Opinion on the MT-LB? And how does it compare to the BMP-1/2? Also whats its American equivalent?

Opinion on the MT-LB? And how does it compare to the BMP-1/2?
Also what’s its American equivalent?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Opinion on the MT-LB?
    it can drive from point A to point B 7 out of 10 times
    keeps Russian corpses in one easy-to-handle container

    >how does it compare to the BMP-1/2?
    lighter armament and armor, more cargo space

    >Also what’s its American equivalent?
    a truck with sheet metal welded to the sides used for training
    (serious) probably an M113, they're both metal boxes with minimal guns, but the 113 performs so much better

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If the M113 was so great then why wasn't there a M114??

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        boy do I have great news for you

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          aww

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        APCs, like half-tracks are an inherently stupid idea because their armor is worthless while their mobility and payload capacity coerce their use as a (bad) AFV.

        M113s are not meant for direct combat but in modern war everything is subject to attack. They're highly mobile and very simple to work on with mostly old truck drivetrains (Detroit diesels are very, very tough, see the videos of scrappers trying to blow them up before cutting up the obsolete trucks containing them) which is why the US used them so long.

        Tracks create the public impression everything with tracks is a tank. Sparky and other autspergs even insist they are. That gets very bad expectations corrected by reality when they're destroyed because normals expect everything tracked to be invulnerable. Fun fact, the Vietnamese kept their captured 113s and did not uparmor them because they unlike everything else can drive straight through a rice paddy. That's why US forces used them but G.I.s being mostly hicks were horrified when they melted (though a steel version would also have been a hull loss). The 5083 hull was effective against weapons it was designed to stop...in the 1950s. Turkey and other users uparmored theirs but Israel did not then acted surprised when they got destroyed.

        APCs go against human nature. That's what makes them an act of moronic wishful thinking.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      M113 has bad mobility though

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's not intended to be an APC or an IFV.
    It's an artillery tractor meant for moving guns around several miles away from the front.
    It has frick-all in terms of armor protection. It can handle frag and small arms fire, but not anything meaner than that.

    Using them in frontal assaults like the russians are doing is more-or-less suicidal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it think its probably fine as a battlefield taxi, at least for its time. Low ground pressure, can survive a fragment or two, etc. Of course expecting anything else from it is just silly, similar to m113, though I think m113 has little bit better armor, but even then not much more should be expected. Its just that infantry WILL use what ever vehicle they have as fire support.

      As for frontal assaults, it seems to be that options are either mt-lb or just walk.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      50cal-like machine guns would rip through the armor but 7.62mm would not?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        do you have any idea how much more steel a 50 cal API bullet penetrates compared to your average 7.62x51/54?
        you need more than double the amount of effective thickness

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you have to go back

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      so it's an APC

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's not intended to be an APC or an IFV.
      >It's an artillery tractor meant for moving guns around several miles away from the front.
      >It has frick-all in terms of armor protection. It can handle frag and small arms fire, but not anything meaner than that.
      >Using them in frontal assaults like the russians are doing is more-or-less suicidal.
      /thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So it's just a Russian Humvee equivalent being put in roles it has no business being in; like the Humvee was

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kind of, but exponentially worse because it's being deployed into direct combat against people who have tanks, IFVs, shitloads of ATGMs, air and arty support, etc. At least the Humvee only really had to contend with RPGs and DShKs and had some degree of decent speed and agility on its side, and they didn't intentionally send it right into known fortified enemy positions.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    M113s can swim.
    It's why they have the funny plate on the front.
    Not all variants can though

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Plates and track drive are kinda cope, ya'll need water jets for the real deal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        MT-LB is track driven too

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And it leaks, alot.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All vehicles leak, hence why they typicallt have bilge pumps. But imo most vehicles are noy amphibious given how much maintenance they need to be so. BMP's tmk need like a few weeks per vehicle to be made sure they are ready for it. The USMC banned the Amtrac from swimming unless its needed in an extreme case (war) after one sank during a training mission. Several Marines were trapped inside and perished sadly.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Finland had a similar thing with btr-60 in the 70's or 80's I think. Even to this day water crossings are to my knowledge barely trained. They are pretty dangerous, and as said, take a long time to set up, etc. Are there even any real examples of vehicles doing a proper river crossing in action? I'm pretty sure no tank has ever snorkeled through a river outside of very rare training.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There was a webm of a BMP trying to make an amphibious landing in Ukraine sometime during the first 6 months or so. It got into the river, floated some hundred meters downstream and then failed to land on the other side. It got stuck on the beach and then the crew bailed out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Finland had a similar thing with btr-60 in the 70's or 80's I think. Even to this day water crossings are to my knowledge barely trained. They are pretty dangerous, and as said, take a long time to set up, etc. Are there even any real examples of vehicles doing a proper river crossing in action? I'm pretty sure no tank has ever snorkeled through a river outside of very rare training.

                All vehicles leak, hence why they typicallt have bilge pumps. But imo most vehicles are noy amphibious given how much maintenance they need to be so. BMP's tmk need like a few weeks per vehicle to be made sure they are ready for it. The USMC banned the Amtrac from swimming unless its needed in an extreme case (war) after one sank during a training mission. Several Marines were trapped inside and perished sadly.

                Anything without dedicated PTO driven water jets needs to stay out of the water, besides the fact that the ability is an obvious afterthought the lack of speed and maneuverability make them deathtraps.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Finland operated BTR-60s until the 1990s at least. They became pretty unpopular after one sank in the Lake Saimaa with a bunch of conscripts inside in 1991.
                Apparently the things can barely float or propel themselves in water in the best of conditions, and tend to leak a lot. The crappy engine also overheats very easily, even in Finnish weather.
                The one that sank was a bit rear-heavy and took in more water through the rear engine vents than usual, overwhelming the pump. The vehicle eventually capsized with no warning, disappearing under the waves in just a few seconds. Everyone inside drowned.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                [...]
                Anything without dedicated PTO driven water jets needs to stay out of the water, besides the fact that the ability is an obvious afterthought the lack of speed and maneuverability make them deathtraps.

