The amount of BTR-82A's that have been destroyed in comparison to the BTR-80's might actually be a direct result of having such a large gun. When you put a gun like a 30mm on a chassis that light you incentivise the vehicle being used in a more IFV style role, which then coupled with the light skin of the vehicle results in the crews putting themselves at unnecessary risk doing something the vehicle isn't really meant to do.
You get what you pay for. It’s a 60 year old platform with poor sights, thin skin, insufficient engine, awkward system for disembarking, and no ATGM. It is however a cheap way to bring an auto cannon to an infantry fight assuming you can keep it alive that long.
The problem is, that the BTR should NOT stay on the frontline supporting infantry. Not by design, not by doctrine. Not because of its gun but because of its protection level. That is what the BMP was designed for. To stay with the troops on the front, supporting the tanks and self propelled artillery. This is the difference between an armoured personnel carrier(BTR) and an infantry fighting vehicle(BMP). The BTR is a battlefield taxi. Brings troops and supplies as close to the front as possible, pick up the injured and get the hell back to safety.
@@marrs1013 that why a stryker APC even if well armed never stay with the troops it deploy it will go back while a m113 is a field apc that can support infantry in some variznts and the bradley and sheridan do fullfill IFV roles the western tech are very good and european millitary is strong but produced in small number for budget and army size reason while russia dont have the money to fund their army properly because of corruption
One significant change since the 80’s is the perfusion of anti-material rifles in armies. 14mm and 50 cal rifles represent serious threats to the BTR line of vehicles. Ukraine has even fielded bipod equipped DSHK heavy MGs which wouldn’t have much difficulty peppering a BTR. The idea that APCs can survive with only small arms protection outside the frontal arc has been severely disproven by this war. Related to the Stryker, it’s protection is definitely a step above the BTR. Base armor is rated to stop 14.5mm from 360 degrees and up armor packages are available. These of course won’t protect the system from tank or ATGM fire but are about a good as it gets for a wheeled AFV.
@@blurglide Estonia is using a UTV like the Can-Am that has an AT Missile launcher on its roof. They roll up along a stone wall or hedge and fire right over the top of it. This turns "shoot & scoot" into a straight-up game of "hide and seek" with very deadly consequences.
The only real problem with the BTR-82 is that I don't own one. I'm sure that 30mm cannon would have a decent varmit and hog round. You get 50 of those vehicles you could probably clean up Texas' wild hog problem pretty quickly and it has enough storage for barbeque equipment and some lawn furniture and perhaps an inflatable pool.
These are only designed as low intensity troop carrier. The problem is that Russian strategy and tactics are based on 70's. They are sending these to front line with no air superiority.
@@joelee5239 i agree, i bet even something like the Stryker which is rough equivalent of btr (minus the auto cannon) would be fairing very well in those conditions
@@joelee5239 probably why putin built up Russia’s arsenal of anti aircraft missile systems so nato couldn’t have air superiority either. considering how reliant nato/USA are on air superiority to gain ground on the battlefield, not having air superiority would halve NATO’s warfare capabilities
@@JayJay-gk6cr that is why NATO has spent so much effort and money in stealth technology and small undetectable drones. With long range anti-radiation missiles, NATO would still be very effective in eliminating mobile SAM sites if they were to get involved. They would have air superiority within a week.
The problem with the BTR is it's in a military that doesn't have functional NCO 's. It brings flexibility and initiative to a military that doesn't allow flexibility or initiative.
Never mind the "E4 Mafia..." those experienced soldiers who aren't NCOs who can do all the "sketchy shit" the sergeant needs to have done, as long as he's either ok with HOW it gets done or is smart enough NOT to ask how it got done.
@@infinityquasar We are currently on day 87 of Putin's three day war plan. No , its not going well. By the way, how much longer do you think NATO is going to allow Russia to blockade Ukraine's food exports causing a major food shortage in Africa and Asia? Putin better win this or retreat by July or Russia really will be in a war with NATO. They wont have a choice.
@@infinityquasar Ok troll. Russia lost 25K by independent sources. The Russians have been stopped at every turn so now they are just shelling cities indiscriminately. They couldn't even overrun Maripol when the defenders were out of food, water, and ammo.
Biggest problem is the doors. Protection isn't great with any of the wheeled APCs, but you get commanders trying to make them do what tanks do, and they're just not built for it. I still want a BTR-80, I want to turn it into a overland/camper type vehicle. :D
Nearly every APC is flawed. Finding a perfect balance of armor, mobility, and armament is hard to do. If you give it enough armor to withstand enemy fire it's too heavy and immobile. If you sacrifice armor it's a deathtrap for its crew and passengers. If you arm it with a big gun someone will end up trying to fight a tank and they will lose. If you give it a big engine and make it fast you may not have enough armor and it will probably have a short range due to high fuel consumption. If you give it large gas tanks it's a fire hazard to its crew and passengers.
You are confusing the purpose of the APC, however, like most generals.The APC, according to its role, should only bring infantry to the place of fighting, not directly participating in clashes, well, escorting convoys to the line of clashes. THAT'S IT!A heavy infantry fighting vehicle should take the infantry directly to the enemy trenches! Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are now in relatively large numbers only Israel has this Namer, Germany has a Puma IFV, but it is still not quite heavy and does not have protection like a tank, Russia has developed a heavy t-15 Barberry IFV, but there is no money in the military budget for mass production, Germany still exports to other countries have a heavy IFV Lynx, as for me it is even better than a IFV Cougar.
Amphibious BTR-82A w/ 30mm autocannon vs non-amphibious Stryker w/ 12.7mm (.50 Cal) HMG. There is a 30mm variant of the Stryker APC. The BTR-90 is a tech demonstrator and it never went into active service. The newer BTR-87 tech demonstrator is an unlikely purchase for the Russian MoD.
@@макслюлюкин - I'm not confusing the role of the APC. If you arm/armor an APC too well the crew or leadership is going to use it where it won't survive.
@@rogerpennel1798 the APC is a transport! his role is to deliver infantry closer to the place of attack! But not to the place of attack itself, the APC has only bulletproof armor, now every infantry department has a grenade launcher or an ATGM operator. The APC is used as an attacking vehicle only because there is nothing better, but this is not its role, which was originally intended for them. And yes, the BTR-82 has a 30 mm automatic cannon, in Russia for 2 years already, a BR-11 subcalibre ammunition has been developed for a 30 mm cannon, piercing about 100 mm of armor at 1500m. So this armored personnel carrier is at a good level in terms of armament, although of course the design is morally outdated, it is recognized in Russia, the Boomerang armored personnel carrier has long been created to replace it, but again the budget of the Ministry of Defense is not large, unlike the United States with 750+ billion dollars in Russia, it is only 46 billion dollars for the purchase of new armored vehicles there is not enough money, so they modenize old samples such as the BMP-1 and BTR-80.
Yeah, we had a fairly peaceful period there for a while aside from Russia annexing Crimea, the latest Nagorno-Karabakh war, war in the Donbas... what did that get us?
They seem to be crossing rivers pretty well, every day Ukraine loses land and troops, loved all the new videos of ukraines new m117s getting bombed, Ukraine is really glad for the obsolete tech 🤣
There is an old Soviet joke. An American dies and goes to hell. Satan himself shows him around. They pass a large cauldron. The American peers in. It’s full of suffering souls, burning in hot pitch. As they struggle to leave the pot, low-ranking devils, sitting on the rim, pitchfork them back in. The American is properly shocked. Satan says, “That’s where we put sinful Englishmen.” The tour continues. Soon the duo approaches a second cauldron. It’s slightly larger, and slightly hotter. The American peers in. It is also full of suffering souls, all wearing berets. Devils are pitchforking would-be escapees back into this cauldron, as well. “That’s where we put sinful Frenchmen,” Satan says. In the distance is a third cauldron. It’s much bigger, and is glowing, white hot. The American can barely get near it. Nonetheless, at Satan’s insistence, he approaches it and peers in. It is absolutely packed with souls, barely visible, under the surface of the boiling liquid. Now and then, however, one clambers out of the pitch and desperately reaches for the rim. Oddly, there are no devils sitting on the edge of this giant pot, but the clamberer disappears back under the surface anyway. The American asks, “Why are there no demons here to keep everyone from escaping?” Satan replies, “This is where we put the Russians. If one tries to escape, the others pull him back in.”
I would argue that having a decent cannon on your APC gives flexibility, you still use the BMP as IFV but on a pinch the BTR can shoot and run away or stay if the opposing force lack proper support or AT weapons. Doctrine would decide if the vehicle is a success or a failure. The alternative is moving everyone to BMP, which you cant or everyone to MRAP/HMV or trucks, s clear dowmgrade. Keeping the vehicle as a taxi and a rear protection for a push is consistent, having your APC be able to fire overconfident Helos or flanking light vehicles is a plus
I saw a long cast discussing the tires on these vehicles. The piece was actually on the military leaders skimming the budgeted money getting filthy rich. Bottom line the tires are from China. Dirt cheap and garbage. Tire failures are a huge problem across the fleet of tired armor/transport vehicles.
That's why you always see Russian troops riding on top. You got better survival rates doing that than actually riding inside the vehicle as at least it's much easier to get the fuck outta dodge and run for cover if the vehicle is hit
@@user-oy8dl1er5h I remember watching Chechen footage of IED strikes. They would either place a charge on the side of the road to blow everyone off. Or put a huge charge in the middle of the road and launch the vehicle and everyone on it in the air!
I forget whether it was the BTR or BMP that utilized the doors in the back of the vehicle as fuel canisters. Which also meant that the infantry inside would be showered with burning fuel if someone shot the back of the vehicle.
I think that the biggest problem with the Russian BTR-82A fighting vehicle is that it's being used in a real war against an enemy, Ukraine, overarmed by NATO, not in a "war" against some dudes on sandals in Afghanistan.
@@ozymandiasnullifidian5590 Lose? A treaty was signed that had a date for full withdrawal a year later. Or are you going to continue on playing ignorant idiotic games?
@@TADAMAT-CZ Yes, but then Afghans were heavily backed by the USA, same as now Ukraine is proxy to NATO, then Afghans were proxy to the USA against the Soviet Union. The USA made mujahedeen, Taliban...and how ironic, those now beat the USA... the mighty USA, once beaten in Korea, the second time by half of one agricultural land, and after 20 years of war by guys in sandals... 800 billion per year thrown in the military-industrial complex, but those guys wit Ak-47s beat them.
@@ozymandiasnullifidian5590 You can't win against such an enemy unless going full Genghis on them. Both USSR and USA destroyed Afghanistan's regular army in a spann of days and both got bogged down in a forever war against tribal forces
That's not what spalling armor does. When a projectile hits armor hard enough to dent it and nearly penetrate, little fragments can fly off the inside of the armor and hurt people. That's spalling. This is just a layer to catch those fragments.
Congratulations to Binkov. I love this video and its animation style. I'm definitely archiving it for future reference. I play the Armor Sim Steel Beasts and info like this is great for creating scenarios. Thanks to Binkov's Battlegrounds for not only a detailed examination of the BTR series of vehicles, but also comparing it to other vehicles. What is also interesting in the video, is the discussion of military budgets and political decisions. It's certainly important to be able to design a wonderful weapon system, but then the questions are.. Can you afford to produce it, and how many?
@@mark4371 Hmmm..🤔From your comment.. I have to assume you prefer Russian propaganda. However, facts are facts. If the information provided here is incorrect. The future will prove it so. Frankly and fortunately, I have had a wonderful life, and will continue to. Without any commentary from you.😁😁
I bet driving a Russian manual APC is a pain in the ass since the clutch is probably hard to engage while the underpowered engine should hold the magnificent weight of armor while driving all 8 wheels, thankfully the newer APCs are equipped with automatic transmission (BTR-90)
Why go for expensive modernized APC when you can go for a cheaper one that's good enough. The savings can then be channeled to buy a yacht which has a lot more fun factor.
One issue that seems to plague Russian vehicles is the lack of advanced optical and night sights. While they can build them, they don't seem to equip every vehicle uniformly. Armor is great, but when you're a lightly armored vehicle often pushed into the recce role, good sights are a must to mitigate things like ambushes.
Seems the M113 Ukraine got are not so outdated when you consider what they are up against. Would be interesting to see an analysis of the M113 and how much it can acheive in Ukraine.
It's a 'battle taxi', and as long as it stays within that role, it's works. It's additional virtues ... lots of space for a squad, and it's equipment, easy to operate, easy to maintain, and easy to modify for additional roles. As long as you don't get it into a pissing contest with a real IFV, it'll get the job done. Yeah, it's far from perfect, but it sure as hell beats walking with 70+ lbs of gear / supplies.
From my experience with 113's in a half Savanna/Tropical area, bumpy hot moving tin box with fifty. But at least it's a bit spacious, at least compared to stuffs like BTR or BMP. After getting my hands on more modern APCs, I'd rather have the 113s being mortar carriers or as SHORADs
They're being usef to carry supplies forward and wounded back. Convert some to SVKs with the s29 nona breech loading 120mm mortar. Or a budget patria nemo 120mm mortar if the Finns are willing. Both roles will keep them mostly out of direct fire so their survivability will increase.
Originally yes, but then they realised it was better to stap a fairly decent gun and armour to them and use them to support the infantry rather than just being a glorified bus.
You can compare the BTR vs BMP comparison by looking at the results. Both Ukraine and Russia are using both families of APCs with slightly different retrofits. They must have have met or faced comparable threats at some point in the war.
Very good video! Very interesting to compare Russian and American APC's. Idk about Russia, but a lot of the time the US military gets flak for...well everything. The argument is that the Stryker has too much fire power, but then that it also doesn't have enough armor. And now it's also shit because it can't swim and it's too heavy. People who know nothing, just want everything.
You didn't mention the captured BTR-82As. Ukrainian army has a whole batallion riding captured BTR-82As. There might be more. At lease 30 to 40 are captured in good condition.
...and what do you think the 60K strong Donbas Freedom Fighters are riding on? All T-72s, T-80, BTRs Kazaks, even captured Humvees! What do you think they are shooting with?? They only got WWII Mosin Nagants and WWII AK-47s from Russia. All the fancy bling that you see them wearing is scavenged from the dead Junta canon fodder.
I'd say yes, it is worth it. Given that its 30mm can literally shred anything and it's really cheap, yeah, it's good for the price that you invest it in.
Yeah.. The additional firepower seems really worth it. The fact that in Ukraine war 30mm able to immobilize tank with breaking the track make it seems a really good choice to upgrade the firepower
Is there a poster that I can get that has all the different models of BTR's, BDR's, and T-72's? There is so many that I can't tell which is which just by looking quick
@@Globalscanningeyes you mean the work of fiction made by an angry former Airforce general that just wanted to grind his hate boner ax on the army (because they were dumb enough to give him some time) because the USAF laughed at his "Blitz fighter" proposal?
Also, Dry rotted tires, lack of fuel, low morale of troops...caused by drones dropping grenades, AT4s, NLAWs, M2HB machine guns...lack of interior cargo space for washing machines. Basically the same problems as all the other Russian equipment.
The rear engine makes it difficult but not impossible to put in a rear hatch. This choice was made for the purpose of weight distribution and improving the amphibious characteristics. There was a private venture, the BTR-87, that moved the engine to the front, but the Russians never consider it.
Like many Russian upgrades of ex-Soviet designs, it's not bad at all - for a second or third rate military. I'm sure they'd come in very handy for a country like Vietnam, or Venezuela, or Nigeria, or Libya, etc. The problem is Russia still has pretensions of being a first rate military; and it's just not up to that standard. In a first rate military such vehicles would be relegated to roles such as logistical resupply vehicles, or maybe 120mm mortar carriers if some actual offensive combat role was required.
@@Anomalyy666 Russia is really a third rate, or at best a second rate, country with a lot of nukes. Outside of the big cities Russia is shockingly poor and backwards. It is entirely possible that if it weren't for the Soviet era railroad system, Russia would have already fallen apart.
I disagree. The BTR is ok as an APC or light IFV. They are used by Ukraine and the Baltic States and are NOT being destroyed left and right by the Russians. The issue is that the Russians lack the SKILL to use their equipment to the limit of its capabilities. For example, I saw a video a couple of weeks ago about Ukrainian mechanized troops fighting with Russians in the woods north of Kiyv. THEIR BTR was SO CAMOFLAGUED that it was almost invisible as they walked past it. They had taken tree branches, moss, and old camo netting stuffed with grass and strapped all of that to the vehicle. It looked like a moving hedge. I saw another Ukrainian BTR with bricks on its front deck and roofing tiles on its sides hiding INSIDE a burned-out building. The Ukrainians are sneaky as hell!
Also has to be considered how much graft was involved in the production and upgrade of so much Russian equipment, such as the BTR, or anything built after '91. From an engineering standpoint, a lot of Russian equipment should be more than adequate, but again and again it seems like a lot of corners were being cut during the production phase because company owners could more easily line their pockets if they left out some minor details, and as time went on, and nobody got caught on to how shoddily a lot of this equipment was being produced, even more corners got cut, and this has left the Russian Armed Forces with a lot of inferior quality products.
The video features the BTRs from the 200th motorised brigade from Pechenga (see the "polar bear" tactical sign on the front). Most of them are probably already destroyed. The remains of 200th motorised brigade are holding for dear lives at Kozacha Lopan' right next at the border between russian and Kharkiv oblast of Ukraine.
If sending young Russian men to the slaughter in inadequate, outdated and broken down vehicles is Putin's idea of 6D chess, then I struggle to follow the logic.
I've been hearing about "muh slaughter" for 3 months now yet Russia keep rolling on with those 190.000 and gaining more and more ground in the east. Weird huh.
Depends on how you view it. The claim that the Russians are taking massive casualties while the Ukrainians are taking very few is based entirely on Ukrainian claims, and probably false. Russia is still pushing the Ukrainians back and capturing the land they're interested in. Perhaps Putin gambled that doing it now would save taking even higher casualties compared to waiting til after Ukraine joined NATO?
@@cyrilarabatzis461 Well, put enough crap in the fight. It is just on their border by the way. But would you volunteer for Russian tank duty anytime soon?
@@Matt_Alaric Well, there is so much subterfuge, no one can know the truth of it. But as I stated to the other guy, would you volunteer for Russian tank duty anytime soon?
@@obesetuna3164 I wouldn't volunteer for any kind of tank duty to be honest, but seeing how the west literally swamped Ukraine with anti tank weapons I'm surprised the Russians are still rolling.
I don't think BTR design is an issue, use any vehicle wrong and it will end-up the same. It is not like Ukrainians are better off by driving civilian cars. But sure - poorly maintained, sent into contested territory without cover, especially in territory where enemy is known to use ATGMs or even simple ATMs and it will result in disaster every single time. Yet at the same time give it to well trained and disciplined army, with appropriate cover and used in appropriate environment it could be great vehicle.
Nah. They don't stand a chance against western vehicles. The Ukraine war should have been most interesting, because it could have been Soviet on Soviet, however, the ATGM have to be factored in. ATGM and MANPADS are the nemesis of a highly mechanised attacking force.
@@daszieher ok, but you agree that Javelin would kill any western APC/IFV as well? So isn't that pointless to compare? As well not all countries going to have 10k ATGMs, Ukraine was kind of unique in that NATO sent more ATGMs to them then they can shoot in first weeks.
@@daszieher now tell me what gives Abrams a better chance to survive drones, ATGMs, and similar stuff, only thing is that it costs 7millon dollars and it's an even bigger logistical nightmare.
This is cool, I'd love to see a 8 wheeler comparison between Nato countries in the future! (Or a dedicated LAV-6 video, as an entirely unbiased Canadian ;))
At least they could've placed the engine on the FRONT, not only this could've allowed a rear ramp, but also added a better protection for the crew, it seems that praticity isn't a word present in Russia's vocabulary😢
You see - when soldiers sit in front of engine, they protect the engine from getting damaged, acting as a spaced armor. Thus after the btr getting hit, the engine can still be saved.
they all seem to focus on the BTR's original purpose and comparing it to other (more) capable APC platforms. the BTR's lack of any good protection and the current use by it's commanders have provided it with the perfect conditions to spoil the troops and crew to frontline combat, which resulted in the thing having a lacking performance.
@6:02 difficult Topic, there is honestly no good Argument against Firepower. The hole APC/Battletaxi-Doctrine is just a Theory. In Praxis and recent History APC's stay with the dismounted Infantry and support them with their Weapons when they are engaged in combat. So, in that Case having more Firepower is an Advantage. The only counter Argument against heavier armed APC's/wheeled IFV's that is valid, is maybe logistical. With remote controlled Turrets, 30mm Autocannons dont even take that much space in the Vehicle anymore, which was a valid concern before. Because it reduced the ammount of Dismounts significantly. in case of the BTR-82A, the BTR's and BMP's are in general terriable Vehicle's for the Infantry. Dismounting from a BMP3 or BTR is a challenge by its own, comfort is lackluster too.
@Binkov's Battlegrounds Hey, do you think you could do an analysis of the F-16 Viper upgraded format, and why it's such a sought-after upgrade by countries like Turkey?
The guy who realized that the Soviets couldn't build an engine powerful enough to move this vehicle without it taking up the full width of the vehicle. If you can't fit the engine beside the driver (the way Stryker/LAVs do), you either have to put it between the crew and passenger compartment (which isn't workable, since the vehicle commander is also the squad commander, so he needs to be able to talk to both crew and dismounts), or you have to shove it in the back, and have the troops dismount from the sides and/or top.
One thing to consider with Russian Vehicles being so low profile, they have a low center of gravity and are harder to roll over. Probably important when one's army is full of conscripts.
Are you telling me that 1970s CCCP didn’t have reliable mass produced hydraulic [ramp] systems so they went with a reliable door system with redundant second door system that dismounted troops to either the left or right where they could get immediately into an extended line to advance in line like mechanized infantry…. 🤔
@@godchanelq5712 probably about 500 tanks inoperable or destroyed. About 9k soldiers killed, 27k wounded and out of the war, 1,000-2,000 other armoured vehicles either destroyed or severely damaged.
@@Reinhard_Erlik Russia lost the elite and most effective part of their army , so how they could do something in Hipotatical war with NATO , I don't know.
@@Reinhard_Erlik There's already photographic evidence of nearly 700 tanks destroyed, abandoned or captured (as of May 23), and 3800+ total armored vehicles destroyed, abandoned or captured. It's reasonable to expect the actual total to be significantly higher. 9000 Russian KIA would also have to be a low estimate.
As it should be. After the beginning of the war every second RUclipsr suddenly became a geopolitical, economic and military "genius", not to mention self proclaimed prophets.
The problem with it is that it sucks! Even the the Russian doesn’t deny it, but they got a ton of them made a long time ago and they have to make the best of it for now
Err... isn't that kind of an easy prediction? A few Armata's and handful of 5th Gen Fighter jets/S-400s are not going to be able to overcome the Red Tide in practically any scenario. But maybe I'm missing something.
🔴 _Your consistency and Quality of Content Never Dissapoints Binkov..._ _You create one of the best content on RUclips...Its damn amazing the energy you put in...The amount of Information you gather in creating it...The Execution is Awesome._ ❤️❤️ Keep up the Amazing Work 🟢
The BTR-82 is pretty much just a warmed over BTR-60 or BTR-70 with a new, low-profile turret mounting an autocannon instead of the old 14.5mm DShK heavy machine gun. While the 2A42 30mm autocannon is probably OK, the hull suffers from multiple design and engineering flaws that were inherited from the BTR-60.
