint operations. It was warmer on the outside than the inside. The exhaust leaked bad inside the BTR. The engine also leaked coolant and burned oil bad.
mmh, love the smell of exhaust in enclosed spaces
(said nobody)
@@marcogenovesi8570 Definitely makes for an interesting ride. 🤣 I had to be dragged out of a Bradley for an Exaust leack that almost killed me. Best nap I ever had in the field. Too bad the headache was so bad later. Nothing like a little Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke when the Ramp drops. 😎
*Man, what are you talking about, do you even know where Russia is? For 5 years I served in a region where the temperature in winter drops below -45 Celsius, if the heating inside our cabin did not work well, then after the field trip we would have to be heated in the microwave!*
@@UltraTotenkopf he used it in bosnia, not russia
Ramirez! Destroy that BTR and buy me a Burger Town Happy Meal!
@@MisterNi I met a girl on Xbox play COD who lived in Portland( Vancouver, washington) and we hit it off to the point of me visiting for a week and her eventually moving to Phoenix where I lived. Well when I was visiting her we went to a burger place and she mentioned that the whole complex and burger place was in COD. Well it turned out to be true and was the burgertown portion of the game. I'm sure its on CZcams but one guy made a video showing clips of the game and then real life clips from the same exact spot and everything was the same. It was pretty great to be at a burger joint that inspired an infamous call of duty campaign part.
Lol this made me laugh
Sitting on it rather than in it started in Afghanistan. The tiny side door basically made the vehicle a death trap in an ambush/mine/RPG hit scenario. Afterwards they upped the weapon because of this, the reduced internal space didnt matter since no one would generally sit in it. The BTR (which stands for APC in Russian) became a light IFV as a result. The newer Russian APCs/IFVs all have the doors at the back and the sitting on top idea is no longer practiced, in line with modern military tactics. BTR was a lesson in how not to do it but it was a product of its time and still can be effective even though in its initial intended role as an APC it is pretty terrible.
What is your source that it started in Afghanistan? And BTR stands for armored transporter not APC .
@@TheRealBillBob Afghan war veterans and what do you think APC stands for?
BTR is the Russian equivalent to APC in designation. Any western APC is called an "armored transporter" in Russian. Same with IFV and BMP, submachine gun and "pistol machinegun", assault rifle and "avtomat" etc etc. So pump the brakes on the smart assery.
@@rolandlee6898 The word you are looking for is called "equivalent". BTR does not translate into APC. You were wrong. Stop trying to rationalize your error. Move on. 🙄🙄
@@TheRealBillBob DId you even read it? I literally said equivalent. Nothing translates into anything among most languages as they use varying terms. These terms, however, refer to the same things. Like wtf is your problem? Another insecure smartass acting smarter than he actually is.. same shit different day.
Another great video! Thank you...
U.S. mechanized troops, equipped with M113's, used the same "sit on top" tactics in Vietnam for the same reasons. The armor wasn't thick enough to stop an RPG or B50 rocket and if you were inside when it the M1113 got hit then you were turned into hamburger. Better to ride on top than die inside.
Australians also rode on top of our M113’s in the Vietnam War. 🦘🇦🇺
@@tonydoggett7627 oorah to our Aussie brothers
This was bcz the M113 had been build with WWIII in mind, it was a simple battle taxi, its duty was carrying soldiers in a contaminated terrain, don't forget that the US had to modify it in the ACAV version, also the TC was dangerously exposed when firing the .50, also the vision was very limited.
@@alessiodecarolis also cause of climate and no air conditioner
RPGs are dangerous up to 500 yards, mortar fire in far more dangerous
@@tonydoggett7627 They should've never been there, but at least when they were, they were with our boys.
The reason why they all sit on top is simple: small arms tech greatly outpaced the rather pathetic armor of a lot of Russian BTs and the limited protection afforded by staying inside is outweighed by the extra visability and reaction options afforded to those riding on top. Plus BTRs are notoriously uncomfortable to stay in
No it's so they can kill rocket troops in cities instead of all being blown up inside it
I bet they don't have air conditioning and smell terrible inside.
BT is an APC not IFV. If you use it as IFV, that's what happen.
