Does the US have a BTR-4 equivalent? They seem to be very successful in the Ukrainian war by both sides.
Does the US have a BTR-4 equivalent? They seem to be very successful in the Ukrainian war by both sides.
Does the US have a BTR-4 equivalent? They seem to be very successful in the Ukrainian war by both sides.
Stryker ig
Why, because it has wheels?
Yes, anon. Because it has wheels.
>Does the US have a BTR-4 equivalent?
the stryker dragoon
> They seem to be very successful in the Ukrainian war by both sides.
because for some reason the russians keep sending T-72s into close combat against BTRs, instead of taking full advantage of their 2km engagement range
Why is the turret so bulky wtf
holds a bigger gun, more ammo and optics
because the stryker turret does not enter the vehicle
so all of its mechanical components and ammunition has to be within the confines of the turret
the 30mm bushmaster is also much beefier than the 30mm 2A72, about 50kg heavier
though it is supposed to be accurate out to 3km, whereas the 2A72 is only rated up to 2km
and the bushmaster is future-proofed to up to 40mm cannon rounds
From what I can tell, it's because the turret is a complete, self-contained package. It doesn't actually extend into the hull at all, all the ammo and optics and stuff are in the turret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#30mm_cannon
https://web.archive.org/web/20131023224905/http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/
Doesn't that higher profile kind of hurt it?
On a perfectly flat plain yes, in reality the sensors are on top of the turret so only the top of it needs to be exposed to search.
Probably, but it means they don't have to make huge modifications and internal space compromises to mount the thing.
>Doesn't that higher profile kind of hurt it?
not really
when guns have thermal sights that let them see a vehicle against a colder background with high contrast then being slightly taller does not make a big difference
the only time it would matter is at extremely long range where the apparent size of the vehicle will be smaller than the spread of the weapon, but at those ranges you would rather use a missile
and obviously, AFVs do not stand in the open while firing
they can drastically reduce their profile using the arcane and unknowable tactic of covering their lower hull with a wall or mound of dirt
during the age of analog optics and manual sighting having a lower vehicle profile was more of an advantage but in the modern day it is becoming less and less relevant if your APC/IFV is 6 feet tall or 8 feet tall.
You are either going to be fighting dirt people with no equipment and organization beyond making IEDs and shooting at you with chink RPGs or you are going to be fighting an organized forced who will have at a minimum quad copter drones, thermal detection equipment etc
Having more armor, weapons, troop space, etc is worth being 3.5% easier to see at 300m with the naked eyeball because by that point you have probably already been spotted by any of the countless forms of electronic observation and targeting that are only becoming more and more prevalent and cheaper
I'm no expert but I feel like profile is a very overrated part of tank design.
>panzer iii had worse profile than the crusader but slapped it around
>sherman had worse profile than the panzer iii but slapped it around
>sherman had worse profile than the T34 but slapped it around
>Abrams has worse profile than T-72 but slapped it around
Seems like having a good gun and better optics matters far more than profile, both in the past and today.
profile stopped mattering entirely in the 80s when FCS became a thing (in the realm of tank on tank combat)
profile can be negated by simply firing from cover whenever you have the chance and only exposing the hull in short dashes between cover
which is mostly what happened, tank combat was usually heavily one-sided as the ambushers were virtually unseen and the victims rarely even got a chance to fire back at all
and being harder to hit when you are out in the open was more of a welcome benefit to soviet planners
reduced silhouette was just a small bonus from making the smallest tank they could
because the larger advantage in smaller size is that its easier to armor, a smaller proportion of its total weight is dedicated to armor
it matters to an extent but it is often over considered because of the importance the soviets placed on it, when in reality as you pointed out it can often be sacrificed to a degree for better capabilities in other areas, within reason of course a totally rectangular 30 foot tale vehicle would have a lot of downside for example even beyond being much easier to identify but that is an extreme example
>it matters to an extent but it is often over considered because of the importance the soviets placed on it
soviets made smaller tanks so that they could be more efficiently armored
reduced silhouette was a secondary concern at most
even in the 1970s, they could accurately hit targets up to 2km using only their optical sights while combat in europe was expected to only take place at 1.5km due to constricted sightlines
so its obvious no amount of size reduction would make a meaningful difference
>they could accurately hit targets up to 2km using only their optical sights
under ideal conditions sure
it means that the dispersion of the cannon is a lot smaller than the target you are firing at
so in this case, even if you made the tank 20% smaller it would still not be smaller than a typical grouping of shots
and this was at ranges well beyond what was expected to occur
when your guns were designed to hit targets at 2km, then size will have no effect on
you are better off getting more gun depression so that you can go hull down on gentler slopes
A lot of Soviet doctrine at the time focused on low profile entrenched equipment.
It's not the visual profile you compare, it's the profile of what you can penetrate that results in disable you should overlay
>taking full advantage of their 2km engagement range
Have you ever SEEN the optics on a T-72? They're fucking terrible, good luck seeing or hitting anything from 2k out on anything but the newest models with the thermals built into the gun sight and not the ones that have it tacked on to the side on a fist sized screen.
>by both sides.
Nah, these are domestic Ukrainian weapons
Okay retard, Russia has been using every single one they've captured and they also have their own variants
BTR-4 =/= BTR-80
Fucking tourist morons need to fuck off back to r*ddit and 4chan.
Says the chud using reddit spacing. Read my comment again you illiterate axe wound moron.
>chud using reddit spacing
There it is, you're just retarded. You haven't posted a single example of a Russian captured BTR-4 and you originally were clearly confused or trying to blur the line between BTR-4's and BTR-80/82 despite the fact that they're completely different systems. The BTR-3 was based on the older Soviet era BTR's but the BTR-4 is a completely new system with some massive improvements in layout, power pack, protection, etc.
Maybe learn to read a thread here manhands. I posted it here
But here is another example
>hurr, seeee, after intentionally posting the wrong thing I posted the right thing right before you did
See his first post that started this retarded argument
>and they also have their own variants
BTR-4's are not variants of BTR-80's nor is the reverse true. BTR-4's are new vehicles with completely different armor, troop layout, power pack, arament, etc.
Semantics. They are all the same family of vehicles.
Fucking lmao, kys.
>same family of vehicles
>BTR-4 and BTR-80
BTR-4 is literally an entirely new design. What about this is so hard for you to grasp?
Then why would you specify the BTR-4 instead of the BTR you spastic fuckwit?
Because the BTR-4 is the one that is performing the best in theater. However the other BTRs are also showing themselves to have an important role. I posted some BTR -80s because I like posting actual pictures of the war and older BTRs are more common.
>However the other BTRs are also showing themselves to have an important role.
No. If anything it's showing that the old lay out BTR-80's suck ass in everything but mobility. Protection sucks, armament (mostly FCS/optics sucks), etc and that the BTR-4 mogs the BTR-3 which mogs the BTR-80 series.
The first lesson is that having an APC/IFV that troops can actually be in without being massive death traps and which they can ingress/egress easily is vital for the role (and something the Russians still don't have a production wheeled APC or IFV which meets this role).
The second lesson is that having an auto cannon with an actual FCS and thermals matters (not surprising).
These are lessons that Russia should've learned from the Soviet-Afghan war, let alone Chechnya and later Dagestan... It wasn't until the Bumerang that Russia had semi-modern wheeled eight wheeled APC fulfilling the role but Russia has completely failed to produce these.
I mean there are a few lighter wheeled APC's and MRAP's that Russia's made but they're mostly for internal security because Russia doesn't take care of it's Churka problem (mainly the Typhoon series).
If Russia actually made the Bumerang, then it's be a different story. Fact is the BTR-80 was outdated when it went into product and the later upgrades like the 82/82A are stop gaps that don't fix the protection/crew issues and barely address the armament/FCS issue.
>No. If anything it's showing that the old lay out BTR-80's suck ass in everything but mobility. Protection sucks, armament (mostly FCS/optics sucks), etc and that the BTR-4 mogs the BTR-3 which mogs the BTR-80 series.
And yet they all are showing yo have an important role. This isn't a specs contest anon its a war.
I mean, no shit auto-cannon + battle taxi is going to play a role... but now you're just getting into APC vs. IFV which has very little to do with the actual performance of a particular vehicle if there's where you're going.
>but now you're just getting into APC vs. IFV
Incorrect, there are plenty of both in this war which aren't showing the same successes.
As you can clearly see right here, you Nazi HATO garden gnomes, Russia has been using BTR from the beginning of this conflict to their maximum potential.
>muh side
Like I give a shit about dead Russians, you trannies will never understand this board and you will never be a woman. If you can't have a discussion without being a cheerleader then you aren't old enough to post. Also your broad shoulders and square hips means that everyone will always know you are a man larping as a woman. have a nice day groomer.
moron, I'm agreeing with you. Russia has been mastering the art of armored warfare in a way that is utterly peerless in its execution since the very beginning. Historians centuries from now will be marveling at the operational perfection of the Russian Ground Forces and their deployment of BT something or others.
>my sides
No, he is right, you fucking idiot. The BTR-4 is a drastic departure from the classic BTR series. Fucking do your research properly before posting here again, you goddamned idiotic tourist.
Can you suck off Ukraine a bit less? Its a modernized BTR its not like its a stryker
Look up the specs before yapping retard
It's a step change from the BTR series
Hardly. Its eastern eurotrash.
There is massive difference in layout of the vehicles. Engine in BTR-4 is in front of infantry compartment, that means it can have rear doors for dismounts. In commie era BTR's engine is in the rear, getting out of the vehicle is from the side hatches/doors. That limits how fast and how safely infantry can enter or exit vehicle. Apparently remote weapon station used in BTR-82A sucks, it is also used in modernized BMP-1AM's. BTR-4's armor is substantially heavier than BTR-80 series.
Hunter killer night sights, remote turret and ATGMs you stupid moron
> muh reddit
> basic formatting is reddit
> reddit is bad because it just is okay
> therefore basic formatting is bad
> muh reddit
Ironclad syllogism, newfag.
>basic formatting is reddit
Yes its reddit formatting which is why you think its basic. Because you are a tourist from reddit.
nta, but shut the fuck up retard with your muh reddit spacing bullshit.
It's called basic formatting because that's how text works in a PC screen unless you're a phoneposter or a illiterate moron
Listen newfag conform to the board culture or leave. This is not reddit, your shitty preferences do not matter. This formatting has long been our way to root out tourists and shills, use it or leave.
>conform to the board culture
This is not your safe space, retard. It's an anonymous image board where anything goes while it's on topic or a reason for a report that make jannies act. Your delusional made up rules are worthless.
It's annoying as fuck the endless muh reddit, trannies, stormmorons, joos, globohomo, etc bs that morons like you use every time to deflect being assblasted wrong in any argument.
Unironically, a gay garden gnome chud moron redditor that shitposted about guns or military stuff while being in topic belongs here more than incontinent retards like you than contribute nothing but noise.
And yes, I used three paragraphs in this post because fuck you, it looks more readable in a big PC screen.
Go back redditmoron
Neither of these are BTR-4, the first one is a BTR-80, the second is a BTR-82A, a Russian modernization of the same. Fucking look at them you retard, they look completely fucking different, the BTR-80/82A doesn't have windows or doors on the cabin and the turret is a completely different place.
Who said they fucking were you mouth breathing redditmoron. You want a pic of a Russian capture BTR-4 HERE YOU GO. Why the fuck can you not have a discussion without looking at pictures are you a fucking child?
Yes but Russia is fielding both and has been having success with them.
>Why the fuck can you not have a discussion without looking at pictures
If the pictures were not relevant to the discussion then why did you post them anon?
BTR-80s are relevant to this sentence right here
>and they also have their own variants
But here is another BTR-4 that was captured by Russia, put into service, recaptured by Ukraine and reput into service.
>and they also have their own variants
to which this anon
responded
>BTR-4 =/= BTR-80
and that simple statement of fact sent you flying into an autistic rage.
>BTR-80s are relevant to this sentence right here
>>and they also have their own variants
Again, no. BTR-80's are completely different vehicles, or rather BTR-4's are completely different vehicles than BTR-80's and aren't a variant of BTR-80's. If you were arguing the BTR-3 there might be some ground, but as I said in the post that you mostly ignored while goal post moving, the BTR-4 is a completely new vehicle.
Equivalent would have been a better word than variant, but we all know whats being said.
>Equivalent
They are not equivalent either. One is categorically better than the other.
>ESL moron or moving goal posts
Words have meaning. A vehicle fulfilling a similar role (which the BTR-80/82 isn't even in the same role as the BTR-4 since the latter leans heavily more into IFV territory and the former leaning heavily into APC) is not the same as one being a variant of the other.
>Equivalent would have been a better word than variant, but we all know whats being said.
Exactly! everybody knows you are saying retarded opinions. These vehicles don't have the same capabilities, ergo not equivalent
They might be used for the same roles, that doesn't make them equivalent, retard [and probably a vatnig]
Slat armor is dumb. Wheels in the Ukraine are dumb.
Send Bradleys por favor
The LAV 25 would probably do better in mud because its lighter than the Stryker. The army had to develop their own thing because politics.
>took this long to provide a single example of a BTR-4 captured by Russia.
Juding by the state of the tired and it sitting in a barn, it looks like the Russians captured it, lost it, and it was recaptured.
We have so many examples of these being used that you would think even your chud coomer mind would be able to keep up. Here is a BTR-3E being used.
That's not a BTR-4, that's a BTR-3, which IS the vehicle that is comparable to the the BTR-80 family of APC's.
Completey missing the point, that BTR-3E was a Russian capture being pressed back into service. Just like this BTR-4, both sides have been using BTR-4s. You gusy should focus on the prospect of never being a woman because you obviously cannot handle a simple discussion.
It took multiple posts before you even acknowledged that the BTR-4 =/= BTR-80.
>y-you're missing the point
Orly moron? That there have been a small number of BTR-4's captured by Russian forces long enough to paint Z's on and then promptly abandon them which somehow translates to Russia using them operationally (something you've failed to provide evidence for).
>small number
Not even Ukraine would claim this,
>somehow translates to Russia using them operationally
Why would you doubt this? We are seeing so much equipment being reused in this war. Why would the BTR be any different?
>Why the fuck can you not have a discussion without looking at pictures are you a fucking child?
Imageboard is wat?
>Imageboard is wat?
99% text.
Nice reddit spacing gay.
>you don't know how to have a discussion without pictures
You're the only one who has poasted pictures, schizo.
Who the fuck are you replying to?
The point is thathe is replying to the picture instead of what was written. Which makes him chud tier delusional.
Russia sprays Z on anything abandoned they pass it doesn't mean that they are actively using it. You can find pictures of damaged t64s not budging in months with Zs all over them since the Russians cant be bothered to move them I guess
>pic
Hey I remember this one, ukies recaptured them in the khatkiv counter offensive.
Yep a lot have been recaptured, doesn't mean Russia doesn't use them when they get them.
>doesn't mean Russia doesn't use them when they get them.
Yeah russians also use civilian cars when they loot them, it doesn't mean russian army operates on ladas.
>https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/upn887/captured_btr4_shoots_at_azovstal_mariupol_ukraine/
Love how the fucking chud has nothing to say after this.
>retard doesn't gets the point
>posts reddit
are you fucking serious
why are polmorons like this
Butt slamming this guy is as easy as comparing them to Ukraine. Why does the second most powerful military in the world have to press captured equipment into service that they've taken from fucking Ukraine and why is it better than their shit? It's all you have to ask. The US wasn't resorting to using captured Iraqi T-72s on the outskirts of Umm Qasr eight months into the war... Because America is a military super power and finished the fucking invasion in 28 God damn days.
you are a very stupid person.
Dude doesn't know what a btr-4 is so he just doubles down in anger when he gets called out. Childish af
Ukrainian BTR4 and Russian BTR80 are two very different vehicles. The BTR4 is much more advanced.
They are but plenty have been captured and the Russians put them out front because they have better options than anything Russia is fielding.
*better optics
Fug
Is there a NATO vehicle Ukraine could actually employ better than the Stryker? I don't get why there isn't pressure to send them. Seems like exactly what they need: a NATO spec and quality BTR that's available in loads of versions in huge number.
The aussies have been supplying the Bushmaster, which is somewhat comparable
It really isn't
Because they're needed by NATO in case Putin does extend the front to the Baltic
It's a bit like the Super Hornet anon; significantly superior capabilities to the og Stryker
It's not even equivalent, seriously
BTR-80 has older optics, missiles, and different internal layout
LAV-25 and French VAB?
Ukraine doesn't need more BTRs, they need AA and arty.
If they're going to pull off more rapid advances they need APCs/IFVs in number.
>by both sides
big if true. do you have a photo or video of russia using a BTR-4?
>big if true. do you have a photo or video of russia using a BTR-4?
Russia does not use BTR-4. Donbassers do because they get all the oddball hand-me-downs that does not fit into the Russian army logistics chain. So captured ukie T-64 end up with donbassers together with ukie Bukephalos (BTR-4). The Russians took an entire brigade worth of abandoned T-64 and BTR-4 around Kherson in the very first day of the war. The ukies had all deserted, first their officers ran, then the men, once they discovered that they had been abandoned. This is why RT was banned in NATO countries, because they made a video report of it.
Do you have a telegram link of it?
>the stryker dragoon
Ahh, the Americans finally realized not taking the turret on their version of the LAV3 was a retarded decision.
Semi-related, and I don't want to waste a thread on it:
Are all the russian helicopters grounded now? The hohols did their two bird cross-boarder raid, and there's been no other mention or footage from either side. Or I'm blind.
If they are grounded I wouldn't be surprised. Their missile protection hasn't improved since Afghanistan has it?
No everything just flys low and Ukrainian infantry that faces helicopters aren't fairing well enough to film.
>implying russian helicopters are massacring hohols
We'd have footage of this. Unless the Russians are so incredibly bad at propaganda they can't make guncam footage, even at low quality.
Every Ukrainian/foriegn soldier interviewed has said that the Russian atrack helicopters have been bad juju. If you think Ukraine hasn't been sustaining significant losses in this war then you might as well stay on your propaganda youtube channels. And i say this as an American.
No footage?
>i cant admit airpower is formidable because its against muh side REEEEEEEEE
Grow up gay.
Literally footage from the first day of the war when ruskie attack choppers popped three T-64BVs nicely lined up on a motorway.
Also some footage of hostomel with Stinger crews getting popped, letting the transport helos land.
Google is your friend anon
So Russian helis were effective for a day?
I am also from America, Kansass oblast. Russian helicopters are very strong, killed many Okrainians. This war will end soon, for their sake.
My name is Jonathan. Having spent the entirety of my life in Ohio Oblast, I have to agree with you. HATO is done. Just look at these piggies roasting! Just imagine what will happen when Russia finally stops playing games.
How much do you get paid to shill like this chud? Do you think you are serving western interests by running propaganda on our own people? This apparatus will reveal itself soon enough and when it does i can't wait to see the families involved .
What? I am from glorious New Jersey Turnpike oblast. We live on top of each other but we do not live in your walls. Have you checked your hearing lately? It seems not good.
I've said my peace, see you soon.
Have good trip! See y'all later.
See you chud
All trannies should kill themselves
I don't get paid anything, I just don't like gays.
So then why can you not have a normal discussion? Instead you gays REE at the first example of anything that claims Russia isn't entirely incompetent.
Because gays have taken every opportunity on this board to post their gay simping for Russia for the entirety of this board's existence. gay Russia simps have negatively impacted my enjoyment of PrepHole for a very long time. I have made fun of them for just as long... And will continue to do so, but this time with a lot of evidence that fuel my schadenfreude.
Well fucking stop, we can't have a good discussion on this because you gays are going full armatard levels of screeching.
Is this your work colleague on the ground?
K
Russia has put a bunch of captured ones into service because they are good.
>that file name optimized for keyword search
lmao do we have an actual lahta-shill here or are you just another underage closet homosexual assblasted into the orbit by having your gay-fantasy-tier mah powerfull military being humiliated for 7.. wait, for 8 months straight?
I'm telling you lads this is the real victim of this war
Пopвaлacь пидopaшкинa пpoклaдкa :^)
American from Ohio oblast here, I weep daily for our fellow homosexuals in arms dying due to the sheer might of Russian attack helicopters. How can they compete with Russian aviation units launching dummy rockets at an arch? They’re like flying BM-21 grads.
We should push congress to consider us leaving NATO before world war three erupts, the UK and Poland are poking the bear with us!
no fucking way this is happening, manpad threat just too great
>Does the US have a BTR-4 equivalent?
yeah.
Canada's sending ACSVs to Ukraine which are turretless LAV6s which are upgraded LAV3s which share the Stryker hull. Unfortunately we won't be getting any NATO autocannon kino just yet, but open a the door to it.
Reddit: The Vehicle
I do enjoy it in Snowrunner.
>by both sides
Since when does Russia have BTR-4s?
BTR-4 has windows and side doors, the BTR-80 has no windows and hatches on the top.
Also, kill all vatmorons.
BTR-80 has windows and side doors, for infantry dismounts. Given how shitty BTR-80 is from dismounting perspective, those doors absolutely kill vatmorons.
The side windows should be explored by the us it may be useful in megacity fighting
>explored by the us
The US is going into AR cameras that look through the hull, they ain't gonna create a vulnerability like that
Well then gun portholes please
Tried that with the Bradley; no on that too. It reduces protection and gunports don't work anyways, infantry needs to dismount.