That is literally what the video states. BTR-70 is an incremental improvement of the BTR-60, and similarly the BTR-80 is an incremental improvement of the BTR-70.
Russian land doctrine always seems to emphasize firepower. BTR-82 has a very solid gun. It just needs good thermals and sights and it can support infantry very well. Slat armor that can protect against cheap RPGs would also greatly increase its effectiveness. The whole Armata family seems like a giant corruption scheme, its a massive departure from Soviet incremental vehicle designs with part interchangability.
Incredible cope in this comment section. Russian losses in Ukraine are horrifying, and the weaknesses of these vehicles are part of the problem. No about of whataboutisms about Afghanistan and Iraq will make up for the reality of these BTR's being BTFO'ed on a ridiculous level in Ukraine.
@10:50 Russia is deploying mixed formations (called battalion tactical groups) in Ukraine that typically feature 20 BMPs and 10 BTRs, or a 2:1 ratio. You'll note that this is the same ratio as the Oryx loss statistics you mention in the video, which means BMPs and BTRs are being used in direct combat and lost at the exact same rate, adjusted for deployment.
Very good and well-researched video, as always. Given Russia's current and projected future economic woes due to ongoing sanctions and their consequent damage to Russia's economy, I seriously doubt that any Armata-family production will occur in the foreseeable future. No Bumerang for Russia. Russia's BTRs will need to soldier-on for quite a while longer.
the remarks are certainly on the merits, but we know that the main task of the armored personnel carrier is to take soldiers to the front line, and the armored personnel carrier copes with this
@Gorgeous George I want to note that, nevertheless, our enemy has an extremely poor ability to form with modern anti-tank weapons, 90% of aviation and about half of the artillery have been destroyed, and it’s rather stupid to fight against them with modern weapons, but it’s even more stupid not to modernize armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, because there are and money and opportunities
@@LinusWelt Positional battles are presented in the Kharkiv direction, we are gradually returning to the abandoned territories closer to the city. So far, it’s dull on the Odessa, artillery duels are now knocking out the veteran units of the enemy in Severodonetsk, the fate of this war is being decided in the Donbass, because there is the main enemy grouping
@@ВерныйРеволюции I don't think the stats you've shown are true. But let's skip that. Most infantry can kill the btr 82. You can do it with a light mortar probably, a high caliber rifle, an AT4, maybe even a molotov if you hit on the vents in the back I guess.
@@tankman1902 probably yes, but an armored personnel carrier is not a tank, even Ukrainian analgas do not have dynamic protection, and they can burn in the same way, the task of an armored personnel carrier is to bring ammunition and soldiers to the battle line
Logic has it it doesn't matter who operates what, if it can blow you to pieces and liquefy your organs and blow stuff up, I don't think operator's give a shit
if you were a little careful and heard that the btr has 10-12 tons... a modern armored personnel carrier has 30 tons... protection weight... it's not hard...
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The amount of BTR-82A's that have been destroyed in comparison to the BTR-80's might actually be a direct result of having such a large gun. When you put a gun like a 30mm on a chassis that light you incentivise the vehicle being used in a more IFV style role, which then coupled with the light skin of the vehicle results in the crews putting themselves at unnecessary risk doing something the vehicle isn't really meant to do.
Boom. Exactly what I was thinking of.
@@fratercontenduntocculta8161 "Boom" I see what you did there.
Boom
Which is what exactly happened in Ukraine, I mean heck, we've seen BTR 82s fighting in the front lines alongside MBTs in Mariupol!
Two troop transport targets for your Stugna. One has a 30 mm gun the other is armed with machine guns. Which do you shoot at?
You get what you pay for.
It’s a 60 year old platform with poor sights, thin skin, insufficient engine, awkward system for disembarking, and no ATGM.
It is however a cheap way to bring an auto cannon to an infantry fight assuming you can keep it alive that long.
@@hs342 I didn’t ask a question
The problem is, that the BTR should NOT stay on the frontline supporting infantry. Not by design, not by doctrine. Not because of its gun but because of its protection level. That is what the BMP was designed for. To stay with the troops on the front, supporting the tanks and self propelled artillery. This is the difference between an armoured personnel carrier(BTR) and an infantry fighting vehicle(BMP). The BTR is a battlefield taxi. Brings troops and supplies as close to the front as possible, pick up the injured and get the hell back to safety.
@@marrs1013 that why a stryker APC even if well armed never stay with the troops it deploy it will go back while a m113 is a field apc that can support infantry in some variznts and the bradley and sheridan do fullfill IFV roles the western tech are very good and european millitary is strong but produced in small number for budget and army size reason while russia dont have the money to fund their army properly because of corruption
@@jhonsilveralpha
Exactly.
One significant change since the 80’s is the perfusion of anti-material rifles in armies. 14mm and 50 cal rifles represent serious threats to the BTR line of vehicles. Ukraine has even fielded bipod equipped DSHK heavy MGs which wouldn’t have much difficulty peppering a BTR. The idea that APCs can survive with only small arms protection outside the frontal arc has been severely disproven by this war.
Related to the Stryker, it’s protection is definitely a step above the BTR. Base armor is rated to stop 14.5mm from 360 degrees and up armor packages are available. These of course won’t protect the system from tank or ATGM fire but are about a good as it gets for a wheeled AFV.
Yeah- unless you're heavily uparmored, it seems like you'd be better off with the speed and maneuverability of something like a UTV or a Jeep.
@@blurglide Estonia is using a UTV like the Can-Am that has an AT Missile launcher on its roof. They roll up along a stone wall or hedge and fire right over the top of it. This turns "shoot & scoot" into a straight-up game of "hide and seek" with very deadly consequences.
The only real problem with the BTR-82 is that I don't own one. I'm sure that 30mm cannon would have a decent varmit and hog round. You get 50 of those vehicles you could probably clean up Texas' wild hog problem pretty quickly and it has enough storage for barbeque equipment and some lawn furniture and perhaps an inflatable pool.
As an upgrade kit for a vehicle made in the 80s that in turn was based on an older vehicle its not bad, tho leaves much to be desired
It's about mechanizing the mass of the Russian infantry.
These are only designed as low intensity troop carrier. The problem is that Russian strategy and tactics are based on 70's. They are sending these to front line with no air superiority.
@@joelee5239 i agree, i bet even something like the Stryker which is rough equivalent of btr (minus the auto cannon) would be fairing very well in those conditions
@@joelee5239 probably why putin built up Russia’s arsenal of anti aircraft missile systems so nato couldn’t have air superiority either. considering how reliant nato/USA are on air superiority to gain ground on the battlefield, not having air superiority would halve NATO’s warfare capabilities
@@JayJay-gk6cr that is why NATO has spent so much effort and money in stealth technology and small undetectable drones. With long range anti-radiation missiles, NATO would still be very effective in eliminating mobile SAM sites if they were to get involved. They would have air superiority within a week.
Apparently the upgrades to the towing points and ease of neutral gear engagement in the transmission is highly appreciated by Ukrainian farmers
The problem with the BTR is it's in a military that doesn't have functional NCO 's.
It brings flexibility and initiative to a military that doesn't allow flexibility or initiative.
Never mind the "E4 Mafia..." those experienced soldiers who aren't NCOs who can do all the "sketchy shit" the sergeant needs to have done, as long as he's either ok with HOW it gets done or is smart enough NOT to ask how it got done.
@@infinityquasar The Russians pitiful performance is PROOF that an NCO core is a needed component.
@@infinityquasar We are currently on day 87 of Putin's three day war plan.
No , its not going well.
By the way, how much longer do you think NATO is going to allow Russia to blockade Ukraine's food exports causing a major food shortage in Africa and Asia?
Putin better win this or retreat by July or Russia really will be in a war with NATO.
They wont have a choice.
@@infinityquasar Ok troll. Russia lost 25K by independent sources. The Russians have been stopped at every turn so now they are just shelling cities indiscriminately. They couldn't even overrun Maripol when the defenders were out of food, water, and ammo.
Biggest problem is the doors. Protection isn't great with any of the wheeled APCs, but you get commanders trying to make them do what tanks do, and they're just not built for it.
I still want a BTR-80, I want to turn it into a overland/camper type vehicle. :D
In Training i was told, that the Doors of the BTRs are one of the few Reasons to put the G3 in full Auto.
Nearly every APC is flawed. Finding a perfect balance of armor, mobility, and armament is hard to do. If you give it enough armor to withstand enemy fire it's too heavy and immobile. If you sacrifice armor it's a deathtrap for its crew and passengers. If you arm it with a big gun someone will end up trying to fight a tank and they will lose. If you give it a big engine and make it fast you may not have enough armor and it will probably have a short range due to high fuel consumption. If you give it large gas tanks it's a fire hazard to its crew and passengers.
You are confusing the purpose of the APC, however, like most generals.The APC, according to its role, should only bring infantry to the place of fighting, not directly participating in clashes, well, escorting convoys to the line of clashes. THAT'S IT!A heavy infantry fighting vehicle should take the infantry directly to the enemy trenches!
Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are now in relatively large numbers only Israel has this Namer, Germany has a Puma IFV, but it is still not quite heavy and does not have protection like a tank, Russia has developed a heavy t-15 Barberry IFV, but there is no money in the military budget for mass production, Germany still exports to other countries have a heavy IFV Lynx, as for me it is even better than a IFV Cougar.
Strykers still got destroyed by the Taliban.
Amphibious BTR-82A w/ 30mm autocannon vs non-amphibious Stryker w/ 12.7mm (.50 Cal) HMG. There is a 30mm variant of the Stryker APC. The BTR-90 is a tech demonstrator and it never went into active service. The newer BTR-87 tech demonstrator is an unlikely purchase for the Russian MoD.
@@макслюлюкин - I'm not confusing the role of the APC. If you arm/armor an APC too well the crew or leadership is going to use it where it won't survive.
@@rogerpennel1798
the APC is a transport! his role is to deliver infantry closer to the place of attack! But not to the place of attack itself, the APC has only bulletproof armor, now every infantry department has a grenade launcher or an ATGM operator.
The APC is used as an attacking vehicle only because there is nothing better, but this is not its role, which was originally intended for them. And yes, the BTR-82 has a 30 mm automatic cannon, in Russia for 2 years already, a BR-11 subcalibre ammunition has been developed for a 30 mm cannon, piercing about 100 mm of armor at 1500m.
So this armored personnel carrier is at a good level in terms of armament, although of course the design is morally outdated, it is recognized in Russia, the Boomerang armored personnel carrier has long been created to replace it,
but again the budget of the Ministry of Defense is not large, unlike the United States with 750+ billion dollars in Russia, it is only 46 billion dollars for the purchase of new armored vehicles there is not enough money, so they modenize old samples such as the BMP-1 and BTR-80.
Never been this early before, less than 10 views. Keep up the excellent work!
You are talking about hypothetical wars, but at the end only real war is bringing us together.
Yeah, we had a fairly peaceful period there for a while aside from Russia annexing Crimea, the latest Nagorno-Karabakh war, war in the Donbas... what did that get us?
I mean, he does have a fair point
Looks like it will take a alien invasion to have a United Earth.
Lol
@@helbent4 eight years of defense preparations
Very good unbiased descriptions. Thanks.
i wish i could buy a btr- 80. i like the design and how it looks. would be fun offroading with it and could be a cool motorhome.
theres a bunch of old BTR's for sale all over the place since so many were made, maybe you can't get a btr-80 but btr-60's are commercially available
@@ohnoes3084 ik the btr 60 is more available, i just like the design more of the 80. sadly it doesnt matter because i cant afford one anyways. ;-; xD
@@Rey-vm9it I've seen some BTR-60's for sale online for like 30k USD, not the cheapest but definitely within reach if you're that dedicated
"You can use it to cross rivers"
_Russia screams and hides under the table._
Ukrainian artillery: Demonic grin intensifies as Tanc a lelek starts playing.
You can they are part submarine
They seem to be crossing rivers pretty well, every day Ukraine loses land and troops, loved all the new videos of ukraines new m117s getting bombed, Ukraine is really glad for the obsolete tech 🤣
Ukranian artillery says hi
@@antimatter4733
Got a source for that, champ?
Firing a large caliber machine gun on the front left tire of a BTR-70/80 will deflate it, penetrate the armor, & often kill the driver.
There is an old Soviet joke. An American dies and goes to hell. Satan himself shows him around. They pass a large cauldron. The American peers in. It’s full of suffering souls, burning in hot pitch. As they struggle to leave the pot, low-ranking devils, sitting on the rim, pitchfork them back in. The American is properly shocked. Satan says, “That’s where we put sinful Englishmen.” The tour continues. Soon the duo approaches a second cauldron. It’s slightly larger, and slightly hotter. The American peers in. It is also full of suffering souls, all wearing berets. Devils are pitchforking would-be escapees back into this cauldron, as well. “That’s where we put sinful Frenchmen,” Satan says. In the distance is a third cauldron. It’s much bigger, and is glowing, white hot. The American can barely get near it. Nonetheless, at Satan’s insistence, he approaches it and peers in. It is absolutely packed with souls, barely visible, under the surface of the boiling liquid. Now and then, however, one clambers out of the pitch and desperately reaches for the rim. Oddly, there are no devils sitting on the edge of this giant pot, but the clamberer disappears back under the surface anyway. The American asks, “Why are there no demons here to keep everyone from escaping?” Satan replies, “This is where we put the Russians. If one tries to escape, the others pull him back in.”
lmao that was dark but poetic as Hell
I would argue that having a decent cannon on your APC gives flexibility, you still use the BMP as IFV but on a pinch the BTR can shoot and run away or stay if the opposing force lack proper support or AT weapons.
Doctrine would decide if the vehicle is a success or a failure. The alternative is moving everyone to BMP, which you cant or everyone to MRAP/HMV or trucks, s clear dowmgrade.
Keeping the vehicle as a taxi and a rear protection for a push is consistent, having your APC be able to fire overconfident Helos or flanking light vehicles is a plus
I saw a long cast discussing the tires on these vehicles. The piece was actually on the military leaders skimming the budgeted money getting filthy rich. Bottom line the tires are from China. Dirt cheap and garbage. Tire failures are a huge problem across the fleet of tired armor/transport vehicles.
In the US army in the 1970s we referred to the BMP as the Ivan toaster, because they tended to catch fire 🔥
That's why you always see Russian troops riding on top. You got better survival rates doing that than actually riding inside the vehicle as at least it's much easier to get the fuck outta dodge and run for cover if the vehicle is hit
@@user-oy8dl1er5h I remember watching Chechen footage of IED strikes. They would either place a charge on the side of the road to blow everyone off. Or put a huge charge in the middle of the road and launch the vehicle and everyone on it in the air!
I forget whether it was the BTR or BMP that utilized the doors in the back of the vehicle as fuel canisters. Which also meant that the infantry inside would be showered with burning fuel if someone shot the back of the vehicle.
@@kurousagi8155 bmp
hmmmm I wonder what happened to the US Army 1970-73???
There needs to be a vehicle like a btr to fill that role, it just needs to be better armored and not used as a replacement for an ifv.
I think that the biggest problem with the Russian BTR-82A fighting vehicle is that it's being used in a real war against an enemy, Ukraine, overarmed by NATO, not in a "war" against some dudes on sandals in Afghanistan.
Yeah, and yet the USA lost the war against those dudes in sandals...
@@ozymandiasnullifidian5590 same with the Russians
@@ozymandiasnullifidian5590 Lose? A treaty was signed that had a date for full withdrawal a year later. Or are you going to continue on playing ignorant idiotic games?
@@TADAMAT-CZ Yes, but then Afghans were heavily backed by the USA, same as now Ukraine is proxy to NATO, then Afghans were proxy to the USA against the Soviet Union. The USA made mujahedeen, Taliban...and how ironic, those now beat the USA... the mighty USA, once beaten in Korea, the second time by half of one agricultural land, and after 20 years of war by guys in sandals... 800 billion per year thrown in the military-industrial complex, but those guys wit Ak-47s beat them.
@@ozymandiasnullifidian5590 You can't win against such an enemy unless going full Genghis on them. Both USSR and USA destroyed Afghanistan's regular army in a spann of days and both got bogged down in a forever war against tribal forces
That's not what spalling armor does. When a projectile hits armor hard enough to dent it and nearly penetrate, little fragments can fly off the inside of the armor and hurt people. That's spalling. This is just a layer to catch those fragments.
no, spall liners do both. spall is both of those things.
Congratulations to Binkov. I love this video and its animation style. I'm definitely archiving it for future reference. I play the Armor Sim Steel Beasts and info like this is great for creating scenarios. Thanks to Binkov's Battlegrounds for not only a detailed examination of the BTR series of vehicles, but also comparing it to other vehicles. What is also interesting in the video, is the discussion of military budgets and political decisions. It's certainly important to be able to design a wonderful weapon system, but then the questions are.. Can you afford to produce it, and how many?
The fact that you like this video tells me you live in a western propaganda bubble
@@mark4371 Hmmm..🤔From your comment.. I have to assume you prefer Russian propaganda. However, facts are facts. If the information provided here is incorrect. The future will prove it so. Frankly and fortunately, I have had a wonderful life, and will continue to. Without any commentary from you.😁😁
excellent professional analysis
THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS!!!
I bet driving a Russian manual APC is a pain in the ass since the clutch is probably hard to engage while the underpowered engine should hold the magnificent weight of armor while driving all 8 wheels, thankfully the newer APCs are equipped with automatic transmission (BTR-90)
you haven't ridden it yet, and then what opinion can you talk about
"Enjoy you deathtrap, ladies." Homer Simpson.
Why go for expensive modernized APC when you can go for a cheaper one that's good enough. The savings
can then be channeled to buy a yacht which has a lot more fun factor.
🤣 rip
700k subs congratulations Binkov🎉
Looks really fucking badass
One issue that seems to plague Russian vehicles is the lack of advanced optical and night sights. While they can build them, they don't seem to equip every vehicle uniformly. Armor is great, but when you're a lightly armored vehicle often pushed into the recce role, good sights are a must to mitigate things like ambushes.
That's expensive stuff. You can either fit it to a few dozen tanks... or buy a yacht.
Ramirez! Take out that BTR with the paper clip!
Seems the M113 Ukraine got are not so outdated when you consider what they are up against. Would be interesting to see an analysis of the M113 and how much it can acheive in Ukraine.
It's a 'battle taxi', and as long as it stays within that role, it's works. It's additional virtues ... lots of space for a squad, and it's equipment, easy to operate, easy to maintain, and easy to modify for additional roles. As long as you don't get it into a pissing contest with a real IFV, it'll get the job done.
Yeah, it's far from perfect, but it sure as hell beats walking with 70+ lbs of gear / supplies.
From my experience with 113's in a half Savanna/Tropical area, bumpy hot moving tin box with fifty. But at least it's a bit spacious, at least compared to stuffs like BTR or BMP.
After getting my hands on more modern APCs, I'd rather have the 113s being mortar carriers or as SHORADs
Thanks
I think this is Binkov’s best video yet. Great job!
They're being usef to carry supplies forward and wounded back.
Convert some to SVKs with the s29 nona breech loading 120mm mortar. Or a budget patria nemo 120mm mortar if the Finns are willing.
Both roles will keep them mostly out of direct fire so their survivability will increase.
Isn't the BTR family, like, APCs? They aren't supposed to fight in the first place, they just transport troops.
Originally yes, but then they realised it was better to stap a fairly decent gun and armour to them and use them to support the infantry rather than just being a glorified bus.
You can compare the BTR vs BMP comparison by looking at the results. Both Ukraine and Russia are using both families of APCs with slightly different retrofits. They must have have met or faced comparable threats at some point in the war.
Very good video! Very interesting to compare Russian and American APC's. Idk about Russia, but a lot of the time the US military gets flak for...well everything. The argument is that the Stryker has too much fire power, but then that it also doesn't have enough armor. And now it's also shit because it can't swim and it's too heavy. People who know nothing, just want everything.
Your last sentence is both obvious and profound.🙏 Thank you. We must not get numbed into viewing real-time war footage as just another video game.
You didn't mention the captured BTR-82As. Ukrainian army has a whole batallion riding captured BTR-82As. There might be more. At lease 30 to 40 are captured in good condition.
...and what do you think the 60K strong Donbas Freedom Fighters are riding on? All T-72s, T-80, BTRs Kazaks, even captured Humvees! What do you think they are shooting with?? They only got WWII Mosin Nagants and WWII AK-47s from Russia. All the fancy bling that you see them wearing is scavenged from the dead Junta canon fodder.
According to Orix, as of today 57 BTR-82As we're captured.
@@julianpetkov8320 lol, "freedom fighters"? you should drink less vodka, Ivan. or you do drugs and hallucinating?
I'd say yes, it is worth it. Given that its 30mm can literally shred anything and it's really cheap, yeah, it's good for the price that you invest it in.
Yeah.. The additional firepower seems really worth it. The fact that in Ukraine war 30mm able to immobilize tank with breaking the track make it seems a really good choice to upgrade the firepower
Yeps its a good tool pity the carpenter is ill trained
The bots are going crazy over this one xD maybe some more Russians should go win a Lada for their family
Is there a poster that I can get that has all the different models of BTR's, BDR's, and T-72's? There is so many that I can't tell which is which just by looking quick
"We may see the BTR soldier on a decade or more..."
Provided that all the BTR survives the war.
While cheaper, it does have the advantage that the money saved can be spent on Oligarch yachts.
Wait till you hear about the pentagon wars.
Wait till you hear about 2 trillion and 20 years in afghanistan
And the mistresses
@@karlyo6937 wait till you hear about the scandal about the brand new lcs ship and their urgent replacements.
ruclips.net/video/TVhRvyKqJ0I/видео.html
@@Globalscanningeyes you mean the work of fiction made by an angry former Airforce general that just wanted to grind his hate boner ax on the army (because they were dumb enough to give him some time) because the USAF laughed at his "Blitz fighter" proposal?
They work better when tyres aren't rotted out due to reallocation of funds to the head of operations.
Also, Dry rotted tires, lack of fuel, low morale of troops...caused by drones dropping grenades, AT4s, NLAWs, M2HB machine guns...lack of interior cargo space for washing machines. Basically the same problems as all the other Russian equipment.
But plenty of room for: Ammunition, cooker, loot, big-screen tv, and of course Orcs. :(
Russia is a failed state.
I love how the exits on the top and sides always silhouette the troops getting in and out. Good design russians... keep nailing it.
We are extremely grateful to the whole civilized world for precious help you give. But we still need more to overcome the evil from the east
You mean the east?
@@tankman1902 oh sorry)))
We used to speak russian and east is spelled like vostok so sometimes there may be some confuse
Pretty sure the Ukraine war isn’t hypothetical Binkov; might need to update your outro.
the side door is really a bad design, i assume they did they for it to be able to float on water and cross small rivers
I assume they did it so you can park sideways and cover all troops .
The rear engine makes it difficult but not impossible to put in a rear hatch. This choice was made for the purpose of weight distribution and improving the amphibious characteristics. There was a private venture, the BTR-87, that moved the engine to the front, but the Russians never consider it.
It would be nice if they sell them. I'd happily take a couple to look cool in my Garage
You can buy 80s from conservation for 500000-2000000₽, gun disabled
@@silvercloud671games got a link?
@@OtakuGekko I can’t, RUclips deleting it
or you could get one with the gun enabled in a certain country beginning in "u", we aren't responsible for liabilities though))
@@pixpax1720 soon coming to your local polish car dealership
Like many Russian upgrades of ex-Soviet designs, it's not bad at all - for a second or third rate military. I'm sure they'd come in very handy for a country like Vietnam, or Venezuela, or Nigeria, or Libya, etc.
The problem is Russia still has pretensions of being a first rate military; and it's just not up to that standard.
In a first rate military such vehicles would be relegated to roles such as logistical resupply vehicles, or maybe 120mm mortar carriers if some actual offensive combat role was required.
Games like bf3 give the impression it is a superpower lol
@@Anomalyy666 More like BFBC2 where they take over the whole world
@@Anomalyy666
Russia is really a third rate, or at best a second rate, country with a lot of nukes.
Outside of the big cities Russia is shockingly poor and backwards. It is entirely possible that if it weren't for the Soviet era railroad system, Russia would have already fallen apart.
I disagree. The BTR is ok as an APC or light IFV. They are used by Ukraine and the Baltic States and are NOT being destroyed left and right by the Russians. The issue is that the Russians lack the SKILL to use their equipment to the limit of its capabilities. For example, I saw a video a couple of weeks ago about Ukrainian mechanized troops fighting with Russians in the woods north of Kiyv. THEIR BTR was SO CAMOFLAGUED that it was almost invisible as they walked past it. They had taken tree branches, moss, and old camo netting stuffed with grass and strapped all of that to the vehicle. It looked like a moving hedge. I saw another Ukrainian BTR with bricks on its front deck and roofing tiles on its sides hiding INSIDE a burned-out building. The Ukrainians are sneaky as hell!
Also has to be considered how much graft was involved in the production and upgrade of so much Russian equipment, such as the BTR, or anything built after '91. From an engineering standpoint, a lot of Russian equipment should be more than adequate, but again and again it seems like a lot of corners were being cut during the production phase because company owners could more easily line their pockets if they left out some minor details, and as time went on, and nobody got caught on to how shoddily a lot of this equipment was being produced, even more corners got cut, and this has left the Russian Armed Forces with a lot of inferior quality products.
The video features the BTRs from the 200th motorised brigade from Pechenga (see the "polar bear" tactical sign on the front). Most of them are probably already destroyed. The remains of 200th motorised brigade are holding for dear lives at Kozacha Lopan' right next at the border between russian and Kharkiv oblast of Ukraine.
2 months ago u said that 200th brigade was fully destroyed. keep dreaming lmaoo
@@aabb8011 get lost, rusbot. Drink less vodka, you mistook me for someone else.
I thought kozacha lopan was recaptured
If sending young Russian men to the slaughter in inadequate, outdated and broken down vehicles is Putin's idea of 6D chess, then I struggle to follow the logic.
I've been hearing about "muh slaughter" for 3 months now yet Russia keep rolling on with those 190.000 and gaining more and more ground in the east. Weird huh.
Depends on how you view it. The claim that the Russians are taking massive casualties while the Ukrainians are taking very few is based entirely on Ukrainian claims, and probably false. Russia is still pushing the Ukrainians back and capturing the land they're interested in. Perhaps Putin gambled that doing it now would save taking even higher casualties compared to waiting til after Ukraine joined NATO?
@@cyrilarabatzis461 Well, put enough crap in the fight. It is just on their border by the way. But would you volunteer for Russian tank duty anytime soon?
@@Matt_Alaric Well, there is so much subterfuge, no one can know the truth of it. But as I stated to the other guy, would you volunteer for Russian tank duty anytime soon?
@@obesetuna3164 I wouldn't volunteer for any kind of tank duty to be honest, but seeing how the west literally swamped Ukraine with anti tank weapons I'm surprised the Russians are still rolling.
Don’t mind me just getting ready for “into the radius”
I don't think BTR design is an issue, use any vehicle wrong and it will end-up the same. It is not like Ukrainians are better off by driving civilian cars. But sure - poorly maintained, sent into contested territory without cover, especially in territory where enemy is known to use ATGMs or even simple ATMs and it will result in disaster every single time. Yet at the same time give it to well trained and disciplined army, with appropriate cover and used in appropriate environment it could be great vehicle.
100%.
Nah. They don't stand a chance against western vehicles.
The Ukraine war should have been most interesting, because it could have been Soviet on Soviet, however, the ATGM have to be factored in. ATGM and MANPADS are the nemesis of a highly mechanised attacking force.
@@daszieher ok, but you agree that Javelin would kill any western APC/IFV as well? So isn't that pointless to compare? As well not all countries going to have 10k ATGMs, Ukraine was kind of unique in that NATO sent more ATGMs to them then they can shoot in first weeks.
@@lp9280 yes, of course, I agree. I'm sorry I said it in a less than easy way to understand. ATGM are the nemesis of all, western and eastern IFV/APC.
@@daszieher now tell me what gives Abrams a better chance to survive drones, ATGMs, and similar stuff, only thing is that it costs 7millon dollars and it's an even bigger logistical nightmare.
This is cool, I'd love to see a 8 wheeler comparison between Nato countries in the future! (Or a dedicated LAV-6 video, as an entirely unbiased Canadian ;))
Russian bots be getting overtime in this comment section
The main problem is the massive and endemic corruption from Russian Oligarchs who are always skimming millions from the military contracts
The biggest problem is that they sent it to Ukraine.
Stick to lipstick, honey.
I love how Binkov pronounces “subsequently”
"In bad visibility, like... nighttime"... so that thing that takes up half of every day...
😂🤣😂🤣
At least they could've placed the engine on the FRONT, not only this could've allowed a rear ramp, but also added a better protection for the crew, it seems that praticity isn't a word present in Russia's vocabulary😢
It isn't in the English dictionary either... it is called "practicality" 😂
@@juliusfucik4011 right, sorry for the error
Wtf is "praticity"? 🤤
Or "pragmatism" 😈
You see - when soldiers sit in front of engine, they protect the engine from getting damaged, acting as a spaced armor. Thus after the btr getting hit, the engine can still be saved.
BTR82 goes back to the 80s and was developed by the soviets, like all the Russian new kit.
The main problem is that they keep exploding.
BTR not
I don't see that as a problem
All Russian Military Vehicles are Exploding lol 😆
APCs are not meant to be in combat.
interesting
! good video
a lot of new knowledge for me
God, the amount of fucking tankie salt in this comment section.
Damn bro, i cant seem to find any? Just few folks commenting their knowledge
they all seem to focus on the BTR's original purpose and comparing it to other (more) capable APC platforms.
the BTR's lack of any good protection and the current use by it's commanders have provided it with the perfect conditions to spoil the troops and crew to frontline combat, which resulted in the thing having a lacking performance.
@6:02 difficult Topic, there is honestly no good Argument against Firepower.
The hole APC/Battletaxi-Doctrine is just a Theory. In Praxis and recent History APC's stay with the dismounted Infantry and support them with their Weapons when they are engaged in combat.
So, in that Case having more Firepower is an Advantage.
The only counter Argument against heavier armed APC's/wheeled IFV's that is valid, is maybe logistical.
With remote controlled Turrets, 30mm Autocannons dont even take that much space in the Vehicle anymore, which was a valid concern before.
Because it reduced the ammount of Dismounts significantly.
in case of the BTR-82A, the BTR's and BMP's are in general terriable Vehicle's for the Infantry.
Dismounting from a BMP3 or BTR is a challenge by its own, comfort is lackluster too.
Some video on the Boxer please!!!
You cant put a big gun on a war taxi and turn it into IFV
@Binkov's Battlegrounds Hey, do you think you could do an analysis of the F-16 Viper upgraded format, and why it's such a sought-after upgrade by countries like Turkey?
What genius came up with this 'let's put personnel doors on the sides' idea?
Same guy who put a driver's hatch on the front glacis of the T-34.
@@moistmike4150 he had a very successful career in the Soviet arms industry or had enough connections.
@@RG-fc7ht Yep, and he likely didn't have a son serving in the Soviet Tank Armies either.
The guy who realized that the Soviets couldn't build an engine powerful enough to move this vehicle without it taking up the full width of the vehicle. If you can't fit the engine beside the driver (the way Stryker/LAVs do), you either have to put it between the crew and passenger compartment (which isn't workable, since the vehicle commander is also the squad commander, so he needs to be able to talk to both crew and dismounts), or you have to shove it in the back, and have the troops dismount from the sides and/or top.
Russian toy manufacture leads the world. They produce more jack in the boxes than anyone else.
Top-quality humor, my man!
The biggest problem with the BTR-82A are their Russian commanders who aren't that much better than your average armchair general.
Having all the guns and rockets doesn't help if your wheels pop off because they're cheap and unkept.
Love everything you do
One thing to consider with Russian Vehicles being so low profile, they have a low center of gravity and are harder to roll over. Probably important when one's army is full of conscripts.
hahaha =)
Are you telling me that 1970s CCCP didn’t have reliable mass produced hydraulic [ramp] systems so they went with a reliable door system with redundant second door system that dismounted troops to either the left or right where they could get immediately into an extended line to advance in line like mechanized infantry…. 🤔
5:37 Technically the Stryker is made in Canada. Made in Canada by a US owned Company.
After the Cold War, many countries tried to upgrade their fleets of BMP-1's and BTR-60/80's with cannons. Some of Western European origin.
Even T-55s are still being upgraded and used today, even though they were designed while Stalin was still alive
Economic constraints ain't no joke
BTR: Battle Tested, Rejected
Is it possible to do a hypothetical analysis of a nato war with Russia including Finland and Sweden? Thanks Binkov
It's very hard now.
We don't know Russia's losses , oryx - small portion of all casualties it with photo proofs.
@@godchanelq5712 probably about 500 tanks inoperable or destroyed. About 9k soldiers killed, 27k wounded and out of the war, 1,000-2,000 other armoured vehicles either destroyed or severely damaged.
@@Reinhard_Erlik Russia lost the elite and most effective part of their army , so how they could do something in Hipotatical war with NATO , I don't know.
Just watch one of his older videos on any NATO Russia conflict. He states Sweden and Finland would join and help NATO if it did occur
@@Reinhard_Erlik There's already photographic evidence of nearly 700 tanks destroyed, abandoned or captured (as of May 23), and 3800+ total armored vehicles destroyed, abandoned or captured. It's reasonable to expect the actual total to be significantly higher. 9000 Russian KIA would also have to be a low estimate.
One thing the war in Ukraine has helped the Russians with is armor standardization. You can't have too many variants if they're all destroyed.
Kept any politics at the door - much regards Binkov.
As it should be. After the beginning of the war every second RUclipsr suddenly became a geopolitical, economic and military "genius", not to mention self proclaimed prophets.
@@ARN012 Perfectly said and another way to describe is - professional.
The problem with it is that it sucks! Even the the Russian doesn’t deny it, but they got a ton of them made a long time ago and they have to make the best of it for now
Thanks... informative.
Could you do peak strength Soviet army vs 2022 Russian army?
Err... isn't that kind of an easy prediction? A few Armata's and handful of 5th Gen Fighter jets/S-400s are not going to be able to overcome the Red Tide in practically any scenario. But maybe I'm missing something.
🔴 _Your consistency and Quality of Content Never Dissapoints Binkov..._
_You create one of the best content on RUclips...Its damn amazing the energy you put in...The amount of Information you gather in creating it...The Execution is Awesome._ ❤️❤️
Keep up the Amazing Work 🟢
The BTR-82 is pretty much just a warmed over BTR-60 or BTR-70 with a new, low-profile turret mounting an autocannon instead of the old 14.5mm DShK heavy machine gun. While the 2A42 30mm autocannon is probably OK, the hull suffers from multiple design and engineering flaws that were inherited from the BTR-60.
Wrong.
>old 14.5mm DShK heavy machine gun.
That is literally what the video states. BTR-70 is an incremental improvement of the BTR-60, and similarly the BTR-80 is an incremental improvement of the BTR-70.
Russian land doctrine always seems to emphasize firepower. BTR-82 has a very solid gun. It just needs good thermals and sights and it can support infantry very well. Slat armor that can protect against cheap RPGs would also greatly increase its effectiveness. The whole Armata family seems like a giant corruption scheme, its a massive departure from Soviet incremental vehicle designs with part interchangability.
Incredible cope in this comment section. Russian losses in Ukraine are horrifying, and the weaknesses of these vehicles are part of the problem. No about of whataboutisms about Afghanistan and Iraq will make up for the reality of these BTR's being BTFO'ed on a ridiculous level in Ukraine.
Well said Jeff 👍🏽
its russian bots trying to sway public opinion, ignore em
Shhhh Jeff don’t bring up facts 😂
BTR is not designed to withstand rpg or stugna, its an APC with protection against small arms fire, thats all
If you believe the Ukrainian claims about Russian losses without question then you don't understand what propaganda is...
@10:50 Russia is deploying mixed formations (called battalion tactical groups) in Ukraine that typically feature 20 BMPs and 10 BTRs, or a 2:1 ratio. You'll note that this is the same ratio as the Oryx loss statistics you mention in the video, which means BMPs and BTRs are being used in direct combat and lost at the exact same rate, adjusted for deployment.
Spall liner?
Does that mean we can't kill it by rolling out our old 120mm HESH?
no , it only offers limited protection from infantry shaped anti tank weapons. 120mm HESH would destroy it easily.
Very good and well-researched video, as always.
Given Russia's current and projected future economic woes due to ongoing sanctions and their consequent damage to Russia's economy, I seriously doubt that any Armata-family production will occur in the foreseeable future. No Bumerang for Russia. Russia's BTRs will need to soldier-on for quite a while longer.
the remarks are certainly on the merits, but we know that the main task of the armored personnel carrier is to take soldiers to the front line, and the armored personnel carrier copes with this
@Gorgeous George I want to note that, nevertheless, our enemy has an extremely poor ability to form with modern anti-tank weapons, 90% of aviation and about half of the artillery have been destroyed, and it’s rather stupid to fight against them with modern weapons, but it’s even more stupid not to modernize armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, because there are and money and opportunities
@@LinusWelt Positional battles are presented in the Kharkiv direction, we are gradually returning to the abandoned territories closer to the city. So far, it’s dull on the Odessa, artillery duels are now knocking out the veteran units of the enemy in Severodonetsk, the fate of this war is being decided in the Donbass, because there is the main enemy grouping
@@ВерныйРеволюции I don't think the stats you've shown are true. But let's skip that. Most infantry can kill the btr 82. You can do it with a light mortar probably, a high caliber rifle, an AT4, maybe even a molotov if you hit on the vents in the back I guess.
@@tankman1902 probably yes, but an armored personnel carrier is not a tank, even Ukrainian analgas do not have dynamic protection, and they can burn in the same way, the task of an armored personnel carrier is to bring ammunition and soldiers to the battle line
@@ВерныйРеволюции shouldn't have given it a 30mm then, gives mixed signals to the soldiers.
I think that the biggest problem with the Russian BTR-82A fighting vehicle is that it's being used by Russia.
Logic has it it doesn't matter who operates what, if it can blow you to pieces and liquefy your organs and blow stuff up, I don't think operator's give a shit
Feel like no vehicle is safe anymore to be honest.
I wonder how many vehicles are being destroyed by direct line of sight. Like small arms!
Its armour is inferior to bradley and stryker and worse than the best newer rivals ....so yeah
Yes very poor tactics and training
if you were a little careful and heard that the btr has 10-12 tons... a modern armored personnel carrier has 30 tons... protection weight... it's not hard...
Eh, did you edit out the ad?
G'day from the Land Down Under....
Sounds like one's a boomerang, and the other's more like a bummer-rang.
Orangutan bummers?