Armor, weapons, running capabilities - which armored personnel carriers are in the top and set the standards today. Discuss
Table of contents
- How to compare if everyone is too different
- The most persistent
- Firestorm
- The owner of the fields, and in general what is the terrain
- Opinion about the leader
Are you watching these videos too?you know from where with a fierce battle of light armored vehicles, both among themselves and against tanks. In other words, behi and beters are fighting to the fullest, with everything they have - assaults on villages, city battles. Which shows how important this is an element of the ground forces, and not just a minibus for motorized infantry.
Against the backdrop of events, we decided to compare the mostpopular, and armored personnel carriers represented in the armies of Europe and the world, whose fights with each other today do not look so unlikely. It will become clear who advertised bullshit, and who quietly made infernal machines of death.
How to compare if everyone is too different
But first, let's give an explanation - today in the lightarmored vehicles classes began to be strongly blurred. Previously, it was more or less clear: if on wheels, this is most likely an armored personnel carrier, and on tracks - most likely an infantry fighting vehicle. And even there, the American tracked armored personnel carrier M113 spoils this raspberry. The armored personnel carriers were lighter and worse protected than the infantry fighting vehicles, and most importantly, they were noticeably weaker in armament.
Canadian armored personnel carrier LAV-25, outdated, but has become a trendsetter in NATO
Now we are already dealing with wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, and alreadythe third mass variety of light armored vehicles is MRAP (armored vehicles with anti-mine reinforcement), which often have a troop compartment, armor, weapons, but still it’s like not an armored personnel carrier. Infantry fighting vehicles of recent years are catching up with tanks in terms of mass, they are protected and armed more and more, and many of them may well be worthy of the name "landing tank".
Today, the international term is increasingly used“armored combat vehicle”, and wheeled or tracked is just a clarification. They are modular, so within the same model there can be modifications that differ greatly in armor protection, armament and filling with useful bells and whistles. In many ways, in the top we will have to compare platforms in general. Therefore, on the shore we denote the criteria:
In this competition we are comparing:
-
Wheeled vehicles according to the formula 8x8
-
With troop compartment
-
Armed with 12.7 caliber machine guns
Stryker, landing through the rear ramp – the absolute standard for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles around the world
Brief introduction of participants:
-
Stryker- wheeled platform for a series of armored personnel carriers and special armored vehicles (USA)
-
BTR-82A— development of Soviet wheeled BTR-80 (Russia)
-
boxer— modular platform of wheeled vehicles (Germany-Netherlands)
-
Patria AMV (Rosomak)— modular platform of wheeled vehicles (Finland-Poland)
-
VBCI- wheeled infantry fighting vehicle (France)
-
Pandur II- multi-purpose wheeled armored fighting vehicle (Austria + main operators Portugal and Czech Republic)
The most persistent
Everyone has bulletproof (rifle bullet 7.62) and anti-fragmentation protection against fragments of mines and shells, this is the standard. And this is where the significant differences begin.
VBCI
Basically, the most secure is the French VBCI.Its characteristics are classified, but all-round armor (that is, shelling in any projection) holds 14.5 mm (KPVT) from 200 meters (STANAG 4569 level 4), and with the OPEX module we are talking about 30 mm armor-piercing for the 2A72 gun (BMP-3, BMD -4, BTR-82). But there is an important amendment here - the Frenchman is officially classified as an infantry fighting vehicle, and its mass, depending on the module, is 28-32 tons. It is the heaviest in the top, as competitors in the base armor reach + - about 20 tons. It has no easy versions, in other words.
A clear outsider in this group is the BTR-82A.It is the worst protected - the forehead is 10 mm, the side is 7-9 mm, in addition, the Russian armored personnel carrier also has no mine resistance, unlike any other wheeled vehicle in the selection. Armor penetration Browning M2, from 19 to 25 mm (depending on the bullet) from a distance of 100 meters - this is such a NATO standard machine gun in 12.7 caliber. Obviously, the BTR-82 is stitched on the forehead from a distance of 200 meters, and on the sides - much further than 300 meters due to the small angles of the armor.
BTR-82A
Frontal projection (60˚) of any vehicle exceptRussian, in the base holds 14.5 mm from 200 meters. At the same time, the rest of the projections are provided only with protection against 7.62 mm (except for the Frenchman, but he is a cheater). But the main threat to armored personnel carriers is not even hits from heavy machine guns and automatic cannons, where grenade launchers with cumulative ammunition can be much more fatal.
All machines in the selection are equipped with internalpanels or sheathing made of aramid fibers, which, in case of penetration, catch elements of the pierced armor (and it is used as the main striking element). But only an American Stryker with SRAT dynamic protection plates can fully protect the crew and troops from a successful grenade launcher (laugh, laugh, if you get into a war, you would pray for such a thing).
But even SRAT provides reliable protection onlyfrom obsolete ammunition of the PG-7V type to the Soviet RPG-7, but he no longer holds tandem ammunition for it, and even more so for the RPG-29 Vampire. Because the dynamic (reactive) armor of American armored personnel carriers is still not the same as that of tanks or infantry fighting vehicles.
Stryker at SRAT
The German Boxer has armor enhancement optionsand cooler than the Frenchman, but the mass of the car grows under 40 tons, and this is already closer to the tank than the armored personnel carrier. Therefore, the most balanced contender here will be Patria AMV, with the installation of passive armor modules from 30 mm, it remains in a relatively acceptable mass of 27 tons.
-
Leader— Boxer, VBCI, Patria
-
Outsider— BTR-82A
Stryker should be placed in the middle due to the presence of dynamic reactive armor.
Firestorm
Stryker has the lightest weapons -a heavy machine gun or an automatic grenade launcher (and only in certain specifications of the Javelin ATGM). The same Patria AMV, but the Polish Rosomak created on its basis has thicker weapons - 30 mm Mk44 Bushmaster, which is capable of using ammunition with programmable detonation, as well as sub-caliber "crowbars" that pierce 60 mm of armor at an angle of 60 degrees from 2000 meters. All this allows you to hit even tanks at close range, at least of past generations (and of course in the stern / side projections).
Rosomak
Read also
But Mk44 is only "seeds" - combat moduleWolverine was supplemented with Spike ATGM (at an early stage they wanted to install Javelin). True, it is precisely such variants of vehicles that are still limited in the troops, this modification was only accepted. But the Austrian Pandur II (in the KBVP version) has been racing with a similar kit for a long time, since this complex is included in the basic modification. Spike is one of the most advanced 3rd generation ATGMs, which gives you serious opportunities to fight modern tanks.
The Russian BTR-82 has a 30 mm 2A72 cannon,but in its nomenclature there are only ordinary armor-piercing shells, but there are no “crowbars” (BOPS - armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber) in fact. Although they exist in nature, they did not reach the troops, because they are expensive. We will gloomily keep silent about programmable ammunition.
Work Mk44 with BTR LAV 30
They speak about the gun in different ways, but more often they scold -low accuracy due to the scheme with a moving barrel to reduce recoil (due to this, it was put on a light wheeled platform), and in addition, questions about reliability and a lot of inconvenience in operation. The BTR-82 ATGM is not allowed, so the Russian is more likely to pass against the background of competitors here in the “neither fish nor meat” genre.
There are versions of the Boxer with a 30 mm cannon and anti-tank systemsSpike LR, but it is known that only the Lithuanian army purchased them in the amount of 88 units for the most combat-ready Iron Wolf brigade. It is obvious that the duo of Bushmaster and Spike will become the standard for equipping heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles everywhere. But the Pandur II KBVP appeared before everyone else with such weapons. True, this version is massively only in service with the Czech Republic (102 pieces).
Boxer in autocannon version
-
Best— Pandur II KBVP
-
The worst— Stryker
French VBCI-2 could change the game a lot with40 mm autocannon and two launchers with ATGMs, but this version is only for export, and so far no one is buying them, and the army uses simpler ones with a 25 mm cannon and without ATGMs, which are already on the same level as the BTR-82.
The owner of the fields, and in general what is the terrain
The most powerful engine is, of course, in German -the obvious leader here is the Boxer, with a 700 horsepower turbodiesel. This makes it a leader in terms of power density even in heavy versions of 33 tons (21.5 hp per ton). The second place will be taken by the Frenchman VBCI with a 550 horsepower Renault diesel, which replaced the 600-horsepower Volvo in the new deliveries.
Boxer also leads by a wide margin in terms of stock.a course of 1050 km (!), the closest Patria AMV to it gives 800 km. Well, the “boxer” is famous for its ability to overcome a ford of 1.5 meters, while other non-amphibians have 1.2 meters.
Pandur II
BTR-82A, Pandur II and Patria have buoyancyAMV (but only in versions up to 22 tons). But in terms of overcoming the wall, the Stryker has the best performance of 60 cm, while all the others adhere to the standard of 50 cm. At the same time, the manufacturer Boxer claims to overcome as much as 80 cm, but independent sources write about 50 cm. Either someone lying, or someone is inattentive.
But Pandur II, although it does not set records fordriving capabilities, equipped not only with an automatic transmission, but also with an automatic transmission control system ADM - the machine itself controls the differential lock. And, admittedly, ADM is able to cope better than any driver in this regard - the reactive torque remains relatively low, which significantly reduces dynamic loads and reduces the chances of breakdowns at the wrong time.
- Clear Leaderin this category - Boxer
Boxer takes a steep hill
There are no frank weaklings, but the worst in terms of power density is the BTR-82A, and in terms of power reserve - VBCI, while their lags are not critical.
Opinion about the leader
In general, according to three indicators, the leader should be calledGerman armored personnel carrier Boxer. This will be confirmed by sales - 5 countries are armed with it, and several more are in line. And this is at a huge price of about $ 4 million, which varies depending on the modification. The German also wins in modularity - he is not just a leader, but a leader in a number of specifications, where there is everything from KShM (headquarters) to medical ones.
But the incredibly successful Finnish Patria AMV is on its heels, conquering the market of countries with small defense budgets. True, she is the most militant only in the Polish version of Rosomak.
As a result, the most balanced isPandur II. Steyr turned out to be skilled not only in assault and sniper rifles, but also in such an unexpected role. Panduras are let down by marketers, so only Portugal (light versions) and the Czech Republic (heavy versions) buy them, and so far, apparently, large deliveries are not expected anywhere. But as an editors' choice, the best armored personnel carrier in the selection will be the Pandur II.
Pandur II, commander's seat
A clear laggard is the BTR-82A, it loses a lotin booking, and weapons should be considered, if not obsolete, then obsolete (there is no BOPS and programmable ammunition, anti-tank systems). At the same time, we did not evaluate the filling and ergonomics, although here our armored personnel carrier would also lose - all its competitors have safety seats, a rear ramp for landing and more advanced fire extinguishing systems.
The only place where he is a leader is the mass.It is the lightest, less than 16 tons, but this does not give it running advantages, because even heavier vehicles have buoyancy. Closer to modern armored personnel carriers is the Russian platform Boomerang, but for many years of demonstration in parades, it never made it to the troops, and, apparently, it will not get there in the foreseeable future.
Boomerang