Maybe so but M-113 (APC) armored personnel carriers are to this day used by so many countries and easy to maintain and at low cost
And it is better to get a strong shell-shock then to be burnt inside)
I love your green screen work. Very entertaining. Great channel.🥂✨
Thanks for a good & informative video👍
Back in 1995 when Russia tried to eliminate the separatists in Grozny, they sent in BTRs with troops inside. Very quickly, the BTRs were met with mines and RPGs. Most of the time the infantries died inside the vehicles without even having a chance to dismount and engage (as rightly pointed out by you that the BTRs lack armour to protect against mines). As a result, the troops tend to sit on top of the BTRs.
I remember seeing a photo related to the 1995 campaign, where a BTR was sent to two-stories high after hitting an artillery-converted mine, and the troops on top of it were sent to four-stories high. Poor souls...
Reminds me of American troops riding on top of the M113 because of similar mine concerns.
Tho the 30mm's not just useful for anti-vehicle; it's range, rate of fire, and rounds' area of effect make it far more lethal than a .50cal - dunno if true but I have heard tell that atleast some Ukrainian infantry are more wary of the IFVs than the tanks because of things like the autocannon's ability to make faster followup shots.
Lav 25
Yeah look at how the Bradley's performance against bigger harder vehicles stacks up fucked up a lot of russian armour already. Being ready for follow-up shots counts an being fast as well as hard-hitting an would definitely ring your bell an take out scopes an vision slits
@@foxxy46213 no thermal vision or outdated now IS n'ont thé samme in 1 vs 1 scénario not a such avantage ... Thermal vision IS instaled on most New or upgraded vehicles
Regarding the "sitting on top of APC" thing. There is a frightening video (possibly found on CZcams) of the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's a distant film of a BTR or BMP slowly crawling up a mountainside road, infantry sitting on top. The vehicle hits an anti-tank mine and goes up instantly. The infantry are thrown from the top of the vehicle...into a minefield of anti-personnel mines. Their bodies then trigger a half dozen more mines as they land. It's pretty terrible.
Got a link?
Well, the alternative is being shredded by splinters from the anti-tank mine while being trapped inside a metal box filled with people, fuel and ammunition. You simply don't want a BTR being hit with any serious anti-tank weaponry.
Reverse cluster bomb.
Yikes. That's a properly _war_ way to go.
To shreds you say?
I love this 8 Wheeler BTR Series, as a boy (early 70s) i got a ride in a dutch YP-408 during a autumn manouvre in lower saxony, the dutch 8 Wheel APC is similar to the BTR`s but had the advantage, you could enter or leave the vehicle very easy thru the back doors.
I love Cappie's side-eye look when he is saying that sitting on top of the BTR might actually be safer.
haha yeah I dont think I would ever have wanted to sit on the Stryker back in Iraq
I'm glad I'm not going insane. From the start of this war, when I was seeing the big vehicle losses the Russians were taking, I asked myself where the hell are the infantry scouting ahead to make sure there are no anti tank teams...
This is definitely not a bad thing.
Hard to get a conscript to leave the armoured vehicle and go a few hundred metres ahead of the fire support to go looking for Bad Men with AT weapons (even if it is probably ultimately in his interests to do so). Of course, that's assuming that the BTG has enough dismounts to do the job in the first place, when evidence to date suggests that they really don't have
@@talltroll7092 hard to get a conscript to do anything if they don't have any. This is not a war so they can't call regular conscripts
it's a long and honoured russian tradition to just charge randomly with tanks and vehicles with no support, get wrecked for months and then realize it was not a good idea and only then start using better tactics
@@marcogenovesi8570 Russia used conscripts from the two occupied Ukrainian provinces.
Good video, a suggestion: Talk about the iveco guarani.
thank you very much!! It was really interesting!!!
The BTR 80 is designed as a taxi for troops. It has some defence if caught by surprise. If used as it was intended i suspect it is fine.
The APC is an infantry transport that delivers infantry to the battle line and unloads it about 1-2 km away, this is its main function, an additional one is the protection and escort of supply columns.This is the technical task for which it was created. And the generals came up with direct participation in the battles and the provision of fire support for him, but this role was not originally intended for him.
There is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle for this, in Russia they created this T-15 Barberry. but there is no money for its mass production. if the BTR-82 costs 600,000 dollars in production, then I think the t-15 is around 5-7 million in dollar equivalent.Although of course the BTR-82 has long been obsolete.But the generals in the General Staff think it's better to have 10 BTR-82. than one T-15. Unfortunately, this is the mentality of army chiefs.
Like the humvee. Thousands killed and wounded because it wasn’t used as designed.
Have to agree, the problem is shortage of infantry not the doctrine.
For heavy IFV role Russia uses BTR-t and BMPT type of vehicles. "Terminators" were spotted in Ukraine several times.
Perun made a great video on Russia's mechanized infantry problems. Basically, their ratio is all out of whack: mechanized infantry without the infantry. Since Putin insists on calling this a 'special operation' he doesn't have the legal means to fill in the ranks of the grunts with conscripts, which is what the Soviet doctrine was designed for, so the mechanized infantry units are deploying without most of their infantry
^ This. All day.
Perun always says bad things about Russia he is totally biased.. He must be from Croatia.
What do you mean there are conscripts or should I contractors foghting in Ukraine.
@@neviavihtelic7184 Well not biased at all, if Russia and it's army is ridden with many problems, should he not mention that? Also he is Australian lol.
@@neviavihtelic7184 Joined 3 days ago, did CZcams banned your old account?
Video request:
Watching the Ukraine-Russia battlefield videos, I have questions. Drone footage often shows multiple targets hiding among the trees, or moving down a road, etc. You can't expect to destroy them all. What are the parameters for choosing targets? Tanks over IFVs over fuel carriers? And with a column of tanks, do you choose the second or third back as it more likely has the commander?
Or is it not likely that there is a preference other than aiming for the one that is easiest to get good coordinates for? Obviously some has to do with what sort of explosive you can direct toward the enemy.
But, you did a very good video supplying a status update on the conflict recently, so I am hoping you can shed some light on what goes into targeting choices.
Today there was a POV shot from a sniper's scope scanning an advancing line of infantry. Which guy gets the first serving?
[Fellow commenters, please give this some thumbs up to help it get in front of Chris' eyes. Thanks]
I’m working on another Ukraine update , I’ll do my best to touch on this in it , target choice is definitely important concept
Rule of thumb - kill the fuel trucks whenever you have the chance.
@@colincampbell767 True. They might be harmless in the moment, but these are the guys that will cost you over the course of months.
💥thanks cappy!
I was stationed in Bosnia in 96'. Team 1 (IFOR). One day on an OP I asked a rumanian soldier if I could have a look inside his vehicle. It was an old ass bmd-1. ( It is a long time ago so please forgive my memory..) It had 3 axles and a 30 or 40 mm canon on top. OMFG what a piece of shit. Absolutely useless for anything army'ish.. He tried to fire up the engine.. That he did indeed.🙄 He did not start the engine but something started smoking under the floorplates. That was my clue to GTFO.. It looked like an army of stressed ants when they tried to put out the fire. NB: I fucking love your vids and your way of delivering whats on your mind. Love it.. keep it up. Greetings from Danish Exsoldier/ NATO BALKAN VET. Fuck I am SOOO fucking old omg.. hate it.🤘
Too many profanities even worst you are using the God who protected you name in vain
Something to expect considering that the BMD-1 is now 60 years old. More or less.
@@thomasthumim7630 too much christian puritanism...
@@EmilReiko these are the last days Christ will be coming soon.
What soever we do in life means we will have to give an account
Yep,
Saw something similar with those Romanian vehicles. The command variant had a fake turret welded on and what looked like a broomstick for the gun barrel. Commander sat on a wooden stool welded to the floor.
To their credit they still went out every day to do their tasks!
In Chechnya in '95, it took continuous obliteration of the Russian Army's armored vehicles for them to realize that you can't just throw vehicles with no infantry support into cities where any window on any floor could have an anti tank weapon ready to go.
