Reply With Quotethx for the video! It appears to be better than btr-82
BTR-4 Winter Trial
Those couple videos just came up on-line today. Enjoy them guys!
thx for the video! It appears to be better than btr-82
Why do you say that? For one thing, the BTR-4 is no longer amphibious in practice since they moved the engine forward messing up the weight distribution.Originally Posted by mathyou8
Because it looks better. Duh...
Key word in his post is "appears"
I wouldnt even say it looks better. The giant RWS makes it look really top heavy and it just looks home made.
ORLY?
The turret is fugly
As I understand there is a modular system, so that the "The turret" can be changed to another...
YARLY, the amphib speed of the BTR-4 is less than half that of the BTR-80 series because of the weight distribution being shifted too far forward. This is in addition to the maximum allowed "sea state" being like 1. It is still technically amphibious in terms of its buyancy, but its max speed in the water and maximum allowed sea state are far below that of the baseline BTR-80 series.
PS: also, what are they doing in this video. It looks like the thing is broken and barely keeping afloat. It looks like the driver cannot see where he is going because the water level is above the front windshield...
Yeah. And most modern APCs are amphibious.
But if you were to consider the improved survivability and ergonomics of BTR-4, then compromises in amphibious capabilities aren't exactly too significant... besides, you aren't exactly going to negotiate the Atlantic Ocean in an APC. This much will do to cross a river or a lake.
Im not sure if it is. There is a reason why the BTR-80 has its engine in the back and not in the middle or the front. It was a deliberate design decision to improve the amphib qualities to allow much faster crossing of rivers under all weather conditions. For comparison the BTR-4 the water reaches basically to the very top of the hull, covering even the drivers window so that the driver has to look out of his hatch to see where he is going, and this is even in dead still water. The BTR-80/82 on the other hand, the water doesnt even reach the top of the prow, and the firing ports of the crew remain operable in the water (being above the water line).
Im not saying there are no advantages of the BTR-4 layout, but it is also wrong to say "look how much better it is, the door is in the back, clearly a better design". It is a tradeoff. The Ukranians decided to trade off the superior amphibious capability of the BTR-80, and to instead move the engine into the middle to get a rear door. I think this is because the BTR-4 is not designed to fullfill the same purpose/role as its parent design. I can hardly see the Ukranians mounting an offensive into Western Europe in which they need to quickly cross rivers to drive Westward as fast as possible. It simply isnt a priority for Ukraine or countries like Iraq. But for some countries like Russia, theatre maneuver warfare (where amphibious capability is very important) still dominates the army's planning.
Say what? The relocation of the engine doesn't provide any improved survivability over, say, the BTR-82A with the classic layout.
Anyway, I'm not impressed by this at all, it's just a layout change on an existing vehicle, I don't know why some are so impressed by this, as if they reinvented the wheel. The first real new APC from the former Soviet Union will be the Boomerang.
As Rusia produces upgraded BTR-80 (BTR-82A), so is the Ukriane (BTR-3). BTR-4 is not to replace but to supelemnt BTR-3. Some export customers prefere it to the engine in the back counterpart.
With over 600 vehicles exported BTR_4 is a comercial succes, and in the end, it is all that realy methers.
Indeed, the BTR-80 was built for the Soviet doctrine - rapid advance. And indeed, in this case, amphibious capability is important. The BTR-4's (or any other modern APC's) layout (engine in the front) provides additional protection for the crew. Even BTR-90 reflects the emphasis on crew protection, with its front mounted engine and rear doors, which make exiting the vehicle a lot less easier. I don't deny the importance of rapidly negotiating water bodies in Russian doctrine, but in the current century, maintaining the fighting capability of the crew (keeping them alive) is perhaps even more important. It's a matter of perspective, though.
Posting Permissions
