"Don't ride inside of Russian armored personnel carriers"
 

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers


MOSCOW (Reuters) -

All APCs were intended to do is protect the troops from shrapnel caused by nearby artillery bursts. They were never intended to protect them from mines or direct fire weapons.

I think your right Mikhayl. I remember one nasty encounter of a US armored carrier in Iraq shown on ABC news that killed or maimed everyone inside from a roadside bomb.

However I thought it was ironic to actually know why the soliders were all riding around on the outside of their carriers in Georgia, which you don't see else where in Iraq.

I thought they were just celibrating victory instead of riding safe ... :yep:

Hmm. That is very revealing - Russia plans to 'up' its military spending to $23 Billion/yr. That is a far cry from even China's expenditures. What the hell can $23 Billion buy you to compete with any western nation?

In case anyone cares, the US spends about $411 Billion last I checked per year on its military.

Russia spends less than 5% of the US on its military.

-S

Always has been. The only other way is a well placed bullet - such as a one with a leaders name on it.

-S

PS. I'm real tempted to move some place remote and buy a BMP! I want one!

You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.

In east germany, there's some place where you can ride in and drive BMPs, BRDMs and T-55s, I think.
Actually, owning a BMP shouldn't be so much of a problem. They're around in huge numbers, they are diesel powered and easy to repair. Any former east block nation should have dozens of them surplus. Shipping might be a bit expensive, though...
:)

Re military spending, the russians have the advantage that their military procurement is a bit simpler than that of the US, especially since they went back to the soviet style "design bureau" system a few years ago.
On the other hand, they've produced a handy collection of prototypes and export models sofar, while their many of their forces still have the cold war equipment.
But building prototypes wasn't as dumb as it sounds. Aside from the bragging rights, it brought export revenue, extensive trial experience and it kept the knowledge and technology alive.
On the other hand, the main equipment of the US ground forces hasn't changed much either. All US vehicles in use today date back to the cold war era, except for the LAV and the Stryker, which are based on a foreign (Swiss) design.
The really ambitious replacement programs for the army have all been cut back or canceled, like Crusader, OICW, XM8, RAH-66, etc etc.
But it is the same in all western countries: No western nation has fielded a new MBT for 20 years now.
In fact, the only nations who did were the Chinese and the South Koreans.
There are a few modern APCs and IFVs, but most of the APCs tend to be tailor-made for the needs of peacekeeping.
Even most IFVs build today are designed with peacekeeping ops in mind, like the german Puma.

That said, ground war (as all war) is about tactics and training. The 1991 US military would've trashed the Iraquis even if they had been riding T-72s and BMPs and the other side Abrams.
All ground equipment around in large numbers anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the current german army :D) is basically sound and well proven, it depends on who's using it.

It is, but also it is far less capable. 4x M1's crested a ridge in Iraq's first gulf war and took our almost 50 T-72's without a single loss.

Cheap really doesn't work.

-S

I wonder what Russians consider priorty projects? Could they be into lazer weapons already or just cross the border stuff?

Partly bravado
but mostly hard earned experience from Afganistan.
If unit is inside of a vehicle then one well-place RPG shot would mean the whole unit is wiped out.

In Afganistan BMP troop carrier was nicked Bratskaja Mogila Pekhoty - (a grave for a band of brothers).
A single RPG shot and you have a burning grave.

If guys are traveling atop of a vehicle they are less vulnerable to this kinda attack though are exposed to sniper fire and shells.
They are developing a new kind of vehicle with partly open roof and easier exists.

Yes re the fuel tanks in the doors, this was done toincrease the range, and apparently they are unarmoured (relatively) how dangerous diesel is from tracer would be a moot point, however it's hardly an ideal fire exit...

I thought the point for this was that the back doors were designed to keep the fire away from the inside of the vehicle if they were to explode.

-S

I meant even a high quality product which would be better in terms of characteristics than American would still be much cheaper.

http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/z...57_3304212.jpg

http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/z..._3304212_2.jpg

I don't see what's wrong with them?:rotfl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em3Lv8vZKv8

Actual McBee combat footage!:up: