Witness in all its glory, the first road sighting of russia's newest, oldest shitbox, the BTR-22. Sometimes known as the BTR-82A. "But OP!" I hear you cry. "Apart from refusing to show bussy, aren't you also incorrect? I saw BTR-82A destroyed in Ukraine!" To which I reply: 1) i'm saving myself for marriage 2) Nope, that's actually a different shitbox that they decided to give the same name.
The new BTR, much like the russian soul, is mysterymeat wrapped in a "why?" kebab of lies and inexplicable decisions. Ask 3 nerds who follow russian equipment what precisely this thing is, and you'll get 5+ answers. Is it a BTR-87 with a body kit, disguised as a genuine modernization of an elderly product? If it's fully reworked from the ground up... why is it a BTR? Does it float? No, really, why do you insist that it floats yet you won't show us water jets? I cannot answer these profound mysteries here. I can only link some competing descriptions of the thing.
The official line:
https://military.africa/2023/08/russia-unveils-all-new-btr-22-8x8-armoured-vehicle-at-army-2023
BMPD:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4743363.html
BTVT:
>About this - BTR-22 «BTR-82A Improved» during testing. Let me remind you that the "BTR-82A Improved" is a dressed-up BTR-87, demonstrated at ARMY-2017. The vehicle was shown with a new body kit at ARMY-2023. The vehicle undoubtedly has a number of advantages over the BTR-80 (82), but the creation of this simplified, non-floating vehicle is proceeding at a snail's pace. And these people, who aren't capable of making an armored personnel carrier with a front MTO, still want to lay down a «Boomerang»?
>APC with actual doors
This is already a huge upgrade compared to the old shit
Why bother with real seats. Can’t they just stack 16 mobiks in there
"Okay, well... What do the specs say?"
Which ones, anon?
normal production variations
So they frankensteined soviet surplus and simply called it something new?
Sad! But many such cases.
Perhaps! Or perhaps, certain important figures have determined that putting fancy new modules like Zavets-D, Ballista, etc. on new hulls, manufactured by a factory not directly under the control of the old boys, does not make the pie higher. If BTR still good, why come newfangled other vehicles? With their widgets?? And gimmicks???
But, why wont you show bussy?
What happened to Bumarang?
Bumerang is FINE! Bumer always comes around.
State Trials very thorough. Safety is important unlike trash western equipment that always breaks down and causes their soldiers to die needlessly. Any day now.
Wow, that doesn't look like a shitty Eurocopter Panther clone with Blackhawk-style tricycle landing gear at all.
>Wow, that doesn't look like a shitty Eurocopter Panther clone with Blackhawk-style tricycle landing gear at all.
Russian helicopters are the best on planet earth, by a fricking mile, and this isnt even a "zigger" talking point
the best at shaking themselves to bits, maybe
zigger
>It is anticipated to commence serial production mid-2024
Yeah, just like the Armata
Good post, I chuckled
also pls do not very closely at the wheels ok thanx
It was shopped to get rid of the logo advertising some zigger telegram channel
Its got the passenger compartment at the back, this has to be a new design right? all older btrs have the engine there with the passenger doors in the side.
> If it's fully reworked from the ground up... why is it a BTR?
BTR just means APC in Russian, you sometimes see them calling m113 BTRs too.
I mean...it doesn't look like old BTR at all.
>this has to be a new design right
yup. We haven't seen them combine the forward engine compartment with the multiple tons they've added to the overall weight since they performed the amphibious tests. Typical view is that it properly doesn't float.
>BTR just means APC in Russian
What I meant was, everyone questions why the hell you'd ever make anything new in the same design paradigm as the BTR. Russian milbloggers just shake their head at this thing.
*probably doesn't
wtf is that typo
PROPA SINKA INNIT
That's what the BTR-87 supposedly was; a BTR with a front engine and rear doors.
Somethings just throwing me off about scale and perspective on this fat fricker. It's either way bigger than it looks or way more fricking cramped with 8 dismounts in back than it looks.
bmpd has a pic where he shows knee (prostitute)
>https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4743363.html
These things are xboxhueg, anon.
A rear hatch? Better late than never
IF the Bradley can take out a tank so can the Vladliy.
Oh, you. One of these days we're gonna hunt you down and scalp you and eat your organs while they're still hot like the olden times, you goof. Nuggetfest 202x, man vs. skinwalker vs. tard.
>no water jets
Shamefu dispray
>those tow hooks
>those headlights
Nork styker with a body kit?
Pretty much:
>prototype i.e vaporware
>rip off of Choson mobile gun carrier
>no 30MM RCWS AGL
>no water jets
>undergunned, illiterate Russian probably mistranslated 'no-dong'
>most likely a Lada covered in cardboard
If Russia keeps insulting it's supporters this way Kim is going to stop sending them handouts.
will do its job thanks to abundance of shells
Wrong thread, goober
Why does it look like a BTR-82A turret grafted onto a LAV III? The hull is weirdly western, am I blind?
It's definitely a BTR hull, it looks like it still has the lower half of the side hatch on one side (triangle shape next to turret basket)
I just always thought the BTR family was closer to the LAV than the Boxer size.
BTR-40 to 90 were basically the same shit improved over time.
This is new completely.
>completely new
Wrong, it's 100% built on the lower half of a BTR-80/82 hull that has been modified.
>plastic chinese dryer vent hose for ventilation
>military.africa
truly a top-tier source lol
Unironically good for getting info on african militaries and would-be suppliers (france, russia, china, UAE) without having to wade through genocidal facebook pages and shit like that.
I would frick that BTR.
This thing encapsulates the problem with Russia.
They blew out their budget designing and parading pic related and have produced exactly enough to not be able to risk them in combat. Instead of developing something like OP's pic which they could have feilded in the thousands, with probably the same budget allocation, and which would probably would have had a material effect on the war by merely saving lives (if nothing else).
As usual the wunderwaffe memes are projection, like all other insults from Russia, as they spent their time and money on wunderwaffe instead of getting sensible solutions done.
AND WHILE I AM ON THE TOPIC
how absolutely fricking pathetic is Russia? Poland in the 00's and early 10's (when they were only starting to take off economically) was able to aquire and field over 1000 Patria IFV's. South Africa could afford 250 Patria, Bulgaria almost bought another 200. Poland could afford to give Ukraine 150 for free. Russia can't even shit out a couple hundred Bumerang. What the actual frick.
Yeah it definitely struck me looking at this thing how many Russians had to die before they made a practical adaptation to shit they already had using technology they are capable of.
Where is the cage?
soon
Have the BTR-4 all been destroyed?
Production was restarted last year, the numbers are not massive but it's happening at a bigger scale than prewar
>lanshit iconography
ew
Stryker is similar specs but....
does it even SWIM? No? lol. baka, ngmi
Styker is like that kid your parents force you to drag along and "be friends with" when your posse goes on some adventure, which like any epic adventure involves crossing a water obstetrical kommando style, like it almost isn't even there.
Only then does the New Kid break the news that "I can't swim". FRICK! You also know that, being sort of the Styker of little kids, if you just tell him "Ok, you stay here and keep look out for...???" it will get back to your parents that you "ditched him" but he didn't REALLY snitch, he just told his parent the truth because lying is bad. (rolls eyes).
Now your parents and talking about you not going with posse on adventures if its going to "cause problems" (WTF???).
What the frick was any of that
found the kid that can't swim, or at least couldn't as a kid
while swimming AFV is rarely used feature, it lives "rent free" in minds of enemy.
They COULD cross that river quickly at anytime. DID they cross when our idiots were sleeping on watch? WTF is those tracks that were reported but now covered in snow or rain? WTF is that noise? 🙂
No I could swim just fine like everyone my generation in my country because swimming lessons were universal.
You're just unbearably insufferable. Please forgo voicing your opinion on anything in the future
angry 8 year old venting because he's grounded after ditching that kid. or angry 25 year old who still can't get over being grounded 17 years ago for ditching that kid
It would be pretty decent looking outside but it probably still has no FCS and many internal faults that we don't see yet. Inherenting many design flaws from BTR-82A
Are you frickers really debating SWIMMING, an inborn ability that all modern humans except the economically blackest inner city gorilla nigras experience as children
This shit is just too low, even for this board. Go back to arguing about glocks
To be honest, swimming is a dying thing in a lot of places because the cost of public pools is expensive, parents don't want to pay high fees to teach their kids, kids are more sedentary (i.e, they like tiktok and youtube over going outside) and so on.
kid we knew DID learn to swim just fine, once we brought him to the pool, etc. More of a mental thingy. If you've never swam wont imagine you could "just do it" and it will imagined as walking a tight rope or something.
BTW, adding a FCS is trivial these days, for exactly same reasons as cheap Korean cars have same "magic" wonder features as best Mercedes. They electronics and even servo-motors etc are all mass produced in same factory.
Adding SWIMMING feature to non-swimmer like Stryker? pretty much a non-starter. Personally, I'd like to see BOLT ON (or even tie-on) dual use pontoon/fuel/storage tankage to make non-swimmers swimmers or make swimmers much better swimmers, and even do some anti-HEAT stand-off spacing. Just bolt a couple big pontoons to the sides. About 6 water-tight compartments so some could be fuel and others big hatches for rucks, etc. Make the hatches/compartments big enough for a grunt to ride in, or even sleep in. 🙂 WTF not? MOST of the time your APC is not trying to squeeze through city traffic or even trees or RR tunnels, so it could be fricking 20ft wide and no one would care. If you gotta drop to 'toons in a hurry you can, and from inside the Battle Buggy.
>WTF not
loading gauge
you don't ride any military vehicle from the depot to deployment, unless it's the transport getting you there
it has to fit a standard low-loader or railcar
great thread
>Rear door
How fricking hard was it for Russia to do this over the moronic side doors that gets troops run over and doesn't protect them from being shot frontally?
Requires a total restructure of the inside to achieve.
Ideally, it should have happened prior but Russia was designing its wunderwaffe like the Bumerrang. which was a reasonable idea if it came to fruitition, rather than actual functional equipment within their ability to produce like Ukraine was.
Then consider that Russia has zero respect for the sanctity of life so they just throw random morons an AK74 from storage, some fatigues and in the back of an APC that was already a death trap in 1970. It's cheaper to do that than it is to totally replace the 10,000 odd wheeled APCs with a proper platform.
I shit on the Ukrainians but at least their BTR-4s are actually better than Russia's, even if its still a deathtrap against a proper military.
>even if its still a deathtrap against a proper military
So like every other wheeled IFV
Depends on the era. Modern wheeled IFVs are the same as any other IFV in terms of protection and have been since the mid 90s.
For Soviet stuff? Their's have always been shit. They weren't even proof against AKMs as late as the 90s and the lack of modernisation has been apparent since the fall of the Soviets, which is where most of their equipment stems from.
Done long ago and surprisingly numerous 4500 examples much exports. Any time Czechs get involved with armor they do it right
Done better than Russians*
Still wouldn't want to be in a Skot above any most other wheeled APCs of the era given that it's not much better protected than a BTR, if at all.
Rather be sitting in something like a Saracen with nearly twice as much steel over most of the vehicle despite being 10 years older than either.
amphibious vehicles have a plate on the front against waves, this doesn't.
???
OP didn't post it but btvt had some more info on the interior dimensions of the vehicle. Still a bit of a squeeze but not actually that horrible. Definitely a major upgrade over the 82s, but given the state of the bumerang I'm not holding my breath to see if they're going to produce significant numbers of these.
>water jets
Not a prerequisite for something being able to be amphibious. Now have a nice day for this tryhard attempt at comedy.
you'll be identifying the mean of propulsion then, right?
That might be those big round things that roll around an axis. What are those called again?
You didn't read any of the posts did you? There is literally no true amphibious military vehicle on earth that uses tracks/wheels to propel it, anything that does is a halfassed makeshift capacity.
It isn't 'Amphibious' if it can't cross moving water such as those things on maps called rivers.
You're making up your own qualifications. Why do you define what makes it amphibious?
>Real amphibian vehicles have never been tried!
Literally you.
Also how do you know it doesn't have a propeller or water jet?
>be OP, not anon you're arguing with
The models displayed at trade shows so far have lacked propellers and water jets.
If it can't become a boat with a simple gear change it isn't a amphibious vechicle. Using tracks or wheels to go 1-2km per hour does not count, it can't even fight the current of a small river. Water jets let it act like a real boat.
A basic Nork light tank can do 10kph in water, how the hell are you morons arguing this 40-50 years after water jets became standard equipment for light armored vehicles?
water jets are critical for real amphibious capability, without them not only is the vehicle dangerously slow and unmanuverabe even a small current will sweep it away.
Also almost everything without water jets is only theoretically amphibious and has the phrase 'wth preparation' attached to it, everything designed with jets just needs to shift a gear.
Can they ever compete?
>Verification not required
Kek it does look like a pig.
bot posts?
>photo is HD
>flag is 480p
why are they like this?
Because they suck
Source in case anyone needs it:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/131561895@N06/41824238822
Somehow I doubt that it can survive any type of AT-mine without killing off the entire crew. Just about all of the modern western wheeled APC's like Boxer, Patria AMV / Rosomak and the newer variants of stuff like Fuchs etc. have V-shaped hulls to ensure that the blast doesn't at least maim everyone inside from a basic b***h mine but historically all of the Russian vehicles not only can't redirect the blast but catastrophically explode killing everyone in a nearby trench too.
I distinctly remember this being called "BTR-87" just a few months ago, with it being mentioned in the context of 3rd ACR (Blackhorse at the National Training Center) receiving VISMOD'd Strykers specifically to impersonate them.
https://www.twz.com/army-has-newly-modified-vehicles-for-impersonating-russian-and-french-types
US Intel already way ahead of the curve (that being said the 113 based VISMOD vehicles are getting EXTREMELY long in the tooth at this point.)
Not reading all that, but given that it ostensibly has better armour to protect from artillery shrapnel AND has the engine in the front to enable rear dismount, its objectively a bit better than a "shitbox". It's also the budget pick
Worse armor rating than a Stryker, 20+ years later. Heavier. No evidence that it's amphibious beyond basic fording, with specific reasons to believe it isn't. Rated for 2 fricking kg of TNT under the crew compartment – one fifth of even the VN22.
Shitbox.
redeffect made a video
I like how he says that, despite some people claiming it isn't amphibious, every source states that it is. He does this while citing a schematic from BTVT, who expressly states that he does not believe it's amphibious. The claim also hinges on the presence of propulsion that has never been seen on the demonstrators / prototypes that do exist.
>be serb
>slurp russian cum
The more things change, the more they stay the same
I think he just did too little research here, on a topic he doesn't have prior background knowledge about.
Why the retro camo though?
/misc/ will say that this shitbox will be in kiev in 2 more weeks and then Washington