Is New Belarus BTR Better than The Russian One?
2024 ж. 9 Мам.
115 367 Рет қаралды
Belarus recently did a report on their latest Armored Personnel Carrier, Volat V2, that is supposed to replace the BTRs currently in active service, and I thought this would be a good time to talk about it, since there are some things that are well designed and some that straight up don’t make any sense.
Patreon with discord: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
So anyone else think they're going to produce like 20 and never actually replace their BTR's?
More like 5
Question is will these also be built in Russia and then sent to the frontlines? Problably
I bet they will produce about 10 vehicles, for...you know, parade purpose
Watch them just leave it at one prototype.
I don't think they will produce any at all. Outside of those prototype ones.
So my guess would be, since they didn't show the add-on armour in the presentation video, but they did go river swimming in that video that if the add-on armor is mounted on it loses its amphibious capabilities.
Yea, as very little is already sticking up out of the water, it is really close to sinking as is, my guess would be 1-2 tons more and it sinks to the bottom.
thats why most militaries abandoned that ability... anphib is great but not dying from a rifle bullet is way better
@@Sir_Godznot in their climate, because the enemy wpuld find something much heavier than 7.62 when you would be trying to make a bridge. Anyway, it is sort of necessity.
My guess would be the add-on ar.or is classified. But, you probably know more.
@@user-nz8rv8ft5q They could just stay within their own borders and not worry about dying.
Lol they played too much War Thunder and thought "No armor is best armor" smh
Correction, some armor is best armor. Enough to survive artillery and small bombs, but not heavy enough to slow you down :)
Seems you only watched enough to confirm your biases.
@@springbloom5940 Nope. Firstly it wasn't even confirmed to be uparmored in the front armor. Secondly even if they uparmored it they still unironically made a first draft for an ARMORED vehicle that couldn't withstand .308 to the front.
@@Juel92 You have incredibly poor comprehension
@@springbloom5940 what was your point then?
The english buttons on internal electronics are an interesting sight. One would think that they at least try to relabel imported electronics.
Greater export capabilities
@@mehmeh1999 nobody wanna buy from belarus😂
@@pesopluma645 Why not? This seems like a decent vehicle. You can remove the armor in the rear and put it back on when it gets to the front. This could end up in Africa or South East Asia
@@pesopluma645 Except Russia and Iran and China and Vietnam and Myanmar and Sudan and Angola and...
@@pesopluma645 >nobody wanna buy from belarus that contradicts with reality
Remember the LAV-3 / 6 and Stryker is also only rated for 7.62 on the side. It's with the added armor that it can take the 14.5 AP at 200m with Level 4 STANAG 4569 protection when it has it's Mexas appliqué armor. Anyone trying to say the opposite should just look it up.. it's easy information.
It's the problem of whole wheel armored vehicles. Can be clearly seen in a-20/32 tanks A-20 was wheeled and could move without tracks, but his copy A-32 couldn't, but because of "only-track" moving it could deal with more weight and with extra armor it turned into a T-34
There's a huge difference between 7.62×52mm which the two you mentioned offer all round protection from, and 7.62×39mm which the Belorusian BTR is rated to offer all round protection from.
Don't confuse 7.62x39 with 7.62x51/54R. LAVs are rated at STANAG III, which means 7.62x51 AP. The Volat V2 is only STANAG II, which means 7.62x39 AP. There's a significant difference, with 7.62x51 having 50% more kinetic energy than 7.62x39mm.
@@armchairgeneralissimo With the Mexas appliqué it is rated Level 4 STANAG 4569 which is 14.5mm AP at 200m. You should look it up.
@@nicolaiby1846 My bad, but the with Mexas appliqué it is rated at Level 4 STANAG 4569, which is 14.5mm AP at 200m. You should look it up. It is never deployed without it's appliqué.
Usually Belarus invents something for the military to advertise it to Russia as we don't have actual arms industry anymore, but we have many restoration and upgrade facilities, quite good electronics sectors(yes, which works on imported units, come on, at least we have excuse of being small country) and one of the best software sectors on post-soviet space. Which leads to many anecdotical situations. For example the case of MLRS Flute/РСЗО Флейта, based on C-5 aircraft unguided rockets. This light MLRS was developed and tested in Belarus and a few months after it was done testing... russian Duma gave russian ministry of defense a huge sum of money to develop exactly it😅 So they literally bought it and then reported as "in development". Of course I doubt that even a third of the money reached Belarus. Then there's the fun part with international cooperation with Ukraine. Remember Stuhna missile? Well, we helped to develop it or rather the aiming and control block. After 2014 the cooperation was forced to split due to /cough/ "outside factor in the east" /cough/, however the system was already finished and both sides were able to replace the components the other side was no longer able to provide (at least the claim was that we were able to replace the ukranian part, however why does this vehicle use modernized Konkurs ATGM instead of newer Skif aka Stuhna then?)😅 And then there are complete jokes like "tactical thermal camouflage bucket" which would make even "cope cages" jokes sit in the corner, but thankfully apparently nobody outside Belarus saw that last one so we're not ridiculed too much😅
Ну, "мангалы/ cop cages" на данный момент единственная защита от ФПВ дронов, кроме РЭБ. Сейчас любой танк или бронетранспортер без них обречён. Так что не понятно, зачем прикалываться над этим.
Why the FCS was in English and German Leukruz was spotted
@@sloptek1807 вижу очередного человека, который не понимает разницу между "мангалом" и решетчатыми экранами. Подсказка: идешь, открываешь картинку "Т-80БВМ, парад 2016". И вот так выглядят решетчатые экраны. Или скачиваешь методичку НИИ Стали. А вот сделанные из L-образных уголков "мангалы" это как раз цирк. Почему? Почитай методичку по принципу работы решетчатого экрана и почему уголки это убожество.
Yeah both sides are using them @@sloptek1807
@@sloptek1807 Well the joke comes from the beginning of the war when it was used to protect against anti-tank missiles like the javelin, which such cages are useless. Against drones these cages are decent.
0:20 Isn't it closer to BTR "Bumerang", than to what you are showing (BTR-82A "new")? Volat and Bumerang even look much more same.
That is a BTR-22, it's more of a cheaper compromise vehicle.
Btr-82a “new” has a configuration with atgms on the side that looks similar to this
I thought so too.
@@KSmithwick1989 Russian Cybertruck.
this is basically a Stryker or Lav 6. we did national games with these and we found that euro variants (cv-90 norway) they kicked our butts! they could engage multiple contacts at a time. which left our stryker lavs short on fire power regardless of how effective the 25mm was. i think this is a good design belrus has settled on. if they want to further the effectiveness they should include a rws 12.7 (50cal)
You need to google 60 minutes Havana syndrome and realize you're talking about the goddamn enemy... "a good choice" fk these people!
Yeah, sure, you did. A CV90 is not equivalent to this or a stryker. That's an IFV, not an APC.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 what are you trying to say here? i never said equivalent. your like a bull in a china shop eh? wildly throwing your opinion out. take a breath re read. as for my credentials would you like a picture of me and my Lav in Afghanistan. or maybe i can send you a picture of my blown off leg to satisfy your wild accusations. let me assure you, your the only keyboard warrior here.
Hey redeffect Can you cover the new upcoming Serbian tank m-20UP1 “Serbian armata” ?
The tank is just a project and not a reality. It's simply too expensive to develop for the Serbian army. For this reason, the Serbian government decided to modernize the M-84. The cost of developing this tank would be too high. It would be cheaper to buy existing tanks...Or, as in this case, to modernize the existing tanks.
it does not exist, project was made by some enthusiast students not by actual defense companies or institutes from Serbia
@@videre8884 It would be possible if say Serbia would develop it together with say Romania and Turkey, but it would still cost a lot, and it would be much less hustle for said countries to buy proven tanks, Leopard or Abrams in case of Romania, and T-80s from Cyprus or used NATO tanks for Serbia
@@youmad7068dude what ? The tank exists look it up on google you can see it training.
hey im a serb and ive never heard of any updates on the tank
Outro is Svard Face Away I absolutely love your videos and I always look forward to that amazing outro song.
Im glad you returned to that outro track
Hi, could you please do a video on the EMBT?
Red effect damn good video as well. Can u make a video on the new chinese ifv would be Pretty interesting
Is it going to be in War Tinder?
I would argue an actuated ramp is not better than simple doors. It needs power to function and dirt on the ramp gets shoved inside when it closes. It makes entering the vehicle easier but those fold-down steps on the Bumerang probably also do the trick. And its probably takes longer to lower the ramps than to open a door.
Manual release is also available
And is more prone to failure
@@antoniohagopian213 Depends on if it is properly designed, if we avoided all powered things we would still carry stuff around in our arms.
I mean I don't know why he showed this BTR22 in the first place, the Russian analogue to this is BTR Boomerang and it also has an apparel ( actuated ramp). The doors are outdated imo.
@@korana6308 Because most recently Russians showed their BTR 22, while nobody has heard anything about Boomerang for a long time.
Excellent analysis. The lack of top/turret ERA armor is worrying as well.
We have only Kontact-1.
I think Belarus armor concept is similar to what we observe in Al-Khalid MBT and others (only add armor plates when going in combat !) Even in Western IFVs only add on armor gives the desired protection while the base armor only protects from rifle caliber ammo.
Exactly, most places use IFVs "domestically" and there the threat of anything larger than an AK is quasi nonexistent and if you use them for actual war you put on the armor (maybe even use the modularity to counter what it will most likely encounter) and go for it. After all we live in a world where some drone takes out a Leopard 2 with the same ease as a BTR so why bother armoring up in vain.
Like always you give correct information!
I found information that the protection of the vehicle was increased, which caused an increase in the mass of the combat vehicle by 2 and a half tons
Great work
i find it very interesting that the Belarussians included the famous plus sign which can be seen on NATO vehicles to their BTR, as far as i am aware Russia and Belarussia never have done anything like this and i am interested why did they do it.
Get you confused
Obviously from studies from the war, but I highly doubt Russia will do it because they need something that'll get off the line quickly and on the field.
The cross is for driving in a column in difficult terrain. For the following vehicle it is a lot easier to anticipate upcoming terrain features.
The cross sign on the back is a German 'Leitkreuz', a kind of convoy light. It lets you see the vehicle in front of you while driving without headlights in a convoy. It is still odd for a belarussian vehicle to have it though yes, atleast this german design of one.
When vehicles are driving in a convoy at night time the white cross painted on the back shows up far better in nightvision devices so you can see the vehicle in front of you to prevent collisions with out needing the lights on. At the same times if they include the little metal frame around it or paint it on that little spot near the bumper near the center and bottom its located so only the vehicle behind it can see it instead of observers far away.
If you want your vehicle to be well protected, forget about amphibious capabilities.
Maybe it's not meant to be amphibious.
@@subjectc7505 The propellers behind the vehicle are for traversing in a water body and are only found in amphibious vehicles. The information available on the internet also says that Volat V2 is designed to be fully amphibious.
@@subjectc7505 Why did they install propellers on the back then? To fly?
@@TheEsseboy it's for show and they showed it swimming for a bit
Amphibious capabilities appear to be almost useless in the modern battlefield.
Is this type of wheeled APC, like, the best possible? I swear, this general shape is everywhere
Oh no AFVs are turning into modern SUVs, all with the exact same shape.
Yes, that's pretty much a set in stone modern design at this point, I know at least 10 of the same design. I mean it kinda makes sense - V shape bottom is for better mine resistance, then you get the most of your defense at the front, preferably tank levels of defense from the front, so you get a beefy angled nose at the front with it's engine, by that design also a door at the back... 4 pairs of wheels is quite the standard, you can't really deviate from it... etc... And I mean you end up getting pretty much the same shaped IFV...
