I searched for these on the forum and came up with nothing so I hope it is not a repost.
The APC is called Battle Vehicle of the Borderguard (Boyevaya Pogranichnaya Machina).
It is still in the prototype phase and only few are produced . The vehicle is based on the Kamaz 4326 and as the name suggests is made specially for the border guard units.
More BPM-97 Vistrel.
Now somebody will come and say "Abrams is better and could destroy this crap with 1 shot"
Anyway this is interesting APC, but what if compare it with same class foreign models serving today in Iraq and Afghan?
The latest model with the bulletproof side windows and without the turret is nowadays referred to as KamAZ-43269. It has been ordered by Kazakhstan and by some Russian ministries (MVD, Minatoma, MO?). It seems to be a tough vehicle but the interior is still 1950's design, no comparison to the Dingo II for example.
Abrams is better and could destroy this crap with 1 shotOriginally Posted by mannelig
Now somebody will come and say "Abrams is better and could destroy this crap with 1 shot"
Anyway this is interesting APC, but what if compare it with same class foreign models serving today in Iraq and Afghan?
Seriously now , is this APC in service or a project tested by the russian army ?
I was wondering about the lack of the turret on the latest model; does it mean that it can have a customer-specified weapon station?
It is similar to Czechoslovakian M53/59 Praga.
No matter what design is, I think. APC shoul keep lives for personal and that is the point of compare russian and western APC of this class. Is it tough enough? For example could it be used by Iraqi Army with the same result as americans do with their APC?
Could an abrams or US apc be used by iraqi army with the same result as US does? The proper usage of equipment you have thats the big deal.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hlight=vistrel
No matter who use it. The sense is in that - is KamAZ the same or better/worse than other APCs?
If the crew abandons a fully operational tank is it a bad tank or worse than others? If i get in a billion dollar plane i'll probably wont be able to take off so its a bad plane? If it gets destroyed on a airfield is it bad?No matter who use it. The sense is in that - is KamAZ the same or better/worse than other APCs?
If you want you can compare this and that with protection armament etc.
In my eyes the proper comparison of better/worse also involves atleast the crew.
With frontal protection against 12,7 mm bulets, side protection against 7,62 × 54R AP bullets and V shaped body for mine protection it could be easily compared with western MRAP vehicles. Interior is probably not as modern as in western models, but it is much cheaper and is produced on standard Kamaz truck. It have some good combat capabilities but it is still designed for border patrols not for combat actions.
That's right. But when I wrote "design" I meant that the vehicle's standard is still that of the 50's (OK, I'm exaggerating somewhat). This means that it does not offer the same degree of protection for the crew against, for example, land mines like other (Western) vehicles of its class. Have a look at these images of the interior of the KamAZ and the Dingo II and you'll see what I mean. Protection is not just a thick layer of steel against bullets.
reapload plsIt is similar to Czechoslovakian M53/59 Praga.
Border Patrol against Landmines? Fat chance...
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Reply With Quote