                Finland operated BTR-60s until the 1990s at least. They became pretty unpopular after one sank in the Lake Saimaa with a bunch of conscripts inside in 1991.
                Apparently the things can barely float or propel themselves in water in the best of conditions, and tend to leak a lot. The crappy engine also overheats very easily, even in Finnish weather.
                The one that sank was a bit rear-heavy and took in more water through the rear engine vents than usual, overwhelming the pump. The vehicle eventually capsized with no warning, disappearing under the waves in just a few seconds. Everyone inside drowned.

                >btr-60

                Note i meant FUNCTIONING water jets, not that junk.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Finland had a similar thing with btr-60 in the 70's or 80's I think. Even to this day water crossings are to my knowledge barely trained. They are pretty dangerous, and as said, take a long time to set up, etc. Are there even any real examples of vehicles doing a proper river crossing in action? I'm pretty sure no tank has ever snorkeled through a river outside of very rare training.

              [...]
              [...]
              Anything without dedicated PTO driven water jets needs to stay out of the water, besides the fact that the ability is an obvious afterthought the lack of speed and maneuverability make them deathtraps.

              Finland operated BTR-60s until the 1990s at least. They became pretty unpopular after one sank in the Lake Saimaa with a bunch of conscripts inside in 1991.
              Apparently the things can barely float or propel themselves in water in the best of conditions, and tend to leak a lot. The crappy engine also overheats very easily, even in Finnish weather.
              The one that sank was a bit rear-heavy and took in more water through the rear engine vents than usual, overwhelming the pump. The vehicle eventually capsized with no warning, disappearing under the waves in just a few seconds. Everyone inside drowned.

              The only ones worth a damn were designed with it as the primary capacity with everything else a secondary consideration, all i can think of in that area is the PT-76, things based on it, VTT 323s and the floating brick the USMC uses.

              LVT is unmatched as God of amphibious vehicles
              It has a proven track record in battle and You can easily escape if it sinks unlike others

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              AMTRAC's are still swimming, just with restrictions.

              Actually, hilariously, they are swimming more due to them going though "recertification", the crews are getting a workout.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wasn't praising the Mcblt just pooing at the 113's alleged amphibious abilities. Almost every cold war era APC (besides the Norks for some reason) has sketchy water abilities.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah you'll get no argument from me there.
            Even modern amphibious vehicles are pretty sketchy outside of ideal conditions
            Making a big heavy armored box be a car and a boat at the same time is just as hard as it sounds it seems

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The only ones worth a damn were designed with it as the primary capacity with everything else a secondary consideration, all i can think of in that area is the PT-76, things based on it, VTT 323s and the floating brick the USMC uses.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It would be easy to fit blow-molded polyurethane compartmented quick detach pontoons on pretty much anything and doing that would permit mounting outboard motors on each side along with the designer's choice of freeboard.

              No one cares about amphibious ops in the US though that would be cheap and easy and reliable. Picture two large pontoon boat style pontoons for a partial catamaran effect and easy powered steering. Nothing to it.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is a piece of shit. Rode one during conscription and we ended up in a ditch when the steering broke down ( or so the driver told us).

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like them but I also just have a thing for tracked utility vehicles in general

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cute. Looks like a bumble bee :3

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    artillery tractor not designed for combat, no real analogue in the US as it does have minimal armaments and armor but its just a worse m113 with better mud performance and a low profile ig

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This little bastard somehow doesn't give a single frick about the Ukrainian mud season. For that reason it is some kind of miracle machine.

    For all of the things it's been adapted for,the adaptions seem plagued by inadequate planning. Why are Ukrainians on one hand happy to give it good armour playing, and rws autocannons with sweet optics, but the turret is open and prone to mud getting into the gun workings, and the motor didn't get upgraded so it's slow as shit? It's got a history like that. There's always some oversight.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Almost all water jet systems besides the type used in the PT-76 don't really work, besides a few Chinese vehicles and the Norks no one even bothers trying.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The most underrated vehicle in Ukraine.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also what’s its American equivalent?
    The M76 Otter, maybe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's the M113. The Otter isnt comparable to the MT-LB, that's probably more like a PTS.
      weight, power, and troop capacity are more comparable with MT-LB and M113, though MT-LB is more lightly armored. Both chassis ended up used for a wide variety of other service vehicles.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Worse than the german DSO tractor during WWII

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      did everyone just have blown out eardrums back then or what

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    all Russian shit is basically WW2 era with some 70s shit fricked onto it, or if you are lucky, some modern but extremely bootleg shit fricked on to it

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How has nobody mentioned the tracked Stryker

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >army Stryker strong strong

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's like the tracked Boxer, a fricking batshit moronic idea that only exists to waste private R&D budget on private defense contractors.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why? It's better than the Bradley's hull, it has more armor and more space for dismounts.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, because the Bradley has an autocannon and a bunch of other weapons, moron. And the uparmored Bradley can take 30mm, I seriously doubt a Stryker can do that when the Stryker uparmor package can only take 14.5mm.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It beats walking and can handle smalls arms fire

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's basically a worse BMP-1.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets basically went to whichever OKB designed this and said "I want everyone in this vehicle die a gory death as soon as it engages the enemy in combat". Thus the MT-LB and the BMP-1 were born.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    perfect for frontal suicide attack , success granted

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *