What does the BTR-80 gunner’s station look like?

The BTR-80 is a Soviet amphibious Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) which can move on both land and water, and is used to transport soldiers. It came after the BTR-70 and BTR-60 models, and its creation was influenced by the war in Afghanistan. However, the design didn’t change much from the older models. The BTR-80 has the usual layout, with three main sections: the driver and commander sit in the front, the soldiers and gunner are in the middle, and the engine is in the back. Everyone inside shares the same space, and they use side doors to get out, which is a big improvement from the side hatches used in the BTR-70.
Today’s video isn’t going to be about the history of the BTR-80, but instead we’re going to take a detailed look at the gunner’s position inside the BTR-80.
So hello and welcome and enjoy this video.
------
Sources
Tankograd
thesovietarmou...

[@cherrypoptart2001]

What i always thought that was insane is that the Early BTRs had that small side hatch that troops were expected to dismount from while the vehicle was moving 15-20kmph, like yh that might be slow but 1 fuck up and thats a crushed/rolled over soldier

[@osmacar5331]

Lot of good, lot of bad. It's... It's got merits, but easily overshadowed by western and Japanese designs.

[@Kazako83]

You aren’t supposed to dismount moving. It’s not meant to be a combat vehicle either.

[@osmacar5331]

@@Kazako83 yes... The BTR is meant for combat.

[@prfwrx2497]

The OT-64 SKOT handily beats the socks off every Soviet era BTR for one simple reason - an actual rear exit ramp for dismounts.
The BPU turret allows more accurate fire in theory. In practice they're mighty useless even compared to a pintle turret ring mount for one simple reason. Guns on APC/BTR are designed for reactive defensive suppression fire as a primary purpose.
With a pintle mounted DShK on the original open top BTR-60 or M2HB on the M113 and humvees, it's easy to slew the gun on targets quickly with your hands (and the turret ring pintle can be easily motorized for quick gross adjustment, even if also unstabilized).
The hand cranks for BPU turret combined with completely unstabilized gunner primary sight means you can't hose down and watch tracers to adjust with your body reflexively. You're limited to the cranks.
What the BPU turret excels at, is to use the BTR hull down, and dial in accurate machine gun fire. It is a superior self propelled heavy machine gun platform to a simple open pintle mount on a moving turret ring, for accurate fire support.
But for vehicular self defense and suppression, the BPU turret is inferior to a simple pintle gun mount, manhandling the gun by hand, and watching tracers.

[@berniegran5391]

-4 gun depression in such big vehicle is just ***cide

[@kayezero703]

man I love your channel your videos are so underrated ❤

[@bobiwt]

@@kayezero703 Thanks, I appreciate that 😄

[@rs5974]

First comment, and great vid!

[@bobiwt]

Thank you!

[@artiomvv569]

The BTR's are nothing more than tin cans with a gun, not to mention the side doors used by the soldiers to dismount are clumsy and awkward.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

So the night vission allows you to see the tanks, your Gun cant do much about. Your gun allows you to kill lighter vehicels, your night vission is not very helpfull with. And you give away your Position.
"Brilliant" comrades

[@lore.29]

Hey man, really nice video! If only I can make a suggestion, you could get rid of the subtitles, they are quite distracting from the video, and you speak a very fluent and understandable English, so they aren’t really needed.

[@bobiwt]

@@lore.29 Hey thanks. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subtitles

[@IS400-z6h]

١

[@AustinFarrara]

The worst wheeled APC ever made in my opinion

[@itsericzhou]

Nah look at the older btrs like the 60 and 70. Honestly for a glorified mrap with a big gun strapped on it it does its job good enough. Yeah it’s not 50 cal proof but it’s meant to be combined with other vehicles that cover its weaknesses. It’s pretty much a battle bus that can fight back*. However modern warfare has changed things and honestly idk if these big lightly armored vehicles are gonna be worth it anymore.

[@imitradisv]

For its age, cost and what it can offer, it’s one of the best actually.

[@itsericzhou]

@@imitradisv not even its age. Modern nato equivalents cost at least 2x to die the same way(fpv swarm). Bulletproof battlebus for low cost isn’t bad at all

[@Oppen1945]

​@@itsericzhouSomething tells me NATO wouldn't be caught grinding away at an attritional war where you're fighting over every village like it's Stalingrad in the first place.
Besides if war production demands it certain gucci features might be omitted or streamlined for wartime production anyway.

[@itsericzhou]

@@Oppen1945 nato is currently ahead technologically but they lack mass production. Yes, the goal of nato would be to win fast, but given the modern battlefield full of fpv drones and the more static warfare, nato has to rethink their strategy. In a near peer conflict it would become an attritional war without a doubt. That’s part of the reason why the US and Europe are ramping up artillery shell production because it’s shown to be a crucial element in the war of attrition

[@ausnorman8050]

'Explody" If in Ukraine

[@matthewjones39]

Both sides use it.

[@gadielplays2419]

​@@matthewjones39both sides die in it too

[@filipzietek5146]

Ukrainian Btr-4 are more explody due to atgms onboard, they went pretty much extinct by now.