Russians are Finally replacing This Half a Century Old Vehicle!?
2024 ж. 2 Ақп.
235 581 Рет қаралды
Russians are currently testing a new replacement for the BTR which has been in service for over half a century relatively unchanged. The new vehicle is said to be developed based on the lessons in the war and features many improvements...
Patreon with discord: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
We are going 6.3 with this one 🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
New russian premium
Doesn't the 82A have a stabilizer over the 80A, probably 8.0-8.3
@@12LoLproductionsprobably 8.7 I'd think with the ATGM launcher.
they could add 2 variants with the 20mm and the 30mm, the 20 with thermals and stabilizer would be an interesting thing to balance
@@macdaddy67 Russia does not have or use 20mm they use 23 mm either the the older shorter 23x115 or the newer longer 23x152B
Russia is obsessed with amphibious abilities for their armour because Russia is FULL of rivers, streams, marshlands and estuaries not to mention the rasputitsa (the extreme mud following their winter). This was something they learned in WW2. When your country has so many water obstacles it becomes necessary to have a large amphibious contingent. Russia's military needs are vastly different to the Wests. Most of the Wests armour and vehicles would get stuck and sink in Russia due to their excessive weight. Another reason why their MBT's are also lighter and smaller then their western counterparts, something most so called "experts" in the field seem to forget. Their needs are different due to their terrain. The German's learned it the hard way.
True, and you can build bridges that collapse under a Western tank's weight but are completely fine with Russian MBT's.
Amphibious capabilities are unnecessary demands. It does not improve vehicle's mobility or mud passing. And it also has to carry sailing equipment. I personally think BTR is the worst russian armoured vehicle and very outdated for modern combat.
@@zenith_linear but it can kill or get killed like any other apc
@@kapikopi human lives matters. BTR unable to survive mines. Actually author of the video forgot to point out that new BTR has spaced wheels. Also side doors very hard to get through by modern equipped soldiers. Compared to western armoured vehicles BTR and BMP's personnel usually seen sitting on top of armoured carrier. Just like soviet tank crew regularly keeping hatches open they know the potential danger.
@@zenith_linear You either didn't understand or cared about ANYTHING the other guy said. Amphibious capabilites are an ABSOLUTE necessity in such an environment. You seem to think mud = the mud puddle you played in as a kid, and rivers = 1/2 rivers in the ENTIRE country just like in yours.
"Mom, can we get Bumerang?" "No, we have Bumerang at home." Bumerang at home:
😭😭😭
THEY'RE getting bumerang... atleast 100 bumerang are deployed in ukranie
@@ignacio3890 sure lol 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@choppergunner8650 SURE ... HAVE PHOTOS OF TRAINS WITH THE BUMERANG LOADED
@@ignacio3890 loaded on trains to go AWAY from the battle zone as possible 😂 Russia is failed
Technology may improves on each years, but BTR-70 - 80s will never dies
Technology Is Temporary But BTR Is Eternal😏
At the rate these things are getting smoked in Ukraine, "never" is approaching awfully quickly.
If technology gets better every year, why is the brand new M10 Booker significantly less protected than the 60 years old T-64A that weighs exactly the same?
@@JAnx01it’s a light tank
@@JAnx01 You can't be serious ....
Its basically an in-between of the BTR series and the Boomerang APC. It has the same-ish hull of the Boomerang and with the turret of the Btr82, which russia has a ton of making production much simpler and cheaper
70th like :p
@@Stormyy6310 hey thanks
Bumerang*, but yes.
That's basically what it is.
It is a cheaper alternative to the Bumerang. I would agree with RedEffect that it makes more sense, since Russia needs a lot of them and they always have problems with procuring anything in large numbers due to lack of money, but also because this vehicle doesn't have the same role as an IFV and at least in theory I think it isn't supposed to be in combat as much as IFVs and in as much danger as IFVs. With limited budget, if you had to choose, I can certainly see more sense in saving money on a new APC in order to be able to afford better IFVs or tanks, which are more frontline units. That being said, APCs today have kind of transformed into wheeled IFVs, sort of, so I guess it all depends on the doctrine and how you intend to use the vehicle.
The BTR is aesthetic can't blame them for holding on to it for so long, also the crew is going to be so thankful for the thermal optic and the ATGMs.
Aesthetic over utility I quess . BTR-ies designs were always sub-optimal.
It’s never been aesthetic, It’s always looked silly to me with the awkward side exits
@@williamzk9083 I've honestly always thought it was a great looking machine, especially the retro aesthetic
@@bahti472this is as utilitarian as it would get. Hell, all BTR's from BTR-60 onwards are overly utilitarian considering that at the end of the day they are not that much of specialised frontline APC's as they are mass produced transport trucks. Mass produced transport trucks with auto-cannon turret, amphibious capabilities, and extreme traversal & mobility on top of friggin second “spare engine” that was somehow shoved inside, who are supposed to be the right (and only) tool for every single job to ever exist. With the US you won't see Bradley's dragging artillery pieces everywhere or being the main means of infantry transportation when other more efficient vehicles are available, with Russia this isn't the case, BTRs are like 40% of all of their means of transportation and they use those things like tractors.
The older BTR-82a already had thermals since 2012, so that's not really an improvement, moreover this new vehicle completely lacks any ATGMs (which the Boomerang would have had if they produced it in large numbers) but not this compromised version which has no missiles (yet) So this vehicle is completely useless against any Armored tank, which means it can not support the troops on the battlefield effectively....
0:37 ah that's a good ol trick that Tupolev used with his Tu-22M. He had Tu-22 "vanilla" in production and in service with the Soviet airforce but it was a rather troubled design quickly getting obsolete. So the airforce declared competition for replacement. Sukhoi came up with his T-4 project while Tupolev submitted an entirely new aircraft also but he named it Tu-22M. So when these two options were considered by the government they went for Ty-22M. Modernizing an old airframe must be cheper then adopting a new one, right?. Even though Tu-22M had nothing in common with the original Tu-22 but who goes so deep in technical minutiae.
I think another similar case is with the F-18 Legacy Hornet vs Super Hornets
@@spcthao2104I wonder how much different hornet and super hornet, what I know super hornets simply slightly larger
@@jalpat2272 it shares only 30% parts commonality, but even this is a bit of a con the parts it shares with the legacy hornet are all bolt-on airskin and other non-structural components. The actual engine and fuselage structures are entirely new and unique, and the wings too have a new structure with new components
@@goddepersonno3782 so closer to completely new models than f-15 and f-15e, why they didn't give it new model designation?, so navy didn't have to explain the budget I presume.
The T-4 Sotka was designed as a specific type of aircraft that would launch carrier killer missiles, wasnt really ,,it can do lots of things" type of design, it wasnt bad but other designs were simply better.
Another thing worth pointing out is they mounted the seats on the walls/ceiling instead of the floor, which is meant to improve the survivability of the crew from the Shockwave caused by a landmine. Not sure if the older BTRs do this but still thought it was worth mentioning
Good catch I would think that with the amount of land mines being used I would assume that they designed it so crew could survive one hit.
btrs are notoriously vulnerable to mines, with some crews even choosing to ride on top of the vehicle instead of inside in order to survive the mine blast
@@gus808uh, *some* crews? I only ever see BTR\BMP crews riding on top of their vees, and for good reason.
That doesn't help much when the bottom of the vechicle is not exactly mine resistant to begin with. sure it's something but not enough :P
@@krzosu true, but then again, that is a feature designed specifically for mine resistance, so I'd be surprised if that's it's only countermeasure to them
gaijin be like "a fine addition to the russian tech tree"
Attack the D point
I won’t lie I really like the BTR’s especially the 80’s just find them very cool.
Same
This seems like a cheaper alternative to the Bumerang. The BTR-22 and Bumerang may be compared to T-72B3 and T90M in terms of quality and pricing, with the BTR-22 being cheaper and easier to produce while the Bumerang may be more likely to be used by elite regiments in smaller numbers.
I pretty sure russian would use the premium vehicle and attack vehicles/Tanks for a world war and downgrade version vehicle for light wars like ukraine 😂 trust me I would know they are just like that, cause I wouldn't 5:22 use my best equipment for a little war but a heavy conflict
@@thetest8777Well, that certainly isn’t the case with the war in Ukraine as T-90M have been seen and used.
This seems like a sensible project, using old manufacturing machinery and making mass production much easier.
Mass manufacturing while under sanctions is Gona be hard. They can’t even get ball bearings for their armor, and seems like they can’t even get drone cages for this junk
@@TKUA11 Боже, вот во что превращает людей слепая и глупая пропаганда. В РФ до сих пор под санкциями производят такие изделия как крылатые ракеты, Т-90М/Т-72Б3М, Су-30/35/57, Ка-52/52М и еще огромное число продукции для военных нужд в том числе матрицы для тепловизоров гиперзвуковые ракеты и т.д. Но, как ты говоришь, подшипники с решетками достать не могут? Логическая несостыковка получается, разве нет?
@@TKUA11 Oh, you are one of those "russians ran out of ammo and manpower two years ago" guys.
@@TKUA11 Dude Just stop even Main stream Media has given up on saying Russian Defence industry will be crippled by sanctions they still make Jets New Tanks like T90 Breaktrough New weapons like Lancet Drone and even OSINT Groups that support Ukraine have said that Lancet Using Ai to self target enemy positions is something the west should find solution for Asap . FPV drones they produce More now and older Model tanks T72 T80 lmao Rostec even started new Production Line for the T80 from scratch if they relied on refurbishing Old Tanks we will not see new T80 been produced this year . Lets not talk how Russia beat the whole west in term Of Artillery Production And Russians did what Ukraine did Not they lowerd their expectations knew their limitations and Asked Iran and North korea to suply Drones and Ballistic Missiles and do not Get me started on Russian cruise Missiles wich the West have given up on the Propaganda Phrase Russia is Running Out of Missiles . Just Deal with it Russians Got their shit together .
Time for you to get in the T-55 Obr. 2024 @@Rssika
Naming convention is to present this BTR as the same SKU as BTR 80/82. This will help to avoid years of thorough of testing, bunch of approvals, lengthy process of adoption within the army. Essentially, this is a cheaper version of Bumerang. BTR 90 was times more expensive, but didn't offer that much of improvements, due to overall obsolescence of the design.
Avoiding thorough testing before spinning up production may get you the vehicle faster, but comes with decent amount of risk of having produced a lot of vehicles with flaws. First gen of almost any product line are notorious for this, even ones that had a solid testing process, since you can not test for every eventuality and problems will be found once distributed to groups many times the pool of testers (who tend to be better with tech than average user). It is not even unheard of to do a small preproduction run to have some groups test real world use before production ramp up, or doing a limited number of first gen, so can work feedback into high production runs. Granted may be somewhat mitigated by adopting a design similar to many other countries, so could have licensed already well tested design/components, plus may be an iteration on a design they already have tested and produced in limited quantities.
Maybe it is named after the BTR-82A because the design bureau started with the task of improving the BTR-82A.
many thx for the info great video as always have a good one
Using the same type designation for completely different designs is not new for Russia. The Tu-22 Blinder and Backfire had, it is claimed, only 3% commonality yet both are counted as Tu-22 variants.
M1 Garand, M1 Abrams, M1...
Doesn’t matter. They all ride on top anyways.
Mine protection when?
that might change with this, they only rode ontop because of the way they had to exit the vehicle, too much time spent climbing out two at a time where the last few risk being blown up with the vehicle, saw it enough in Ukraine where a vehicle literally doesn't even last longer than a few dozen seconds before being fired at by a ATGM, aswell as the fact that redeffect just mentioned of the BTR's having just too little armor to protect against shrapnel and 50cal, but with such a large hydraulic door at the back and the extra armor this might and probably will change.
That's really legit
When will they add bio-protections to warthunder?
It’s an armoured taxi I guess.
I think 12.7 mm protection is probably gonna become the standard minimum level of protection because honestly the performance of armor piercing 7.62 rounds is getting to the level of 12.7 mm
Up to 300m, maybe, but comparing the force both have, you will see the difference. You can shoot 12.7 at a few km and score, unlike the 7.62, which loses energy much faster, less powder, less job done 😉
Poor Bumerang and Kurganet-25 have to wait (even more). That's kinna sad but understandable. Great video
Их для другой войны берегут, сейчас палить смысла нет.Почему Россия сейчас атомные ледоколы способные ракеты на борту нести начала делать? Потому, что она, уже сейчас готовится к 40-м годам, когда начнётся битва за Арктику
I don't they will ever get adopted...
@@pshenichny1К хуйне она готовится. Руководство страны дальше одного года не смотрит. Курганца с Бумерангом до сих пор нет из-за ужаснейшей коррупции и неспособности производить своё и нежелания у кого-то импортировать чужое.
@@pshenichny1 Ни к чему они не готовятся. Самая обычная коррупция и отсутствие компонентов, вот и основные причина почему до сих пор нет Курганцев и Бумеранга.
They have said that seven prototype entered final stage of trials and will begin mass production. The bumerang is not an apc its straight up an IFV it may have more armour than the kurganets since its 5 tons heavier.
Great video brother, you are my go to on all things armor related.
Ngl, Bumerang was pretty dope, hope we atleast still get the Kurganets
russia is broke
Kurganets is still uncertain for now to. Its one of the Ratnik programs we hear the least about. Theres still plenty of BMP2s to go around for Russia
Why do you *hope* that?
I believe we'll still see them in the future
No money no money, in the future Nato will be generations ahead because they have the means to build huge amounts of modern platforms. The 2000+ f-35's are proof..and that while using a small portion of the gdp in defence.
ur channel is the best man fr like you dont ramble on about subscribing and sponsorships and merch its just straight to the facts i love it
Скорее всего на выбор названия повлияло техническое задание и желание сэкономить - легче протолкнуть на вооружение "модификацию", чем новую машину. Самый яркий пример такого - Ту22М. Но даже так очень сомневаюсь, что такое примут в серию...
So the k-17 boomerang has been abandoned.
Maybe this is just for export and not for Russian Army
@@Mal101Mbadass expensive vehicles are getting blown up left and right. This may be cheaper and therefore able to make more
this isn't that different
@@Mal101M for new machines it is necessary to create a new production cycle and testing rounds - for which there is no time at the moment, if factories can easily produce an existing and working design, it will be applied. War is economics after all
@@eenis1281ah yes, the Russian way, cheaper is better, also poor boomerang
I’m glad I found this guy! You do videos man, keep it up!
Thank you very much for this!
I got an idea as to why it was named BTR-82A Improved aather than a wholly new designation. And that has to do with the fact it will likely be easier to get it accepted into service as supposedly being a BTR-82A improvement, than a whole new vehicle. A new vehicle with a new designation likely requires a special contract tendering competition, while a simple "improvement" can be accepted as a sole source contract without competition. Maybe once in service it will get a new designation to set itself apart.
It can be called the BTR-82UA
Ah yes. The Alibaba Boomerang.
Amphibious light armored vehicles are great on paper, but if they aren't properly maintained and serviced, they will have major issues trying to swim, and the sacrifices made to protection will be entirely pointless
Exactly. Amphibious capabilities are useless if not maintained and if the crew doesn't know how to use it either.
or if they run out of gas too they are worthless.. you guys have very perspicacious opinions here@@tylerjohn4607
They have notoriously low freeboard which is impressively hazardous, and their hydrodynamics make them dog slow.
ФПВ Дрон спокойно уничтожает даже танк, вы не установите на БТР столько брони, что бы пережить удар ФПВ дрона. БТР должна быть максимально подвижна, это главная защита в современной войне.
Russia biggest mistake was sleeping on manufactoring the Bumerang APC to replace the BTRs, same with the Kurganets 25t IFV to replace the BMP2s.
Abandoning ready for production BTR-90 in favor of fancy Bumerang, fancy but nonexistent
Apparently there were corruption issues with that too, money was put towards those new BTRs but no actual progress has been made for their adoption.
I don't think they have abandoning these vehicles. But their in the same bag as T-14 Armata. And the Current war its helping Russian cleaning their storage of old shit so they can get space for new stuff. At best these vehicles are in hold and to being improved with the knowledge they have win from the war. The last news of the T-14 we got was exactly that. "Armata MBT will going modernization with the knowledge gained from the SMO"
@@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag no, is is not corruption, just a regular production hell
@@Rek1emMScar "cleaning their storage of old shit" lol, you realize these aren't RC cars right? They're operated by real people, so every time one is "cleaned" up on the battlefield, the chances are the crew is lost. This is about the dumbest way of "cleaning storage" imaginable. And it wouldn't matter if if the Russians did learn about necessary improvements, the problem with Russian military procurement has always been the same - corruption, lack of homegrown hi-tech components that can match the west and most of all, high cost.
Is this gonna be like T 14 ? Or do you think it’s actually gonna make more then 14 of them
Probably not, others like bumerang and T14 were completely new and to expesive for Russia this one looks actually feasible for mass adoption, many already existing parts btr 82 turret and so on.
It's far more easy to mass produce a new IFV than it is to mass produce a new generation MBT.
what is the purpose of T14 even if they have it? is it worth deploying? what it is it good for even? If old cheaper MBT can achieve the same thing, why use an expensive one?
@@Mirage-pz Might be trying to find a use for it within their doctrine, there were reports of a Platoon of T-14s being spotted near Ukraine in late 2022 for field testing however this claim hasn't been substantiated and is most likely false.
@@IceAxe1940Seems like it would be a good "big push" tank, where since they are advancing if T-14s get knocked out they can recover and repair them, and take advantage of the greater crew survivability.
RIP Bumerang
As a former armoured vehicle crewman, these changes are a significant improvement.
I love the way the BTR-82 looks, I wish they would keep its looks but with a rear exit and front engined and a little thicker armor.
That would be BTR-4, sadly we will not see much of it like ever.
BTRs just have such a cool look
This will see production in 3033
All 10 of them.
I like your optimism.
The bumerang is a vehicle with the same idea as the Spanish Dragon the German Boxer and similar 8x8. Vehicles designed to be APC or IFV just by changing the turret. APC variants use a remote station with a 12mm and the IFV variants use a 30mm with missiles and they aren't amphibious. Actually I see with better eyes this improved BTR than the Boomerang. The Boomerang in the APC variant uses a 12mm Kord MG while the BTR-M has a 30mm canon, that is an excellent fire power for an APC while having a standard APC armor and being amphibious
It isn't impossible to have amphibious 8x8 with armor levels expected from IFV:s and 30mm turreted gun.
@@herptek well that's true, but they aren't
@@ser43_OLDC Poland operates a fleet of wheeled IFV:s with amphibious capabilities, for example.
@@herptek 👍
I believe it is still good IVF. Put on some dynamic plates, improve sensors and here you go
BTR 82s cannot be penetrated by 12.7, but if 12.7 has armor-piercing bullets, it can easily penetrate BTR 82s. 14.5s can penetrate even with normal ammunition. When Russians send vehicles like BTR 82 alone, they generally fall into the hunting position. They have high firepower, but their armor is very bad. BMP 2 and later ones are made. BMPs can block 12.7 armor piercing bullets and 14.5 ammunition coming from the front.
So it's the Bumerang we have at home. Nothing wrong with that. If anything this shows the Russians likely becoming more pragmatic with their procurement opting for something that can actually be mass produced even if it's not as groundbreaking or ambitious as other vehicles.
Force structure will be more important
I wish them luck
Ngl the new BTR looks sick asf, i wonder if it's really a improvement, i wonder did they take notes from the Stkyer they captured
A very similar design was presented ~25 years ago as BTR-90 but it was way to expensive for a shattered poat-soviet economy.
There's nothing to learn from Stryker, this is an old and common design
Artillery fragments aren't really a good reason to improve protection, just look at Bradley square, those Bradley's were peppered with artillery fragment holes, even the MRAP and Marders were pictured full of holes several times. In the end APCs are only a cheaper and lighter alternative to IFVs
From what I see, it shares some components with BTR 80/82, mainly the wheels and shock absorbers.
The BTR82 is an excellent vehicle for its tasks, strengthening the armor would of course be nice, but otherwise, in my opinion, exiting from the rear is not such an advantage, exits on both sides make it possible to choose and exit from the side that is not under fire, covered by a rather long hull, and the engine at the rear remains quite durable and does not fail even when BTR exploded by mines and under fire, which allows it remain on the move and take survivors out of an ambush, of which there are many examples, for example, I saw BTR with the side torn apart by an explosion, one wheel pulled out, the second one turned out and it is not clear on what holds on, nevertheless, it managed to leave and take the guys out, the engine in front, when under fire, is the first to be hit, and then BTR becomes a stationary target , another question is weight distribution , it affects cross-country ability, reinforced armor at the front was previously balanced by engine and transmission at the rear, but now it’s weighted with it at the front - how will this affect both buoyancy and cross-country ability is a question . so in my opinion, strengthening the armor and generally modernizing it in every possible way is a good thing, but I wouldn’t change the layout structurally .
The BTR is totally outdated for modern combat, it doesn't even have anti-mine resistance so it gets completely annihilated if it drives on mines and the soldiers get seriously harmed too Very outdated
So they finally accepted that they can’t afford to build the Boomerang in large numbers? Curious to see if this thing will even be introduced on a large scale. Likely not.
One of my most fav tank designs ever. Love the optic. Like the German Luchs.
Nice catch
This is why I always watch your videos
I like how the half a century old F16 is considered cutting edge but everything the Russians have from the 80s and 90s is considered ancient 😂😂
Who says the F-16 is cutting edge? It allows is the use of cutting edge western weapons that cannot be used on Mig-29s, but the plane itself is what it is. And no, the modern F-16 is NOT the same as the first F-16 of 50 years ago. Ukraine may not be getting the most up to date version, but they are also not getting 50 year old airframes.
The F16 isn’t cutting edge, the F35 is. The F16 however is the gold standard for modern fighter hers, being capable and available in large numbers.
russia and the soviets had fallen behind on many things by the 80's and 80's. planes especially. a 40 year old american plane is like a 10 year old russian or chinese plane.
Según la lógica Occidental si 😂😂, la cual ha demostrado ser ridicula
Haha. You can actually see the old bottom door on the side of it, ut with a bolted on extra armour plate 😂
Probably an emergency exit
@@beibotanov it could be, but I think it's just legacy feature from the old chassis.
@@MatoVuc never took a look, maybe the down half of the armored capsule, "the bathtub" is really has few differences from the rear-engine BTR's in production
@@beibotanov it doesn't take much to readapt. Just cut out a bit of space for the engine up front and the basic rest of the bottom chassis ca remain almost exactly the same. which also means it is most likely not amphibious. Maybe not something the russians would want as a general purpose APC, but as a dedicated APC for assault units, it could work great.
One big problem with putting a 30mm on top is it probably would compromise stability for amphibious operations, which is probably at least partially why we have yet to see these smaller vehicles get the upgrade even though it has been an option for a while
I’d like to suggest a video idea where you talk about the weird Cuban armored vehicles, like that BTR 60 with a T55 turret or BTRs with BMP 1 turrets.
What's about 50 years old USA Stryker? It's just licensed copy of Swiss MOWAG Pirahna presented at 1973.
Bumerang APC is cried in the corner right now. they ignore it 😅
They're sending BTR-50s to the frontlines now. I'd be surprised if the Northern military district has a Motor rifle regiment armed with them by 2030
The United States massively sent M113s taken from the National Guard to Ukraine. An armored personnel carrier developed in the 1950s like the BTR-50.
@@weaselgunsru Horrible comparison given the roles they give them. One is an APC, BTR means APC in Russian, but they use them as IFVs. If you had compared the YPRs sent it'd at least make sense.
@@cornetinu4203 The BTR is definitely comparable to an M113. They're both APCs regardless of whatever excuses you make.
@@russman3787 Yes, if you mean the original KPV armed BTR, they slapped the 2A42 in there and use it as an ifv now. Are you dense?
@@cornetinu4203 Well that’s just dumb. I was referring to the actual BTR-50 not whatever Frankenstein they’re making now.
Probably a novice question, but for ex seen at 4:37 what is that the symbol of on the side of various military vehicles? You know, the long stripes with the star in the middle.
*various recent Russian vehicle, but yeah. I'm also wondering
The stripes are St. George stripes and the star is post 2015(16?) military logo. It's just parade livery instead of using old white rims and edges like you see on Soviet parades
@@namesurname624 Thank you.
Well, now let's find out how many Russia actually produces
In 2023 Russia produced and modernized more than a 1500 tanks, so I think that production of this vehicle won't be too slow
@@iansysoev9462 tell that to the Armata series
@@iansysoev9462 I think it's less about already existing manufacturing lines and more about the establishment of new ones for this new vehicle, if it uses a lot of already established BTR tech then they might not get bogged down as much but who knows
@@iansysoev9462 They produced only about 210 new tanks in 2023. Slapping updated FCS and ERA on old T62s and T54/55s is not exactly "production".
@@iansysoev9462 Modernization of an existing armored vehicle from the stock is a whole different thing than producing a completely new armored vehicle
Bumerang's biggest advantage over the BTRs was the offroad performance and 100kmph off road speed, which would honestly useful seeing that they're literally gasing their BTRs into avdiika under intense ukrainian fire
The biggest difference is the firepower and protection. The Bumerang has 4 missiles, while the BTR has literally 0 THIS is a big difference. Plus the fact that the Bumerang is also mine-resistant so it can survive mines to protect the soldiers, whereas the standard BTR gets completely ANNIHILATED and the soldiers get seriously harmed if it drives on any mines. THIS is the big difference. Not the 20 kmh more or less speed, which is completely irrelevant This is not a racing game 🤦♂️ Even 80 kmh is already fast enough for APCs, but protection is more important that that
@@xAlexTobiasxB What use would the ATGMS be ? literally every video of a destroyed BMP2/BMP2M ive seen the atgms are all still on the vehicled unused. The auto cannon is what they mostly use . BMPs already get Kornets so its not bringing a big factor into the field.
@@icetea8946 it depends on the situation of course. If the vehicle engages other armored vehicles or just for supporting the infantry incase enemy vehicles emrerge, it's always good to have ATGMs. But if it didn't encounter enemy vehicles yet then of course the missiles won't be used, obviously. So that explains why some destroyed vehicles still have unused ATGMs, because they didn't encounter enemy vehicles until they were destroyed. Simple as that AND I said it's also about the protection tool, not just the ATGM. Don't just nitpick on one part of my comment while ignoring the other half of my comment. The standard BTR is. It safe against mines and not even shrapnel from nearby artillery hits. That's very bad, like extremely awfully bad
RedEffect there was a vid released of a Abrams tank firing at stepove and i wanna know if the M1A1 (or the tank that the us sent) is any good
A m1 abrams just got destroyed at stepove too, also btw they were shooting from berdychi which means russia captured stepove
@@YourSocialistAutomatonfirst the leopard,challenger 2 and now abrams and the fall of bakhmut, avdiivka and marioupol starting to see a pattern here
Can you make a video on the new Type 19 APC? Apparently it's a replacement for the Type 08.
I spot a major miss with this design: The bottom of the vehicle is still flat and not V-shaped. This means it has worse mine protection, a thing you would hope they would see the use for with the current situation in Ukraine.
parade floats are not meant to deal with mines.
mayby this was a problem for the amphibious thing it does seem like they did consider mines on this vehicle though as they mounted the seats for the infantry on the wall with chains not bolted to the ground meaning a hit from the bottom wouldnt be as bad as on the models before
That and the bolted in cover for what looks to be the door opening retained from earlier models are signs that this vehicle is still a BTR derivative. The undercarriage may be the same, while the upper body and drivetrain have been modified. Not a bad idea, but the Russian MOD will have to decide whether staying with an old platform is worth it or waiting to upgrade to a brand new chassis makes more sense.
Seems like a great solution for an up-to-date APC that can be mass produced in wartime.
Will not be accepted anyways. About as same paper as regular one, and doesnt bring much to the table, with great (for regular modernisation at least) expenses. Boomerang is better as quality BTR, old ones are better as cheap BTR, this thing is neither.
(0:33) The vehicle name appears to be BTR-22. The second name BTR-82A Improved / Modernized seems more like a reference to vehicle it's replacing.
always liked the BTR 60,70, cold war series like i liked the cold war Luchs but nothing beats a Sixxer Series Stalwart/Truck, Saracen/APC and Saladin/Recce when its about "coolness"
Bros just make the Boomerang's already 😭
The Russian army is frugal look at the Ak12 program for an example.
Got a feeling if they could they would.
Another addition to the long storied line of 'modern' Russian armour, with amazing entries such as the Armata stealth tank (can't see it coming off the production lines) and Boomerang IFV (boomeranged itself right off the battlefield back to the drawing board??). I'll believe it when I see it...
Not to mention we are now on at least the 3rd post Cold War T-72/90 replacement, each ore outlandish than the last.
Dear Red Effect, would it be possible to kae a video about next/fourth generation of MBTs, talking about their pros or cons etc.? Thanks you for reply GENT
Turns out the amphibious function almost never gets used, to the point I wonder if they are just shooting themselves in the foot design and cost wise. The problem is the vehicle needs to undergo an extensive maintenance cycle and inspection as well as weight-stripping to ensure it is able to make it across the river. Some mechanics I've heard claim it is a 2-3 day job for a small crew *per vehicle*, meaning a full offensive over a river is virtually impossible to prepare. People need to remember that these are not boats, they are enormous heavy armored vehicles that are made watertight and given a couple trolling motors. These are also not beach landing vehicles which are kept in perfect ready condition and get regular maintenance checks on a landing ship, these are vehicles that experience constant intense land warfare usage and may be subjected to shrapnel and bullets multiple times in its life.
23mm infront protection. "25mm Bushmaster Bradley, mhhh delicious.."
I guess its a W….? A modification to the design which adds better protection and is more ergonomic for the troops but at the same time being cheaper than the K-17 is a W, i guess..
what happened to the wheeled thing they showed off with the T-14 and it's APC and IFV models? think it was called the boomarang or something?
There are very few nations outside of Russia that have the expertise in building vehicles to deploy troops in challenging environmental regions, or on islands such as the he DT-10P and DT-30P ATVs which are still widely used Two DT-30's were used by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
I mean.. BTR is still an 8x8 armored vehicle that protects soldiers from small arms fire and anti-personel land mines.. I think it's very easily modernized to be on pair with the latest 8x8 vehicles such as Patria etc.. just less comfortable.. for example adding more lightweight armor on crucial places.. adding 360 degress cameras.. adding RWS with thermal image sights.. adding thermal camera for driver.. more powerfull engine.. some protective cover against thermal imager.. For countries that have hundreds or thousands of them.. modernization seems like a much better and cheaper option. (for example Hungary) It's still a very good personel carrier..
Now they just need a mass produceable BMP replacement with much better armour but similar firepower.
BMP replacement ? So completely new vehicle that is not modernization of BMP ? ... dream on.
bmp3 is ok btw, why even to replace
Kurganets 25 exists@@adishoogendorp4194
@@RAYY_WILD BMP3 is garbage as a troop carrier. Just look how clunky it is to dismount.
Thats the Kurganets 25t. Its basically on par with NATO IFVs like the CV90s and Bradleys but its development progress is even more shrouded than the T-14
Thanks
engine in the front. extra armor in the front. turret to the front. nothing but an empty space in the back for dismounts. I hope this this has some crazy good active suspension because it's going to be really really front heavy and really not fun to drive over any kind of bump.
Watching hundreds of BTRs get blown up plus the overall performance of CV-90s and Bradley's must've have shown the Russians they need to get serious about IFVs.
Are bradleys performing well? I have never seen them actualy doing troop transport, which is 50% of their job.
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103They are getting blown up just like every other vehicle, just with a purportedly higher crew survival rate.
two different families, BTR is APC, Bradley is IFV, also BTR is much more used therefor more casualties unlike Bradley that entered newly the battle and still have large casualties compared to the existing number, CV90 is not even active on frontline other than being rarely used
@@tackytrooper does it matter tho? Ukraine has relied on older men and those normaly unfit for service either way. Similarly goes for russia. One has to understand under which conditions these pieces of military equipment were built. In this case that is the cold war, back when soviet autoloaders were the second safest option behind having all your ammo behind bloowout panels which only the Abrams had.
@@alikaraahmet5050 you can say something about bradley because of it has some good footage, but CV-90 is gone and get penetrated by old rpg-7
Lots of anti Russian posts but if you listen to Ukrainian soldiers the best military kit is usually mentioned as from a couple western countries and Russia. Nafo goofs and those like them are so wrapped in their echo chamber they eat their own propaganda. Russian kit is very good. Reason being is the company tests and then Russian mod tests of weapons is very gruelling. For example the Russian apfsds tests are actually tougher than our tests here in America. They make very good military kit.
No shit they appreciate Russia stuff...they are their first suppliers on the Battlefield!
That’s a very trivial piece of information.
This looks like something they came up with because they couldn't get the Bumerang into production, so they took some of the design elements from the Bumerang and slapped it onto a modified BTR platform
A classic bit of kit, just got better!
No one abandons or replaces amphibious vehicles with 30 mm gun trust me
Should've made it 35mm
@@andrewgates8158 why they already have 57 mm automatic gun vehicles ..
@@andrewgates8158 There are some 40mm caseless shit like the french one.
Knowing Warthunder this will come next patch at 8.0
Better 8.0 than 5.7
this is not much different than the 80a we have in the game at 7.3 so I don't see the problem with this being 8.0. it's the same turret
We are still missing the btr 82, calm down
Spall liner? BMP-2s 30mm? No doubt thermals, hell nooooo, never mind it will be speedy, 9.0 IMO@@user-fe7bo5mm1o
Wow for a moment I thought we are getting a VPK-7829 Bumerang...
Im corius now, every weapon or vehicle that not continue to production,did they scrap it?,or they just put in muesum or field in in someway? (Btw this question not apply to Russia only,but to other country failed project too)
Sorry for the useless answer but it's probably different for every country Since any scrapped project might be resumed at a later date
Russia doesn't need 50 different armoured vehicles for different roles, they need multi role armoured vehicles, these vehicles will only increase the strain on the bogged down Russian factories and logistics and because of these things Russia needs a standardized multirole fighting vehicle that works for a long time and can be modernized for a period of time.
No that causes bloat, I mean just look at the F35.
If you want an vehicles that is good at 50 roles, it does not exist. You got an vehicle that is bad at 50 different roles and master of none. Do you think Russia is the only country that want to save money?
Excellent
@knallis2969 not if one tows the other at high speed.
@@andrewgates8158 do that happend a lot?
I really doubt that being amphibious is *that* big an advantage tbh
Nope. it takes a long time to prepare these vehicles for amphibious operations, u cant just operate them regularly with amphibious equipment on all the time to. So far we havent seen Russians do anything impressive with their vehicles amphibious kit such as cross the Dniper river etc. There was a viral video about a year back where an entire Russian armor unit got wiped out by UA artillery because they got caught with their pants down being sitting ducks setting up a pontoon bridge. Despite the BTRs and BMPs having this amphibious capabilities they never attempted to cross until the bridge was set up.. which lead to them losing like 20 IFVs/APCs and 4 tanks under 1 artillery attack.
@@icetea8946 BTR and BMP are amphibius 24/7, no preparation needed. But only if they are actualy maintained.
@@icetea8946The funny thing is, crossing the river was successful, but General Lapin was chewed out because of it, and what saved his ass was his success in taking control of Severodonetsk and Lysichansk.
@@icetea8946Tbf even if they did try and cross the Dnipro they’d likely just be target practice for emplaced Ukrainians.
it is in a war where small drones for a few hundret dollars could be the death of many many engeneers that try to build a bridge over one of the many rivers in ukraine with vehicles like that you can cross even major rivers with a batallion in an hour or less to wait for engeneers that need all day to build a bridge and that will most likely fail due to artillery and drones is old thinking
What about the boomerang Apc?? Did they stop developing them?
wait.. where is boomerang? also how is this one so much cheaper than boomerang for example? is it so much smaller? does it keep suspension from previous models? looks way different
Boomerang to expensive i think,the btr 22 had a dozen of btr series part so it will be cheaper.
@@RasyidNazar well original btr 82a was refused as too expensive. will this one have the same engine still?
@@jebise1126 probably yes,the boomerang had a same engine as kurganets and btr22 had a same engine as previous btr
It’s likely a good design. But I don’t think they’d be able to produce it, if they can. I feel as if the corruption will just end up with things like the spall liner being replaced with house carpet… Unfortunately that’s where they are at, and idk if that will change no matter what country they try snatching up, or how bad they genuinely want to.
I don't think that you're getting the picture.. Russia from 2022 and Russia in 2024 are built different. Russians are now motivated even higher than before. Corruption was left behind. Times changed. And with time this fact will get even more apparent. We're in a process of creating a monster. Continuing this war was a mistake based on delusions and foolish belief that Russia can be defeated militarily. In proxy wars there is always one big caveat. The side behind the proxy war doesn't get any practical experience of modern warfare. They see mistakes, but they don't experience them. It may and certainly will lead to a false conclusions which will inevitably lead us to disaster. West has no idea nor any understanding how to fight against opponent dominating in EWAR, how to fight modern warfare without attrition, how to recruit people in army, how to protect industry from real missile threat. NATO doesn't have experience in real modern warfare. And Russia is learning more and more, creating new drones and integrating them with AI. Did you knew that FPV drones and drones like Lancet has machine vision to continue operating even after attempt to jam them. This was the real dilemma as to why or how Lancet are able to ignore jamming. When people are saying that Lancets are resistant to jamming - the actual Lancet is in fact not resistant to jamming. The AI is what resistant to jamming, and so Lancet will hit programmed target no matter what. These are most sophisticated and advanced technologies in modern warfare which are used in large scale conflict for the first time in history. Unfortunately the amount of experience in warfare that Russia is getting is the most important problem no one is able to understand to full extent. Until it's too late. We're in a process of creating a monster.
Re claims about amphibious or not, is not that Russian BTRs are not designed to be theoretically amphibious, but that in practice they are so poorly produced and maintained, that they leak like colanders and would sink within minutes. Allegedly the "amphibious assault" demos require months of advanced preparation so they can patch all the holes, replace all the seals, gaskets, and grommets.
Even if your amphibious vehicle sinks within minutes, it can still cross streams that are too deep for non-amphibious vehicles. Anything over a meter deep is a no-go for regular vehicles. Most amphibious vehicles are too slow to perform an effective amphibious assault anyway, even if they don't sink - notable exception being AAV and couple other designs that are built more like tracked boats.
Just remembered that these things were autocannon soakers in Battlefield 2 (2005). A tank round knocked it in 2 shots, but you had to empty a full autocannon to see it explode. Great game, but nowhere near close to reality.
Can you make a video comparing this new BTR with the bumerang ?
Improved is another word for, "not really improved" 🤫
>more armor >better layout >more modern fire systems >not improved ?
The reason they call it an improvement on the BTR-82 is that they are clearly using the same base chassis and running gear. But my god, is that fucking thing UGLY!
You should make a video on the M-95 Degman.
Looks like a weird mush of the LAV III and LAV 1 (or Cougar, or AVGP, whatever you want to call it)
So are they indirectly admitting that the NATO layout for APC design is better?
Does the vehicle BMP ring any bells?
Oh f*ck off with calling rear doors "NATO layout".
the BMP exists you crayon eating marine
I hear NATO invented pooing indoors and chlorinating water as well.
The same layout was used on BMP-1.
As if this will become relevant anytime soon. Even if accepted They won't build these in serious numbers anytime soon.
No mention of the BTR-90?
I love the bumeranf and the kurganets-25, they're one of my fav ifvs but for the current state of this war, those are to new and too food, for right now, is wayyyy better if they start mass producing this new btr, which will be way faster to produce and way cheaper
This vehicle is a copy of the Italian FRECCIA in practice, from the lines of the excavation, to the position of the crew members, to the position of the engine