Russian BTR-80 in details

[RomanS]

http://russianarms.info/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=116#116
(you will need to register to view all the photos)

a lot of photos for you modeling freaks. We took them last summer.

http://russianarms.info/roma/Roman/BTR/IMG_3824.jpg

bonus BMP-1


http://russianarms.info/roma/Roman/BTR/IMG_3823.jpg

http://russianarms.info/roma/Roman/BTR/IMG_3813.jpg

http://russianarms.info/roma/Roman/BTR/IMG_3795.jpg

http://russianarms.info/roma/Roman/BTR/IMG_3789.jpg

[gilgoul]

They both have a cool look, too bad they are SO easy to destroy.

[perdurabo]

Roman GP, BIG THX.

[anonymous individual]

Awesome pictures. GreatJob, Roman.

[16 OBr SpN]

too bad they are SO easy to destroy.

Just like any other APC from around the world. ;)
Mines, RPG's, IED's, can easily immobilize or destroy them any time.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[SILENT SCOPE]

Hey PermskiiOMON, I'm working on a model of a BRDM2. I think its also called a BTR-something (Im new to Soviet armor, so I'm not real sure). You wouldn't happen to have any pictures of those would you?

Thanks man!

[BadKarma26]

I think what he is trying to say is that a Bradley offers much better protection as well as firepower than the BTR-80

[Operation Ivy]

They both have a cool look, too bad they are SO easy to destroy.

i take it that you have blown some up? :D

[gilgoul]

They both have a cool look, too bad they are SO easy to destroy.

i take it that you have blown some up? :D

I just heard stories from tankists :D

[GazB]

Comparing the Bradley to the BTR is like comparing a Striker to a Bradley.

You get twenty or thirty BTRs for the cost of a Bradley (both buying and operating). Before the Soviets invented the MICV concept the purpose of the APC was as an armoured truck that delivered troops to the combat area then withdrew to support from a distance with HMG fire. For that role the BTR is perfectly adequate and cheaper than even an M113 or any other tracked vehicle.

How many Bradleys can US helos carry? How many Bradleys can the US airdrop?
How many mines can a Bradley trundle over before it is time to stop?

The Bradley's 25mm cannon offers few real advantages over the BTRs HMG and if you think TOW is an advantage for the Bradley then think about what would happen to a Bradley that stops to fire its TOW at a crummy old T-72 that is 2km away... that is firing back rounds at 1,800m/s... feel like a fair battle during the day? Especially when the T-72 pops smoke when your missile passes the 1km mark and it is moving and you are sitting still... if that APFSDS hasn't hit you that is.

(For those that just don't get it an APC doesn't have any business fighting tanks... it is too unhealthy. They should only be used in self defence... and they should be able to be used as you are running away... because when facing a real tank in an APC that is what you should be doing.)

[perdurabo]

GAZ has right
SilentScope i never heard about calling BRDM2 a BTR-??? Gaz? Permski? Maybe you guys heard something about?

[GazB]

As far as my memory serves me the only related 4 wheel BTR was the BTR-40 which looked very much like a 4 wheeled version of the BTR-152... which was basically a six wheel armoured truck. The BTR-40 was shorter and was used as more of a scout vehicle. There was an interesting combined anti aircraft/ground support version of the BTR-40 that had twin 14.5mm HMGs in the rear for use against both aircraft and ground targets, but the larger, heavier BTR-152 with twin 14.5mm guns proved more effective in both roles, but both were eventually replaced by the ZSU-23-4.

The BTR-40 was replaced as a scout car by the BRDM-1 which was amphibious, better armoured, and usually better armed and had belly mouned chain drive wheels for rough country travel. This was replaced by the BRDM-2, which added a turret with a powerful 14.5mm HMG and PKT MG, moved the more powerful engine to the rear of the vehicle which increased speed and range, introduced full NBC system and Nigh vision equipment.

One very interesting feature of the missile armed versions of the BRDM-2 is that the missile launchers are fully retractible... including the version with Spigot/Spandrel missiles.

[REMOV]

I think what he is trying to say is that a Bradley offers much better protection as well as firepower than the BTR-80M2 Bradley is an tracked IFV, and BTR (all version) are wheeled APC. There is a huge gap between this two types of vehicles.

[GazB]

M2 Bradley is an tracked IFV, and BTR (all version) are wheeled APC. There is a huge gap between this two types of vehicles.

Not to mention at over 32 tons a Bradley is not that much lighter than a T-34 Medium tank, and about 10 tons lighter than a T-72 MBT.

[Operation Ivy]

You get twenty or thirty BTRs for the cost of a Bradley

sure about that :D

[REMOV]

i never heard about calling BRDM2 a BTR-??? Gaz? Permski? Maybe you guys heard something about?
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/brdm-2.htm
BRDM-2 (BTR-40P-2) Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle
In an attempt to improve the amphibious characteristics and increase the combat power of their wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, the Soviets produced the BRDM-2. This vehicle differs from the original BRDM in that the powerplant has improved and moved to the rear of the vehicle, and that a small 14.5mm machinegun-armed turret has been fitted. This turret is identical to that found on the BTR-60PB armored personnel carrier. The original BRDM (BTR-40P) first appeared in 1959. The BRDM-2 also is known as BTR-40P-2 or BTR-40PB (hence also BTR-40P-2rkh or BTR-40PB-rkh, etc.). It was first seen in 1966 and by the mid-1980s was rapidly replacing the BRDM in the Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies. Care must be taken to distinguish the BRDM-2 from the Hungarian FUG (OT-65) and FUG-70 amphibious scout cars which also have rear engines but have twin waterjets.

[GazB]

Ummm, I wouldn't put much faith in Global Security... they used to be FAS.org and their accuracy is not great... though it is handy to have a look there for various things as they have a wide range of info all in one searchable place which is handy.

Just take a look at the BTR-40 and it looks like an armoured truck. Very much like a shortened BTR-152, which is a 6 wheel armoured truck used during WWII. Neither are amphibious. the BRDM-1 looks nothing like either of them and is fully amphibious and has 4 chain driven retractible belly wheels, a large nose with the engine in it and a large rear compartment. Early versions were open but the later and most widely produced models had armoured roofs.

This was replaced by the BRDM-2 which moved the engine to the rear, added the turret from the BTR-60PB.



In fact the BTR-40 looks like a German WWII halftrack (except with 4 wheels), whereas the BRDM-2 looks a bit like a BTR-60PB cut in half, though with more space between the main wheels and a less angled nose area.


sure about that

Those expensive thermal imagers in those Bradleys aren't free, not to mention the difference in cost of using a track layer compared to a wheeled vehicle. The difference in man hour in maintainence alone would be a large fraction of the cost of a new BTR-60PB, you could probably buy two more for the cost of the sights and another couple with the cost of the ballistic computers and other flash stuff in the Bradley. Each TOW II you load into that Bradley will probably buy you another BTR-60PB, and normal load is about 7 TOWs.

[aartamen]

25 MM in conjunction with DU offers a HUGE advantage in the anti-armor role over an MG firing non-DU. As far as TOW's go the M2's and LAV's proved in both Gulf Wars they are viable anti-tank platforms because of them. The DU tearing through and through T-72's was a surprise for everyone involved. A bonus.
They are especially effective when fighting, uhm, Iraqis, who can't see or hit anything including the proverbial barn. I am sure that most our opposition is going to be much more like Iraqis than us. A BTR armed type of vehicle would have 0 efficacy against an MBT. Even a half a century old one. Or very close to 0 against another APC for that matter.
There's nothing or very little standing in the way of equipping a BTR with some manner of an AT weapon.

[GazB]

25 MM in conjunction with DU offers a HUGE advantage in the anti-armor role over an MG firing non-DU.

Except that the 14.5mm HMG can fire SLAP like rounds that use DU penetrators.

The practical advantage is very small as the range at which the 25mm Du rounds will penetrate tank sides is well within range of the 125mm gun of most Soviet tanks. I the Iraqis had been anywhere near competant a lot more Bradleys would have been burning.


As far as TOW's go the M2's and LAV's proved in both Gulf Wars they are viable anti-tank platforms because of them.

For an ambush at 3km+ at night, yes, they would be fine. Against a competant enemy, the rest of the time they would be sitting ducks.


The DU tearing through and through T-72's was a surprise for everyone involved. A bonus.


Even the M1 can be penetrated from the rear by HMG fire. I'd think large areas of the side would also be vulnerable to cannon too. (Plus I was unaware of T-72s being taken out by Bradleys... I thought that was older T-55s... which constituted the vast majority of the Iraqi tank park.)


They are especially effective when fighting, uhm, Iraqis, who can't see or hit anything including the proverbial barn.

Indeed so one sided it was really not a very useful learning experience at all.


I am sure that most our opposition is going to be much more like Iraqis than us.

You certainly seem to pick which countries you invade carefully, but you also need to be aware that there might come a time where you have to fight an enemy that does have some back bone.


A BTR armed type of vehicle would have 0 efficacy against an MBT.

Hahahahahahahahaha... that is like saying a 9mm baretta is not as good as a browning 50 cal... I guess all pistols will be withdrawn tomorrow.

A BTR is a light cheap transport vehicle that mechanised the Soviet army at a time when most armies in the west walked or rode in trucks. This dramatic change even more impressive when you consider that during the war the Soviets didn't pay much attention to troop transport and they had to resort to tank desent troops... ie troops sat on tanks to keep up with them.


There's nothing or very little standing in the way of equipping a BTR with some manner of an AT weapon.

You mean like the BTR-90 with the turret from the BMP-2 with a 30mm cannon that fires APDS and has a launcher for an AT-4 or AT-5 anti tank missile (either 2km or 4km range depending upon the model).


Even a half a century old one. Or very close to 0 against another APC for that matter.


A BTR-60 would chew a contemporary M113 to pieces, but it is not designed to engage enemy armoured vehicles except in self defence. Its job is to transport troops to and from the battle area, and it does that as well as any other APC.

[aartamen]

The situation is that "competent enemy" is a myth.