speaking for the United States specifically because we are always positioning ourselves for a war across an ocean, our tank and APC dimensions and weights are set by logistics more than the needs of the army. The Isrealis for example have the merkava tank and it is just a more powerful tank than the Abrams, however it exists in a dry climate with no bridges, no swamps and no need to cross 12,000 miles of open ocean to arrive at the field of combat. Which is why it weighs like 20 tons more or whatever and is larger and more powerful. In the US the height and width of all tanks and APCs is set by what can fit in a railroad tunnel, the length is set by both the railroad flat car and the C5 galaxy transport aircraft length inside the cargo area. the weight generally tends to be that two main tanks should be transportable by a C5 galaxy and one should be transportable by a C17. You tend to want to have like three times this number for an APC, so for example you can carry 2 abrams OR 7 strykers in a C5. There are other considerations like can it go across muddy terrain but things like wider tracks COULD overcome that even with a heavier tank. But you cannot increase the lifting load of a C5 galaxy by 20 tons easily. This however is PART of why modular armor is a thing, at least in the US military. Being able to transport 2 of the tanks in a c5 and then ship all the armor for them in a c130 for example allows you to break the tank into pieces that still mostly follow the rule. They of course still don't 100 percent follow the rule and so we still care ALOT about getting as much stuff to that island in the pacific or that middle east conflict in as few boats/planes as possible so while we do stuff like make some parts of a vehicle detachable for transport, for example taking off the top mounted gun to lower height for rail tunnel transport or removing modular side armor/parts to reduce the width etc. At the end of the day the box the american tank/apc fits in is one decided by logistic not combat use, the weight of that box is decided a lot by airforce lifting capacity not army needs. This is why for example the WW2 sherman tank was probably the best overall tank of the war, not because it could win a 1v1 but because it was awesome at having JUST ENOUGH armor speed and firepower for fighting all inside the box and not breaking down (there is no shipping you back to Missouri to get fixed, simple field fixes or toss it in the river)
Convergent evolution of APCs.
@@korana6308i feel like unless warfare changes drastically in the next decade, most countries will end up stuck with the same-ish concept about wheeled APCs that: - Have 8 wheels for cross country mobility - Wedge shaped armored nose for maximum protection with very small periscope - Remote controlled weapon station, either a 50 cal or 30-40 mm autocannon or a 105mm for specialized variant - Rear door hatch - V shaped hull for mine deflection
Just a few minutes ago I’ve seen one of these on a highway (I live in Belarus). Looks good)
I hope the pre-production is just a prototype and that the serial protection has better base protection, 12.7x99 mm side and 30 mm on the front
seems like an interesting vehicle and probably realistic enough for the Gdp to support, and yeah i'd wager you have to remove the armor for crossing abilities which i suppose is a neat trick to have up your sleeve but i really hope they don't issue these vehicles without the added armor, would be really silly.
I really think that amphibious capabillity should be left only for specialised vehicles like BMD-4 or as a separate variant for marines and airborn troops, or supplied only for such purpose, because most usage will never see traversing any water mass thus being uneffective taking room for better armor or overall greater weight in any area of its abillities. Even more so given, that many of BMPs get fitted with anti drone nets and cages by soldiers themselves, which can have a great impact on its amphibious capabillities. That said, it is not clear whereas manufacuring of two types would be that big deal, additional propulsion just makes worst maintanance a slightly as well as manufacturing cost when added armor is certainly more efficient in production.
Im not sure but i think those armor adds for versatility, i mean you can take it off and increase mobility for being usable by police/internal military
I think its safe to assume that the vehicle is amphibious without the add on armor and not with the add on armor, otherwise they would be stupid to not use it.
Nice one. Almost got me.
But Russia has the VPK-7829 Bumerang which is pretty much this and also has a ramp at the back. Combat approved even made an episode of it.
Interesting. What range does BR4 protection reference?
Armored vehicle: *exists* RedEffect: And I took that personally
Overall this seems like a big improvement. As long as the armor is decent with the add-on pieces, I see this being an excellent replacement.
Hey! Can you go to Brazil and talk about the Guarani APC? I suspect that APC suffers similary issues but i want a reliable source to confirm this.
After a quick web search the vehicle brochure says that the frontal armor is BR5 and the rest is BR4 and mine protection is 6kg under wheel, and 1kg under body.
Hello RedEffect? Could you take a look at the Stingray tank in use by Thailand?
in modern wars, you need your tanks and BTR resist artillery, Rocket launchers and of course, drones. If you need a lot of armor and reduce you km/hr its ok, because why you need 100kms/hr BTR if a auto-target rocket can hit you anyway?
Even MBT can get destroyed by Rocket launchers and drones... So how heavy do you want to make these kind of vehicle? 60 Tons on 8 wheels?
Let’s wait how long it will take gaijin to put it in wt…
Было бы неплохо,аналог vilkas в советской ветке с хорошим птур.Отлично бы вписалась в какой-нибудь марафон или как новый премиум
The seats seem kind of small, 4:24,look how this man takes up the entire space of his seat, and that is without wearing a uniform, or helmet, or carrying anything like a gun.
Maybe there is a 165-170cm height limit? Wouldn't be a first for Ruzzian style vehicles
And they appear to be mounted on the floor, instead of suspended from the ceiling or side as it is done today to prevent the shock of a mine exploding underneath to reach the soldiers spine.
@@chefchaudard3580 They could have crush structures built in, it would be harder to get right though I believe.
@@TheEsseboy Yeah that striked me too, I personally am 187cm's, granted I am taller then the average Belarussian but this seems uncomfy
@@TheEsseboy doubtful. The issue is that the energy from the explosion reaches the body instantly, before the structure starts to crush, just because its inertia delays it a bit. It would require some way to dampen this energy instantly. It is maybe possible, but i don’t think it can be achieved by arranging some metal struts, as the ones we see under the seats in the video.
At least the headlights and the tailored add on armor plates looks really sleek and sexy
I mean, these days anything that isn't a bullet tears through armor regardless of it's thickness so making those things small arms and shrapnell proof with the option to add modular armor to let it shrug off the heavier ones as well isn't such a bad idea when you trade it for speed, agility and amphibious capabilities. And it is leagues better than the BTRs so, Minsk gets an A for effort.
Whether or not its objectively better than their other BTRs, the issue is procurement and strategy. It's an APC, it isn't meant for frontal breakthroughs, which is unfortunately for them is the only strategy their generals reliably know. So if they can't really change systematically, then there is no point in building these.
Can you do a video on piranha 5 pls?
good vid
Our APCs had a ramp and a door in the rear for dismount
" - Rosomak! Czy mogę odpisać od Ciebie zadanie domowe? - Możesz, tylko pozmieniaj trochę żeby Patria się nie zorientowała."
nie, ten APC jest oparty na chińskim APC, a silnik jest tam licencjonowany chiński wyprodukowany na Białorusi, Chiny i Belarousi mają bardzo dużą kolaborację
@@user-dl3nc4jx7k bardzo ciekawe, dziękuję. Swoim żartem nawiązywałem do wizualnego podobieństwa samej platformy 😉
@@user-dl3nc4jx7k ciekawe, dziękuję za informacje. Mój żart nawiązywał do wizualnego podobieństwa samej platformy 😉
I don't understand polish, but I understood that xD
@@user-dl3nc4jx7k Вы памыляецеся: разробка не абапіраецца на кітайскія распрацоўкі - гэта цалкам беларуская машына за выняткам кітайскага рухавіка, вытворчасьць якога даўно злакалізавана ў Беларусі, бо выкарыстоўваецца на іншых адзінках вытворчасьці МЗКТ. Распрацоўкай і вытворчасьцю Волата займаецца МЗКТ - Менскі Завод Колавых Цягачоў. Баявы модуль "Адунок" таксама беларускі, як і электронныя сыстэмы наведзеньня, что ўвогуле зьяўляецца значнай часткай беларускага ваенна вытворчага комплексу. У кааперацы з Кітаем быў распрацаваны ракетны комплекс "Паланэз", але і там з кітайскага была выкарыстана ракета, вытворчасьць якой таксама на дадзены момант злакаалізавана ў РБ.
For every vehicle i seen they have 2th-3rd gen thermals, is 4th-5th gen sights a thing?
maybe they cost much more and do not give so much more benefit to 2th gen.
Driver’s hatch reminds me a lot of the Stryker
Looks kinda like the Boxer AFV
I think 12.7mm protection (STANAG level 5 I think) is about the sweet spot for APC ... otherwise it's just a 'PC'. :)
The good news, it fully fulfils its intended role, to funnel money, from the public to politicians and their buddies.
That vehicle looks like budget version of polish KTO Rosomak
I am not exactly sure why there is this much emphasis on making a modern APC amphibious. Amphibious capability makes sense for smaller tracked vehicles like the BMD since they are likely to operate in enemy territory without support and have to retreat quiet regularly A modern APC like this one or the Boxer is quiet large to accommodate a lot of troops + a lot of armor so it is already super heavy even without the add-on. That and amphibious vehicles usually requires a lot of check-up to make sure the seal is usable and not turn the APC into a mini-shipwreck. A bridgelayer might be more efficient
You may not have the ability to bridge layer.
Its not only about beeing amphibious, the more the vehcile weight the easyier it will get stuck in mud. You can see it in the Ukraine. Even tracked vehicles get stuck. Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have really soft and mudy ground.
New 8.3 let's goooo
Yay a new vehicle with a 30mm! Haven't seen that before!
there's new toy of India ie. DRDO WhAP or TATA Kestrel in market can you do review for same ?
I would like to see it compared with Guarani with only 6 wheels. So similar.... I think most infantary vehicles are with same armor and almost same mine protection.
С Днём единения народов России и Беларуси кста
Нафиг твое единение, вы нам не братья. Вы убийцы
I suspect that the second layer of armor needs to be removed from the sides in order for it to amphibious.
It looks quite similar to the brand new Chinese ZBL-191
4:59 The indicator signals don't work.
PLS talk about Polish STEALTH TANK and Leopard 2a7/8 thingy what ever the new leo
Please make a video on Tata Krestel WHAP
Most important question, which br will it sit at ?
A V Hull would be better protection against land Mines ?
Which would make the vehicle taller or sacrifice internal space. And Russians count on loosing vehicles to mines, so they do not really think about protecting their tanks or IFVs against those...they just send more until the minefield is cleared or they run out of vehicles and personel.
@@TheEsseboy Just a little anti Russian Bias in your comment.
He tried to be smart and wrote Russia with Z unironically, some people are beyond help@@winstonsmith7801
@@TheEsseboy waaaait. But that's the nato standard operation doctrine from the greatest counteroffensive.
@@winstonsmith7801 Well, the Ruzzian army has lost a great deal of vehicles and manpower in their latest invasion, so it is not just a statement pulled from thin air.
Amphibius capabilities are important for Belarus, that is why basic armor is thin. And you can not have modern APC with high protection and Amphibius capabilities. Look the Serbian Lazar, non of them is Amphibius. Only old Soviet APC made of StAlimininium are Amphibius and giving some degree of protection(bit still not enough for moder standards) and not having any of modern electronics, cameras, Hydraulic ramp etc, which adds weight
so you lose armor but increase crew survivability?
Interesting to see that they use the German style "Leitkreuz" for blackout convoy driving... Is that common in former Warsaw Pact vehicles?
Nope.
No
The two good things about it’s armor is that less armor makes the tank faster and better acceleration, and less spalling
Glad the Volat finally gets attention.
Lmao I love how they have a Mercedes banner on the driver window at the end.
Why it has Bundeswher shield in the back ?
It's an onion btr.. btr + extra armour just like most modern T-72. Except without ERA type armour
Several videos displaying these BTR's getting tagged by western IFV's proove that BTR's should at least be cappable of spotting 30mm cannon.
Best armoured vehicle nowadays would be mole like that only comes on surface during attack phase everything else just rocket folder that moves on surface no matter how good it is Build one such and you will be winning modern warfare because enemy newer know from where you will hit them
Whoa that base protection rating is terrible for a modern armored vehicle. I think nearly all others out there, except some of the armored car types, can withstand 50BMG or equivalent.
Страйкер без дополнительной брони защищён так же.Нужно дождаться полноценных предсерийных вариантов что бы понять как машина бронирована на самом деле
They are going to make like 20 and then never replace all btrs just like the t14 and the su57
Just like War Thunder, export variants are always more advanced because they’re newer than domestic
this looks like the piranha V PC 8x8 armored vehicle
Why are they using the convoy cross on the lower rear? I thought that was NATO exclusive.
Why does it look like Finnish Patria AMV or is it just me
big expensive and unarmoured, what a fab combo, im sure history will remember this one...not
Also made to look like a high quality, modern wheeled IFV like the Patria AMV. But obviously just being a cheap copy with abysmal protection.
@@user-dv7hq2rh4g That's what I saw when I first looked at it. "Is that new Patria, Rosomak or am I tweaking?"
Better than an UAZ
I usually see a point to Russia armoured doctrine, and see the T72 and BMP series to be great for them, As they are economically viable, This vehicle seems not but mimicking top end western kit, while also just by guess costing similar too, I mean if its as good and cheap and reliable as the previous, im all for it, but I doubt it.
Looks like a baby VPK-7829 Bumerang
They looked at US troops fighting tanks in soft skinned humvees and thought "clearly this is enough protection"
Does it have a cope cage option though
cope cages are unironically good
@@nekko5778 better one than none! especially against drones and open hatch positions.
@@nekko5778 Not against the thing they were initially intended to be against, which was modern top attack munitions. However they are definitely useful against FPV drones. But that is a new development which wasn't anticipated when these cope cages made their first appearance.
😂😂
Since Cope cages are now standard in Israeli Merkava tanks, they should be. Most of the Abrams destroyed in Ukraine are by Russian drones. Even the most modern Abrams M2A3 have no protection against any Top attack weaponry.
Giving the same panoramic sight to the gunner just reeks of corruption. It can't rotate without getting blocked by the rest of the turret, and doesn't give the gunner any extra magnification.
they will make like 3 or 4 of them and they will never be used in combat just like Copemata T-14
crazy how they still want to be amphibious, it has so much drawback just to be able to drie in water at a ridiculously low speed, why not instead invest in bridge layering vehicle so it can be heavier ?
Sacrificing armor protection so you can float is beyond stupid. Any army that does this en masse cares little about it's soldiers. ☮
They can always slap more armour bricks on, being able to swim is pretty useful with the amount of rivers and lack of bridges where they are fighting. But yeah more protection is always better, they should have the added armour on first and just take it off when you need to swim
@@Tosicc567 Well said. But my initial point was that you only need specialized engineer units to have amphibious vehicles. Like when they attack at certain points to secure the opposite bank of a river. Then build a bridge over it. Then the rest of the units can follow. Besides, what is the point of having lightly-armored APC's/IFV's crossing the rivers quickly when the MBT's cannot? The former would be sitting ducks on the other side until a bridge/boats can get the MBT's across en force. I realize the Soviets/Russians love this way of doing things. But the Soviets/Russians seem to not give a crap about their soldiers. Especially in comparison to modern, western armies. ☮
@@McRocket I guess it's better to have the ability built in and add armour on top of it, then remove it if you need to swim. It's a lot harder to add in swimming afterwards, basically all the armour for ifvs now is modular bricks anyway. A big pro is always having the ability and threat to create a beachhead anywhere along the river with drone support,
@@McRocket The soviets would rely on their artillery to compensate for less tank firepower and the tanks can fire over the river anyways so for clearing enemy infantry this makes sense but against tanks chances are the apc's and the ifv's will get destroyed if the soviet artillery pieces aren't there to provide support.
@@funnymustacheman When this doctrine was invented, the Soviets had no guided artillery. And the only way to take out a tank with artillery is with a direct hit. So, any APC's/IFV's that made it across the river would still be sitting ducks to enemy tanks. The doctrine is/was stupid and wasteful of men. Which is probably why NATO is/was not stupid/careless enough with it's troops to (usually) employ such nonsense. ☮
cost to unit ratio the russians will say along with complexity and reliability
With all due respect I would have personally have a different opinion all based on what I was seeing in the war itself. The ram hatch desing just like the western ones is not the greatest desing overall. They do have a tendency to jam in the closed position upon damage and trap troops inside. Bradley have a small door to prevent that but I don't see that here, it is also making it difficult to close if got damaged and ads another burning material to the crew compartment which could soak the uniforms and burn. They manual hatch is better overall regarding safety and economy.
looks like a discount Patria or a Patria AMV we have at home... up to and including the glass panels for the drivers hatch in the semi-opened position
Some armour they could remove if they need to cross a river
It protects against 7.62x39mm Ak Rounds, the 7.62 from Nato is bigger, who are they protecting from, this is not acceptable.
There is rifle 7.62 from russia too(7.62×54 or something like that, don't remember exactly, SVD uses it)
standard protection of soviet APC armored was 7.62x54R armor piercing incendiary , not 7.62x39
BWP Borsuk next 🤭
Borsuk is pretty similar to this vehicle
@@vibecheck2787 bruh Borsuk is IFV this thing is not
@@jPlanerv2 How exactly is this not an IFV?
@@MatteonixITA same excact reason why BTRs , LAVs and Patria AMV are not IFVs...but armored troop transports and are classified as such
@@jPlanerv2 BTRs and LAVs are IFVs tho? The ones that aren't are usually the ones with .50s as their best armament.
My guess is that is for Urban Pacification/Riot Police as it would get smoked everywhere else.
Make please a Video on the new serbian lazar Variants🙏
I like that little drivers pop up window. Seems preferable to driving head through hatch especially if it’s decently armoured IE rifle calibre.
Those propellers are hella big
This will look great at 6.7