Exactly no vehicle US or RU can survive that terrain. Unless they indiscriminately shell all the buildings everywhere
That's why they are destorying every building
doesn't seem like they remembered this lesson for this "special military operation", lots of armored vehicles ran into cities and got wrecked for months before anything changed in tactics
@@marcogenovesi8570 "Denazification" is the "Restoring Constitutional Order" of 2022
@@marcogenovesi8570 most of their losses are from drones tbh so yeah they learned something but they’ve to learn new one lmao
At times coverage of the conflict feels likes its being turned into an advertisement for Western European/US weapons, or at least a warning against buying Russian ones. I'm glad to see someone else who knows the vehicles is only as capable as you choose to use it, and the problem is as much doctrine as anything else. An M1A2 driven into a warzone without dismounts to protect it from top attack ATGMs would not remain combat effective much longer than a T-72.
Fun fact, when you mentioned the soldiers riding on the roof in order to potentially have a better chance at surviving mines is quit similar to american infantry riding on top on M113 APC's during the Vietnam War!
I like the little Rich Evans cameo. I can just hear his laugh as those Soviets fumble out of their APC now...
The Azov BTR-4 footage is still some of the most unreal combat footage I've ever seen.
so true.
That's sick. Do you have a link?
@@woah5546 literally just type ‘Ukraine war BTR footage’
@@TheeWolfiee1 Thanks, found it.
@@woah5546 np man
Hey, italian bersaglieri in One of your video? Cool 😄
One time when I was in Germany in 1979 we went on alert and loaded up all our ammo in our M113's, and we didn't have much space for anything else. We probably would have had to ride on top of our tracks too, but if the inside of a track or infantry fighting vehicle is so loaded down with ammo it is going to bounce around in rough terrain, and there is a good chance soldiers could get injured by it.
The BTR-series would be better if it had armor to protect it from mines and the engine in a different location so troops can exit out the back.
EDIT: When I said armor, I meant thicker underside armor. Not thicker armor all over, although having armor that can survive at least .50 caliber rounds should be a requirement of any military for any APC or IFV.
On a related note, why do BTR-60s, BTR-70s, and BTR-80s have a 14.5mm heavy machine gun and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun? Why not have just the 14.5mm HMG?
ukraine btr 4..... =D
Mo guns mo gooder. Motherland like guns.
The Ukrainian's made their own BTR that has the engine in the front.
the problem is weight distribution. thats why theres an engine in the back - so there would be enough balance to add armor to the front at all. everything is a compromise and this is what this design went with
@@Ilamarea more like in the center
Redesign it with a v-shaped hull and rear exiting door. Chuck a Kornet missile launcher on top, rpg cages on the side and perhaps a trophy style system and smoke launchers…bam! That thing would kick arse!
Sounds alot like the modernised BMP they make
Basically, start again with a blank page?
Or assign a bmpt 72M Terminator per platoon during assaults. It will do the ass kicking so the Btr/Bmd can concentrate on its original role as an APC
That was the idea behind bumerang family of vehicles, but it run into a lot problems along the way.
No rpg cages - reactive armor instead. Nothing about active protection. And it's likely that main gun for ifv variant would be 57mm
You just invented boomerang apc, congrats
My favorite BTR moment was when i saw a video of the troops jumping off the top, then a secound emerging from inside. Right after it crossed a river. I love amphibous videos.
@7:20 Hell yeah, Rich Evans celebrity appearance 👍🍻
RLM ❤
A BTR cost less then a million bucks?
That's actually a god damn amazing price even without all the bells and whistles.
Quality is better than Quantity
@@Levitating_Rat. The Germans thought so, and they came a distant second in WW2.
I mean for sale to civie market after decommisioning thats a good price.
@@davidty2006 Depends what you wanna do with it, but if you want to camperise it, it's too low on the inside. :-)
@@dougerrohmer " The Germans thought so, " - that's a stupid myth. The Germans would have liked to have both quality and quantity, but they didn't have the resources to go for quantity.
Definitely doctrine; this war has brought back the need for dismounted infantry units supporting armor.
It's an interesting thing. Russian doctrine for war is to call up conscripts to fill out squad deployments, as many units are under assigned personelle during peace time. As a "special military operation" they legally can't call up their conscripts to fulfill the classic Russian doctrine of through many troops at it. Further Russian population undermines such strategies as the Population is lower than it was during WW2.
it never went away, it's just russian officers that somehow forgot this basic concept
Hey Task and Purpose. Humble request, please do a video on the Australian Bushmaster as an APC ( I might be wrong ). I am sure it will be awesome. Pretty please 😊
Good perspectives. Thanks
The BTR was a brilliant vehicle for it's time.
The problem is that it's time was the last century.
It’s still good in a support role but not in the front lines unless you use it in hit and run tactics.
When the weather turn bad and is raining 82 mm mortar or 155 mm arty shells, or in a sniper infested city, a BTR is a lot better than nothing. APC were only invented by the Germans half way through last century.
It was good for 50s and 60s but way too outdated for the modern time
@@tonylam9548 Better than nothing it is. But as good as a Stryker?
И сколько всего страйкеров ? Хватит их на долго ? Их из РПГ 7 уничтожить проще простого, особенно в городе
It may worth a look at the South African Ratel, and Rooikat versions. The Rooikat was originally designed as a tank killer, reconnaissance vehicle, but with an infantry support as well, but the Bush war ended before this could be taken further.
They never look at South African tactics untill its too late.
the shot at 9:18 is so crazy, you can see legs moving behind the opposing vehicl!
OH MY GOD YOU GOT LEGENDARY MEGA STAR RICH EVANS! THIS CHANNEL HAS MADE IT! IM SO PROUD OF YOU!
8 inches of rear armor on the tanks mentioned? You mean 8mm. No way it has 8” rear armor
Maybe 8cm. lol
@@ghanz84 probably is cm. That sounds about right (3-ish inches)
I watched russian documentary about BTRs and they said that the primary reason for placing engines in the back was that heavy rear allowed it cross wider trenches.
An extra bonus is the being slightly farther away from the noise, and the biggest not being right next to the heat source. The APCs we drove had that Detroit 60 series directly on your right hand side. That turbocharger was cooking you the moment you hit any sustained throttle. It's just a sheet metal panel, you don't have an inch or two of thermal insulation. It was brutal.
THX - I´m not used to this kind of vehicle--nice information
A podcast I listened to a while back on the Chechen Conflict (Lions Led By Donkeys if anyone is wondering) brought up a glaring issue with troops riding on the top of IFVs. Thermobaric missile launchers. Which the Chechens had plenty of.
Do you have any data on the accuracy of the russian "high precision missiles"? It would be great if you do a video about it. Best regards!
Mortar launched smart munitions that hop over buildings and top attack tanks.
That's what you want mounted on a BTR. Sit it _behind_ the house the infantry are securing.
It's in cover for loading those troops if it's time to make a quick getaway.
This. with as big a mortar as possible, so it can fire useful smart shells. Drop the boys off, go hide and when plt cmd wants something gone, drop a guided 120mm bomb on it, Move forward, resup and replen the boys, lift them or go hide again. If you cant take the hits from fast metal, dont be seen by fast metal dealers. Should be able to power multiple drone battery chargers as well.
@@seanobriain4070
You get it
Mortar launched:
Battlenet relay Drones
AT weapons
AP weapons
IR smoke
Sensor Drones
Cluster sensors, covers everything in radar and camera sensors, image constructed from many sources.
"A 30mm gun"?
Please, what's that going to do except give your position away?
It is quite practical to have both a rear engine and a rear hatch, as the Commando APC had that set up in the 1960s
in case youre wondering, the clip at 4:34 is by the dude "Omnistar East" he makes a bunch of really cool music videos
The Russians have to few soldiers, especially well trained infantry.
That makes them rely on their armor and vehicles too much.
Perun has a great video on it.
Actually that makes the battalion tactical groups make sense. Why let all that soviet era hardware go to waste. Unfortunately it ignores the logistics for those vehicles.
Love Perun. He had an interesting factoid in that video - the Russians don't have enough infantry to fill the vehicle, so they have 3 crew members and the vehicle basically wasted because there is nobody to de-bus and do infantry shit.
An IFV without infantry is just a bad tank.
It's my dream to buy a BTR, import it to the states, and turn it into a badass RV. Based on how poorly the Russians maintain their BTR's, I think I'll get one from another former Soviet Bloc country.
