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

[geetrue]

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers


MOSCOW (Reuters) -

Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armored personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their amour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's the case of most so called "armoured" troop carriers ?
I know we didn't rely on our french VABs one bit regarding protection, and I believe it's the same or even worse for the M-113. I'd say at least the BMP has a lower profile, IMO in comparison it's better than the others. Now is it really safer outside than inside is another question

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.

[geetrue]

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 ...

[SUBMAN1]

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

...As for military expenditures, if money was the deciding factor to win (modern) wars we would know it already.

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!

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

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

[AntEater]

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 ) is basically sound and well proven, it depends on who's using it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by sergbuto

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

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

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by sergbuto

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

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

[Bruno Lotse]

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.

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Thanks August, I forgot that and was almost led to wonder why we use them at all
I remember I was told that anything equal or above 0.50 cal would go through a VAB. About the BMPs, IIRC they have fuel tanks in the 2 rear doors, I guess it's even less reassuring for the troops inside. But still it's indeed odd to travel outside where even the smallest 5.45 bullet can take you out, so in the end maybe they're actually just bragging

As for military expenditures, if money was the deciding factor to win (modern) wars we would know it already.

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...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by kurtz

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

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Bruno Lotse

They are developing a new kind of vehicle with partly open roof and easier exists.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers


MOSCOW (Reuters) -

I don't see what's wrong with them?:rotfl:


Actual McBee combat footage!