Think about it though, it's got good road speed, is amphibious with no prep time and opens on the top turning it into a fishing boat, and it's designed to carry a squad of guys, meaning the cargo space is large enough to comfortably fit an apartment back there.
This is my dream.
You might want to go for an APC designed by a country that actually cares about its soldiers - that troop compartment is going to be cramped as hell and you won't be able to stand up straight inside it, so it'd make a bad RV.
Considerinf that amphibious ability - yes it can sail, problem is if it can get out of the river without getting stuck. If you watch all videos when this and other soviet vehicles are sailing they manifest this ability but then get out of the water through concrete ramp. Pulling this feat on the natural river bank, in the mud and under the fire would be whole different matter. As i know from the guys who served in former Czechslovakian army they were strongly advised not to ask this question during their training...
What about a SHERP ATV?
Although someone in the U.K. is selling a BTR-60 for 22k usd plus vat
Maybe a BRDM-2 would be more practical (it is smaller) and could serve the same purpose. I know the roads in the USA are big, but you would probably still run into more inconveniences with a BTR. I would think about putting a more efficient engine in the BRDM-2, because of the fuel consumption.
Than there is also a Sherp, if you also want to do some extreme offraoding. They are quiet expensive, but already available in the USA.
Some South American nations also use the BTR. You should buy one from them, should be cheaper for you, in theory.
Personally I think I would take the outdated BTR-80 over the outdated LAV-25 we still use in the USMC.
Which is a proper comparison since they came out around the same time and are both still in use.
You could make a video on the Brazilian Guarani transport vehicle! It would be great to hear your perspective on that recently modernized type of infantry transport vehicle made in my country
The long forgotten but never missed Sheriden "tank" used in Vietnam had aluminum!!! armor and caseless ammunition that resulted in an inferno inside the body if any hit penetrated. So the troops quickly learned to ride on the outside of their armored vehicle.
Yup, the Brits found out about aluminum during the Falklands war, when their aluminum corvettes started burning. Literally burning metal, is in rapidly oxidizing in an exothermic reaction.
Finnish modular APC known as Patria AMV XP is also 8x8 wheeler (with rear axis steering), that has 30mm autocannon option. Quite possibly the best APC in the world. It was shot 3 times with an RPG in Afghanistan, and were still able to return fire and drive back to base.
This makes sense. I watched them dismount under contact and my step dad asked why they were so bad. I could barely figure out an answer because I couldn't spot any doctrine. Didn't know about the all mexh troops. Makes sense.
BTR 4 is really good, but it has more in common with the American Striker than with the Soviet BTR 80
8:50 These two side-by-side images remind me of all the people who incorrectly call the BTR-80 an IFV instead of an APC.
technically it stems from the fact that not even russians know what the BTR is, as they keep using it in the IFV role with upgunned variants - with predictable results. a cheap unarmored chassis does not make for an autocannon platform that survives until the second encounter. i believe the Ukrainian variants that tried to do the same have the same results.
Because they are often used as IFV... Russians don't care much about losses, therefore it gives sense.
7:16 Last place I expected to see Rich Evans, but he is a blessing as always
7:00 ...can they install some kind of electable seat? Like in fighter jets? If you wish to exit (for whatever reasons) those will assist you?
As a former Canadian infantryman, I always looked at those side doors and shuddered. The idea of being under fire, while trying to squeeze out the (unprotected) side doors does not sound enjoyable. I'm not surprised the Russian troops rode on top.
*according to the Soviet military doctrine, the armored personnel carrier should not have been under fire, this is third-line equipment, it should move behind tanks and infantry fighting vehicles!*
Humvee...
@@MrMaksjargal Hummers are a utility vehicle, some of which are armoured.
the BTR-series was a dedicated infantry carrier designed to be used on the battlefield.
Their initial mission, the one each was designed for, was not the same. You're literally comparing apples and oranges.
And the BTR still sucks... but at least they moved the infantry doors to the back, where they should have been all the time.
@@mspicer3262вы путаете БТР-80 с БМП-1.
I think the BTR was designed for terrain it has never really been used in. A lot like most Soviet era tech the goal was some odd scenario they never realistically encountered. Soviet motto seems to be, when BTR fails to carry you, you carry BTR.
Great video
I'd love to know how many ivans got crushed (dis)mounting from a moving BTR.
As for why the grunts ride top - look how hard it is to get in and out quickly through those side door/step things.
I spent a breif time driving M113AS1 in the 90s. These were amphibious. They don't *need* a whole days servicing if you have been pretty up to date with the regular periodic servicing, but if you have let servicing go then you may need more prep time.
The amount of servicing also changes with the distance to be travelled - if we were going to cross say a 50m creek, you probably wouldn't even both deploying the trim vein - maybe turnon the pumpsif you took some water "over the bow".
But if you were going to say travel 10-15km down a river or deploy into the sea from a landing ship of some kind you'd spend time doing servicing, maybe installing ballast to make sure the vehicle sits reasonably level in the water etc.
From what I have seen of the Ukraine rivers I think we would have expected to more or less just drive up to them and cross them assuming we could find sutiable entry/exit points. But we were fairly meticulous with our programmed periodic servicing. We serviced, daily, weekly, 6 monthly, annually and bi-annually.
I get the idea the Russians are less robust in their servicing regimes.
Great rundown, Cappy .
The Russians have a long history of their infantry riding on the outside back to at least WW2 when infantry rode on the outside of tanks
same with americans
I remember hearing stories of US troops doing operations with Russian troops who had BTRs of some kind, and the damn things would refuse to even run half the time.
yeah but you have to remember, that was right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Where conscripts were poor and securing your families' future by selling off stolen ERA bricks was more important than things like preventive vehicle maintenance.
Another great vehicle episode
nice video!
No rear entry?! What are you supposed to do then? Make eye contact? No thank you.
Russians don't care about their troops. You could see evidence of that from this design. That's why America will always be better. We care about our soldiers.
Exit via enemy rocket propulsion 😂
Be decent & do a reach around according to R Lee.
"Tracked vehicles struggled in the mountainous terrain?" Tracked vehicles typically have much better mobility in virtually all terrain/substrates. Wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan were primarily restricted to roads or open desert. Don't believe me ask the British who had great success climbing steep slopes with their BAE/Hagglunds articulated tracked armored carriers. Ever see a BTR or a Stryker climb even a moderate mountain slope? I didn't think so.
the ptoblrm with tracks is that they need a lot more maintanance than wheels so they cant edvance as fast as wheeled vehicels.
Those are basically militarized snowcats and barely qualify as armored vehicles. Can they go places (like the arctic)? Sure. Can they actually function as anything more than "trucks"? Not so much.
@@lucagerulat307 The reference here was operating in the mountains. Not driving on roads that go through the mountains. And armored tracked vehicles (especially articulated tracked vehicles) have a lot of advantages that armored wheeled vehicles do not in steep terrain. Advantages that justify the higher maintenance costs.
Tracked vechiles were difficult to fly into Afghanistan let alone use them , barely any Bradley IFVs in Afghanistan as far as I’m aware . Yes completely true though that tracked vehicles normally can traverse more terrain
@@Taskandpurpose Hello Cappy. I think a better definition of 'operating in mountainous terrain' would help. Because their is operating on crappy dirt roads in mountainous terrain. In which case, an M-ATV would be the way to go. Then there is actually operating in steep, trackless mountainous terrain. Like the Afghan opposition forces did at Tora Bora, driving T-54/-55 tanks to the tops of mountains. If we are talking about 'armored' vehicles in that environment----tracks rule.
PS I am not aware of Bradley Fighting Vehicles being used in Afghanistan, however the US Marines employed a limited number of M1A1 and M1 Assault Breachers in Helmand Province.
I had a thought about trailers behind IFV's? carrying troops; gear etc; is/was that done?
well in regards of colombia, we don't use the btr but we intended to adopt it for the marines as a special version called the BTR-80 Caribe
8 inches of armor on the back of a tank and a 30mm being able to penetrate 8 inches of armor both sound overstated.
I can't find any data on that.
Are you sure it's 8 inches of armor on the back?
@@josedorsaith5261 That seems thin. 0.8in perhaps?