Dear colleagues! BTR-90's dead. Afrer 20 years of development Russians canceled it. Then, it was "Gilza". Now, Russians're designing "Bumerang"! In couple years "Bumerang" would become the best in the world! Let's wait little bit. Or buy foreign made stuff: Stryker, Boxer, BTR-4, Patria... Or cooperate with the West in development, French, Italians are ready to betray NATO and develop a vehicle for an enemy. Or Ukrainians to support an long stand friend! Use opportunities: the world can help!
the russian military brass said that they donk like this APC, so they canceled its production. apparently they want something better, which they said will be unveiled in the second part of this decade. for one thing, BTR90 should have a provision for mounting an ERA, otherwise its a good '80-'90s mentality fighting vehicle.
@TATARSTAN59500 first of all, you are illiterate, where have i said it was made in 80s? i said this vehicle is of 80-90s mentality. and for your information, T90 is just an upgrade of T72. its not what u can call a "new" model. T64 was that new model, compared to T62, T90 is not. even so, T80 is a better platform for upgrade than T72, and i dont know why they chose backward and inferior T72 design for a "new" tank.
@TATARSTAN59500 thats even worse, by this time they should have came up with a new model for an APC, and they did a right thing for canceling the production of BTR90, and focusing on next generation.
Armor thickness does not have direct influence on protection, you know that. Overall, BMP-3 and BTR-80/82 lack sufficient protection. BTR-90 that supposed to replace BTR-80 series was cancelled. Now Russians are trying to develop something new: "Bumerang". Let's hope that it would have proper design close to the Western one. Ukrainians learned faster with their BTR-4 and heavy designs of BMPT-64s...
I'd rather take a Btr82A than a m113/ stryker any day and a Bmp3m over bradley any day as those vehicles are all around mech better and survived much more and worse conflicts than any of the american vehicles... And besides, bradley and stryker are handicapped by their own design...
@Aaidas2 And what are these handicaps? Easy entrance/exit out of the vehicle in its tail? Instead of going to the sides under the wheels (BTR-80/82/82A) or jump over the engine (BMP-3)? Better protection instead of the thin armor of Russian APC/IFV? What are other?
@Alexander1068 Bmp3 haves more armor than stryker or bradley... Stryker is one of the shittiest apcs ever, armor is paper thin, sides can be pierved by close range ak shots. Bradley also stores fuel in the vehicle center areas, so if it gets hit by a he round, it turns into a mobile microwawe and everyone inside burn, that's why us soldiers dont like to ride in them, m113 fixed the problem by storing it to left, right and back sides, aparently bradley designers didnt learn anything from vietnam
@Aaidas2 All clear about Stryker and Bradley. Please check on BMP-3 and BTR-80/82. Same problems. Plus they have even thiner armor than the US vehicles. Check out their weight, size. Not that impressive comparing to Bradley and Stryker.
@Alexander1068 It's a good thing that they weight less and are smaller you know. You can transport more of them, unlike the bradley which needs its turret to be taken off to fit in a c17 because of how stupidly high it is. Bradleys thickest places is front with 30mm, while Bmp3 is 35mm. Bmp3 haves a autoloader for its atgm, which is faster and doesnt need manual guidence, when bradley haves no autoloader, its tow is slow and needs manual guidance and can only fire 2 before needing to go outside.
Not Just that, the BMP3 is still amphibious, Bradleys are forbidden to swim due to the unreliability of their manually installed floatation screen. The Bradley A2 and A3 are way heavier and can't even pretend to be amphibious.
@Alexander1068 Not handicaps. Concept is different. IAV Stryker one tailgate = one escape side. BTR 2 sidegates = x2 chances. + engine at the tail = more time powered. Stryker afaik has front engine bay that imparts powerplant vulnerability + mobility loss. btw 100% direct front hits can't hit sidegate of BTR (longitudinal shadow) in case hit sector is shifted, other side gate is used. NTL i agree, departure takes training & balls. In BRDM you also can roll over engine.
@PsychicPinguin Well, not exactly. Besides tailgate exit/entrance Stryker APC (M1126) has 4 hatches on top of the vehicle, 1 hatch on the left side and 1 driver hatch. Which gives plenty of opportunities to escape the vehicle if struck from the side of the main entrance, means rear. Please note: rear is basically safest side, unlike left and right APC sides. Mobility loss is nothing comparing to the additional protection of the crew.
@220Kamil Yes, Sir! Russia is power! However, BTR-90 is not bringing more power to your army: plans to produce it were scrapped. Rely on BTR-80, or it's new version BTR-82 to be produced this year. Thanks.
honestly these russians need to forget about the cold war, all i see on russian shows is " DA WE HAV BETTR TAN AMERICANS" the russians just cant let their loss go and now they put out propaganda shows like this... unbelievable.
@hotpocketpoison you know i agree with you , problem is the cold war was like saying " hey come at me bro" thats what it was like , kinda funny though , any ways people still cant forget what happen during the cold war
The Russians have forgotten about the Cold War, but the USA hasn't. We have yet to reduce the size of our military. Its even bigger now than it was in 1990
Budget means nothing. The US scrapped many of its heavy divisions, downsized the number of ground troops (that's why the NG had to be called up to shore up the holes in the Army in Iraq). Most of that budget is lost to corruption or vaporware that never materializes. Also you have to realize how American GIs are paid and how the consripts of other nations are paid (if they are even paid)
well give it a few years and it'll be sold off to anyone who hates the west. Then'll itll get blown up like all the other eastern bloc equipment. Time and time again eastern bloc crap has been sent to the junkyard by western equipment. Its all in the training as im sure the israeli's during the 6 day war can justify.
I think that nobody has addresses the issue of how you defeat a people. I mean, the Iraqui army as certainly defeated, but it is impossible for the US to claim victory in Iraq.
It is the same in Avganistan, both the USSR and US defeated the "formal" army, but both suffer defeat.
@thirdromeprivate Да они, пока солдаты не погибнут, ничего не сделают. Ведь чем больше дверей, тем быстрее можно покинуть подбитую машину, тем быстрее можно загрузиться и выгрузиться. На поле боя задние двери предпочтительнее, чем боковые (хотя и они тоже нужны).
@tuerlesrusses Hay loser fuck you. Actually Soviet 80s tech about tanks and ground machines is better than today's US tech, considering that T-90, BMP-3, and BTR-90 were designed during the 80s and produced later.
@mumbojumbozigzag of course your country should, the russian stuff is cheaper but better, and are more easy to mantain (like the ak-47); btw where are you from?
@mio1352 that's true, especially nowadays, as opposed to the old days where the soviet union would dish out monkey model variants, so most of the time it was better to aquire the licence to build your own domestic version (if your country was capable of making an adequate one)
the only drawback is that the russians have a bit of a bad reputation when it comes to supplying their customers with spare parts.
@Sismiques Put an armored cage on vehicle like the Americans do with their Stryker APCs. It would detonate most light AT weapons before it hits the armor, and wouldn't be that expensive. To try to protect such a vehicle against more advanced ATGMs (Kornet, Javelin, and larger vehicle mounted ATGMs) would be a waste of money.
@mumbojumbozigzag Sorry, the project (BTR-90) is abandoned. Russian Army decided that it is wrong design. Now Russians are embarked on a new endeavor BTR called "Gilza". Better buy from what is available: "american crap" (Stryker), European "crap" (Patria, Piranha), or Ukrainian "crap" (BTR-3 or BTR-4) if you have limited budget. All these "crap" can protect your country already now. Russian APCs would be able to defend you in a quite a few years.
@mumbojumbozigzag depends what the exact requirements and budget your countries military has. BTRs and BMPs are available and well armed. M113s are cost effective and adaptible Most countries would have a hard time getting a hold of state of the art equipment such as Bradleys, BTR 90s and Strykers. Do not assume America produces poor quality equipment because of any childish hatred you have towards them.
@thenoobfactor I'm sorry, but putting BTR-90 in the list next to Stryker and Bradley is not correct. BTR-90 was in development since 1992. Only some 30 produced. Not accepted in service by Russian Ministry of Defence. On its request Russian industry started to design new APC called project "Gilza". Military were not satisfied. Abandoned. Now, Russians develop yet another project called "Boomerang". But, better Russians buy Ukrainian BTR-4: would be cheaper; western layout; in production.
@Alexander1068 Why dont russians just work on modernizing their 1960s and 70s era equipment instead of pouring money into such stupid projects. Only 15% of the Russian military is modernized. Why throw money into a bottomless pit to prepare for a war they will never fight?
@thenoobfactor Well, to some extent you're right: it's better to modernize old equipment, instead of producing new. That's what they're doing with APCs: according to Russian Ministry of Defence, some 230 BTR-82 woud be produced in 2011. Half of them believed to be BTR-80 upgraded to BTR-82 level. In short, some of the equipment can be and being modernized. However, some things like BTR-80/90 has outdated design with engine in the back. There should be new APC with Western layout.
@navySEALteam5 And that is not a conventional war in which these new "wonderweapons" are of any use. The Russians still seem to think that the next war will be a mechinized battle with the Americans in the Fulda gap.
@thenoobfactor Well and the next war, which was in 2008 was exactly that. You need to transport troops one way or another, everything in warfare is important. Don't you think that Russians, with their encyclopedic knowledge of war with allmost about any type of enemy for the past 1000 years would know what's good and what's not?
They don't think about Americans only you see, they have plenty of countries around them to worry about as well.
The Stryker's chassis is crap. The protection is incomplete, the whole area behind the tires is unprotected and when one goes flat the suspension is struggling, making cross country operation impossible. Just look at some statistics, it's just a road vehicle. The SLAT armor is one attempt to make things a little better.
@bonham1981 Both trucks are crap. They are lack proper protection against modern ATs. At least Stryker has doors at rear to increase protection of troops.
@zipacna1980 Uh as a former stryker driver for the us army. I can tell you first hand that the stryker is yet another betrayal by out government. The vehicle is junk and does not provide the armor protection that it claims to. Numerouse people have died in stryker explosions.
@MrAnarchist99 1st. Thank you for serving. 2nd. What you say is absolutely true! It doesn't even get the job done- It is easily stuck in mud and cannot exceed the speed of 35 mph to avoid losing it's wheels!
@MrAnarchist99 I am glad you're a "former" drive of the Stryker. The US army is not doing his duty defending the homeland, it's serving privates and grabbing oil and resources around the world...
Being an American, I've always respected the Soviet and Russian infantry fighting vehicles. In fact, I think that - within their respective operational envelopes - Russian IFVs are far more effective in their element than Russian MBTs are in theirs.
Very nice vehicle. I wonder if they ironed out the survivability issues because I still see Russian soldiers riding on top of their vehicles during the Georgian war.
На западе тепловизеры у пихоты,а наши ещё думают ставить на бэтр или подождать.Кстати Китайцы молодцы обскакали Россию во всём,кроме (яд) оружия.Интересно если они перебросят свои войска в сибирь.Будет Россия бомбить своих (яд) оружием?
The BMP carries heavier armor and armarment thatn the BTR's,but the BTR's carry more troops and are faster.Both are excellent infantry combat vehicles.
I understand that yes, but why use one or the other for a situation? Or both? To me, the BTR seems like a light attack armored carrier designed for all terrain. As for the BMD, it is a lot heavier and slower, and also is all-terrain. But what I feel is this: why have a BMD and a BTR when you could integrate units comprising BTR's and Type 90's (correct me on the tank type, I forgot the Russian standard).
Definitely not a mix of those two, and it's purpose is not infantry support, but TANK support. I do not know the full title of that vehicle in russian, but BMPT is short for (translated in enlgish off course) "fighting vehicle for tank assistance/support" and it is meant to cover russian tanks in urban surroundings. It only has the crew of 5 and no infantry carrying capacity.
The BTR should be airdroppable considering that it weighs less than a BMD ( at least it looks like it). Doesn't the BTR also come with hooks for carrying?
there's more to airdropping than just weight. you have to factor in size and stress platform (the thing the vehicle is attached to). certain things can be dropped easily (like light guns) but vehicles are really hard to design for. the BTR is prob far too long. also you want to drop a IFV that can pack a punch- to provide basic fire support (AA/AT) for your paratroops
no matter how good xcountry performance a 8x8 vehicle has, it will still be unable to match a tracked vehicle. period. depends on the terrain that the unit is meant for. if you want rapid response then BTRs can take advantage of road networks. but if you want difficult terrain then something like the BMD would be better. also they are different weight classes. the question is like comparing the M3 bradley with the stryker
btr is just armored truck with mashingun. its made for transport infantry to battlefield. bmp and bmd designed for transport and fighting with infantry and tanks on battlefield. all they can swim, but only bmd can be airdropped.
First you have to make a difference between mechanized and motorized infantry in russian army.
Mechanized infantry is meant to provide cover and assistance for tanks, so transport vehicles for these troops need to have the same off road capability of tanks and be able to provide cover for tanks and their cargo.
That's were BMP-1/2/3 (BMD is used by paratroopers) come in (they are IFVs - infantry fighting vehicles).
For motorized infantry BTR vehicles are used (APC - armoured personel carriers). They are faster and can carry more troops than, but their off road capabilities are limited they are meant to provide cover for infantry in urban and urbanized/rural areas with some road networks.
As for BTR-90, it is a heavy APC (about the same as BMP-3), able to provide better protection and "punch" for it's accompanying squad.
BMD (boyevaya machina desanta - deployable fighting vehicle) vehicles are smaller infantry fighting vehicles designed for paratrooper (VDV) units (Vazdushno-desantnaya voyska - air deployable/airborne army).
They are lighter and smaller than BMP vehicles (I have a picture of VDV BMD-2 beside a Bradley in Bosnia, you have to see it to be able to percieve the size of it - I just have to find it LOL) that can be dropped from a plane with the crew inside.
Besides BMDs, VDV has other vehicle on their disposal, like the APC version of BMD (lacks the turret, so it can carry twice the number of troops, forgot the name of it), Sprut-SD light tank and self-propeled mortar Nona-S.
generaldeejee, do you really think that Russian/Soviet constructors missed this moment? LOL! This full-rubber wheels are made of special high-strength material.
Колеса из монолитного куска резины. по ним можно из крупно калиберного пулемёта в упор стрелять и всё равно БТР не остановишь. Его проще целиком уничтожить чем колёса сломать))
@natsplit and thats why russian army will win a war...because they can produce so much tanks for their money that you won´t be able to destroy these tanks....
"keep in mind you can get 10 of those btr 90 for the the price of a single javelin"
Of course you are joking, Javelin cost is 40k a missile and 125k for the command unit. Now if a BTR 90 was 17k, I would consider it as a replacement for my SUV with real off-road capability.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear colleagues! BTR-90's dead. Afrer 20 years of development Russians canceled it. Then, it was "Gilza". Now, Russians're designing "Bumerang"! In couple years "Bumerang" would become the best in the world! Let's wait little bit. Or buy foreign made stuff: Stryker, Boxer, BTR-4, Patria... Or cooperate with the West in development, French, Italians are ready to betray NATO and develop a vehicle for an enemy. Or Ukrainians to support an long stand friend! Use opportunities: the world can help!
Alexander1068 2 days ago
This was NOT the kind of btr i was lookinng for. I was looking for Big Time Rush, the boy band!!!
TheKittengirl23 2 months ago
the russian military brass said that they donk like this APC, so they canceled its production. apparently they want something better, which they said will be unveiled in the second part of this decade. for one thing, BTR90 should have a provision for mounting an ERA, otherwise its a good '80-'90s mentality fighting vehicle.
tbilisicentralv2 2 months ago
@tbilisicentralv2 dumbass
with berezhok turret any apc is in same level
and is from 1994 no 80
same too many vehicle same vpk volk gaz tigr or new t-90ms
TATARSTAN59500 2 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 first of all, you are illiterate, where have i said it was made in 80s? i said this vehicle is of 80-90s mentality. and for your information, T90 is just an upgrade of T72. its not what u can call a "new" model. T64 was that new model, compared to T62, T90 is not. even so, T80 is a better platform for upgrade than T72, and i dont know why they chose backward and inferior T72 design for a "new" tank.
tbilisicentralv2 2 months ago
@tbilisicentralv2 and production begin only in 2004
TATARSTAN59500 2 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 thats even worse, by this time they should have came up with a new model for an APC, and they did a right thing for canceling the production of BTR90, and focusing on next generation.
tbilisicentralv2 2 months ago
chase is simply and rusty but berezhok turret is extremely powerful
and in range power engine and speed max is upeior than many apc or sout vehicle
only patria amv have simislar performance
for me btr 90 french vbci and patria amv is ther best
TATARSTAN59500 2 months ago
My dad was the tanker in 1979 stationed in hungary!
zeroin4 2 months ago
@Aaidas2 Bradleys have anti missile defense capabilities tho + it's design have no weak spots. shoot the BTR at the side and it's done for.
There's a reason why designs like the German Puma is on top of most expert's lists
tops1028 2 months ago
english subs would be awesome. thanks for the upload
kumquatsta 2 months ago
if i had my own army i'd have alot of these
navySEALteam5 2 months ago
thats not a btr-90
erer270 4 months ago
@erer270 yes it is
navySEALteam5 2 months ago
i need a picture of the different reticles,please !!!!!!!!!
masterww3ww3 7 months ago
Armor thickness does not have direct influence on protection, you know that. Overall, BMP-3 and BTR-80/82 lack sufficient protection. BTR-90 that supposed to replace BTR-80 series was cancelled. Now Russians are trying to develop something new: "Bumerang". Let's hope that it would have proper design close to the Western one. Ukrainians learned faster with their BTR-4 and heavy designs of BMPT-64s...
Alexander1068 7 months ago
Newer arms goes abroad, the broken ones goes to Glorious Russian army. :D
Long live Russia and Russian corruption ;P
R3dpotato 7 months ago
I'd rather take a Btr82A than a m113/ stryker any day and a Bmp3m over bradley any day as those vehicles are all around mech better and survived much more and worse conflicts than any of the american vehicles... And besides, bradley and stryker are handicapped by their own design...
Aaidas2 8 months ago
@Aaidas2 And what are these handicaps? Easy entrance/exit out of the vehicle in its tail? Instead of going to the sides under the wheels (BTR-80/82/82A) or jump over the engine (BMP-3)? Better protection instead of the thin armor of Russian APC/IFV? What are other?
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@Alexander1068 Bmp3 haves more armor than stryker or bradley... Stryker is one of the shittiest apcs ever, armor is paper thin, sides can be pierved by close range ak shots. Bradley also stores fuel in the vehicle center areas, so if it gets hit by a he round, it turns into a mobile microwawe and everyone inside burn, that's why us soldiers dont like to ride in them, m113 fixed the problem by storing it to left, right and back sides, aparently bradley designers didnt learn anything from vietnam
Aaidas2 7 months ago
@Aaidas2 All clear about Stryker and Bradley. Please check on BMP-3 and BTR-80/82. Same problems. Plus they have even thiner armor than the US vehicles. Check out their weight, size. Not that impressive comparing to Bradley and Stryker.
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@Alexander1068 It's a good thing that they weight less and are smaller you know. You can transport more of them, unlike the bradley which needs its turret to be taken off to fit in a c17 because of how stupidly high it is. Bradleys thickest places is front with 30mm, while Bmp3 is 35mm. Bmp3 haves a autoloader for its atgm, which is faster and doesnt need manual guidence, when bradley haves no autoloader, its tow is slow and needs manual guidance and can only fire 2 before needing to go outside.
Aaidas2 7 months ago 9
@Aaidas2
Not Just that, the BMP3 is still amphibious, Bradleys are forbidden to swim due to the unreliability of their manually installed floatation screen. The Bradley A2 and A3 are way heavier and can't even pretend to be amphibious.
Chinomareno 7 months ago
@Aaidas2 and bradley cant swim...lol
carlogwapo1234 4 months ago
@Aaidas2 you cant compare thise with the bradley..maybe with the stryker cause the bradley is more like a small good tank i know is a IFV
thebigbosspr1 1 month ago
@thebigbosspr1 for russia now equivalent of
stryker
its bmp-3m bmd-4m or new bmp-t
TATARSTAN59500 1 week ago
@Alexander1068 Not handicaps. Concept is different. IAV Stryker one tailgate = one escape side. BTR 2 sidegates = x2 chances. + engine at the tail = more time powered. Stryker afaik has front engine bay that imparts powerplant vulnerability + mobility loss. btw 100% direct front hits can't hit sidegate of BTR (longitudinal shadow) in case hit sector is shifted, other side gate is used. NTL i agree, departure takes training & balls. In BRDM you also can roll over engine.
PsychicPinguin 7 months ago
@PsychicPinguin Well, not exactly. Besides tailgate exit/entrance Stryker APC (M1126) has 4 hatches on top of the vehicle, 1 hatch on the left side and 1 driver hatch. Which gives plenty of opportunities to escape the vehicle if struck from the side of the main entrance, means rear. Please note: rear is basically safest side, unlike left and right APC sides. Mobility loss is nothing comparing to the additional protection of the crew.
Alexander1068 6 months ago
Red alert music in the background. XD
Terrorkarel 8 months ago
РОССИЯ СИЛА!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
220Kamil 8 months ago
@220Kamil Yes, Sir! Russia is power! However, BTR-90 is not bringing more power to your army: plans to produce it were scrapped. Rely on BTR-80, or it's new version BTR-82 to be produced this year. Thanks.
Alexander1068 8 months ago
What's the difference an APC and a BTR or are they both the same thing?
lolz649 8 months ago
@lolz649
BTR i think is RUSSIAN.. for APC. bronetransporty.. this Russian word literally means Armoured Carrier
technical010 8 months ago
4:17 "hell march" song :D
cerock1234 8 months ago
honestly these russians need to forget about the cold war, all i see on russian shows is " DA WE HAV BETTR TAN AMERICANS" the russians just cant let their loss go and now they put out propaganda shows like this... unbelievable.
hotpocketpoison 10 months ago
@hotpocketpoison agreed lol..but some Americans still hate commies
krazzed101 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison you know i agree with you , problem is the cold war was like saying " hey come at me bro" thats what it was like , kinda funny though , any ways people still cant forget what happen during the cold war
cammander263 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
The Russians have forgotten about the Cold War, but the USA hasn't. We have yet to reduce the size of our military. Its even bigger now than it was in 1990
rickcain2320 8 months ago
@rickcain2320
Budget means nothing. The US scrapped many of its heavy divisions, downsized the number of ground troops (that's why the NG had to be called up to shore up the holes in the Army in Iraq). Most of that budget is lost to corruption or vaporware that never materializes. Also you have to realize how American GIs are paid and how the consripts of other nations are paid (if they are even paid)
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
BATTLEFIELD 3
talibanking 10 months ago
this apc looks ugly
sasori231 11 months ago
well give it a few years and it'll be sold off to anyone who hates the west. Then'll itll get blown up like all the other eastern bloc equipment. Time and time again eastern bloc crap has been sent to the junkyard by western equipment. Its all in the training as im sure the israeli's during the 6 day war can justify.
FaUsT491 1 year ago
Да хуй с ним, с оружием, главное что коробка автомат=)
Cannabis47 1 year ago
01:11 IF if shoot a machine gun inside can you get your ears fucked by the noise?
corporacionmonstruo 1 year ago
I think that nobody has addresses the issue of how you defeat a people. I mean, the Iraqui army as certainly defeated, but it is impossible for the US to claim victory in Iraq.
It is the same in Avganistan, both the USSR and US defeated the "formal" army, but both suffer defeat.
nomayor1 1 year ago
Я бы добавил дверь сзади. Этих дверей сбоку явно недостаточно.
7Spectr 1 year ago 7
@7Spectr это одна из главных притензий ко всем русским бтр.
thirdromeprivate 1 year ago
@thirdromeprivate Да они, пока солдаты не погибнут, ничего не сделают. Ведь чем больше дверей, тем быстрее можно покинуть подбитую машину, тем быстрее можно загрузиться и выгрузиться. На поле боя задние двери предпочтительнее, чем боковые (хотя и они тоже нужны).
7Spectr 1 year ago
@7Spectr безусловно. боковые, кстати, в паре с броне-щитами, были бы хороши для уличных боев.
thirdromeprivate 1 year ago
@thirdromeprivate Это точно.
7Spectr 1 year ago
I only hope this vid was in english
NeutralNegotiator 1 year ago
@PRHusky He talks about how in different countries is called motorized troops
Araltan1 1 year ago
this is the MACHINE not the bradley or the LAV
PsyLiq 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
хорошая вещь, думаю, сюда еще добавить комплекс активной защиты Арена или Дрозд и ппюс динамическую защиту, ведь и для легкой брони уже разработали,
sss7773 1 year ago
Comment removed
sss7773 1 year ago
that be a btr 80
joblow6611 1 year ago
@joblow6611 blowjob ? me ? why thank you ! it's BTR-90, you can identify it by the BIG FUCKING TURRET GUN
Cnupoc 1 year ago
eee... tam rosomak je lepszy
miszar1 1 year ago
the armor of leopard 1 was pierced by btr 90´s machine gun..!?...cmon guys. i dont believe that.
digoutursoul1980 1 year ago
Comment removed
Zuzyandr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@digoutursoul1980 2:25
Zuzyandr 1 year ago
@digoutursoul1980
lucky shot and armor-piercing shells, may be.
38602 1 year ago
@digoutursoul1980
It's not a machine gun but an automatic canon. It fired repeatedly hence it pierced the side armor and merely cracked the front armor.
zx169 1 year ago
Hellmarch, nice.
kertaspaper94 1 year ago
it's this armored bullet proof doesn't seem to me?
sasori231 1 year ago
мне нравлятся БТРи больше чем страйкери
Urkainer 1 year ago
Red Alert Soundtrack 4:30 !
InRUSSIAweTRUST 1 year ago
Does this have Amphibious capabilities??
TheCORE87 1 year ago
@TheCORE87
Yea. I`ts fully Amphibious
leonheartleo 1 year ago
It wish this had subtitles...along with all russian videos..
CairnisReed 1 year ago
they want to sale this piece of soviet junk to feed hungry russisuky bitches !!!
tuerlesrusses 1 year ago
@tuerlesrusses Hay loser fuck you. Actually Soviet 80s tech about tanks and ground machines is better than today's US tech, considering that T-90, BMP-3, and BTR-90 were designed during the 80s and produced later.
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
Russians have best armor-piercing weapons, so it doesn't matter what other countries make. Pycckue HoMeP 1. (When it comes to weapons and KBAC)
shizensamurai 1 year ago
wher can i buy this car? :P
stykan 1 year ago
Haha, love the Red Alert music!
ProjectRealism 1 year ago
What's the vehicle at 1:26?
mbaladon 1 year ago
@mbaladon
Looks like a BTR 80.
bonham1981 1 year ago
The newest tank of Brazilian army is 37 years old. I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 1 year ago 2
Staker is shit a LAV-25 is better but the btr came first and is still better even the BTR-60
Starr8492DS 1 year ago
I guess my country should buy that,not the american crap.
mumbojumbozigzag 1 year ago 28
@mumbojumbozigzag of course your country should, the russian stuff is cheaper but better, and are more easy to mantain (like the ak-47); btw where are you from?
mio1352 1 year ago
@mio1352 that's true, especially nowadays, as opposed to the old days where the soviet union would dish out monkey model variants, so most of the time it was better to aquire the licence to build your own domestic version (if your country was capable of making an adequate one)
the only drawback is that the russians have a bit of a bad reputation when it comes to supplying their customers with spare parts.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@mumbojumbozigzag
LAV-25 isn't bad, but the Stryker is way too heavy, and only partially amphibious.
Sismiques 1 year ago
@mumbojumbozigzag Last time i checked the BTR-80's armour is like cardboard.
Yubera2K10 1 year ago
@Yubera2K10
It isn't cardboard, plenty thick to stop a 7.62x54.
Sismiques 1 year ago
@Sismiques But not enough to stop an RPG or AT-4.
Capt777harris 10 months ago
@Capt777harris
And what would you do to stop that?
Put heavy armour on that could restrict mobility, or use expensive active armour?
Sismiques 10 months ago
@Sismiques That's for us Yanks to know, and you Ruskies to find out. =]
Capt777harris 10 months ago
@Capt777harris
Don't assume too much.
Sismiques 10 months ago
@Sismiques Put an armored cage on vehicle like the Americans do with their Stryker APCs. It would detonate most light AT weapons before it hits the armor, and wouldn't be that expensive. To try to protect such a vehicle against more advanced ATGMs (Kornet, Javelin, and larger vehicle mounted ATGMs) would be a waste of money.
catherinewayneisajew 10 months ago
@mumbojumbozigzag Sorry, the project (BTR-90) is abandoned. Russian Army decided that it is wrong design. Now Russians are embarked on a new endeavor BTR called "Gilza". Better buy from what is available: "american crap" (Stryker), European "crap" (Patria, Piranha), or Ukrainian "crap" (BTR-3 or BTR-4) if you have limited budget. All these "crap" can protect your country already now. Russian APCs would be able to defend you in a quite a few years.
Alexander1068 8 months ago
@mumbojumbozigzag depends what the exact requirements and budget your countries military has. BTRs and BMPs are available and well armed. M113s are cost effective and adaptible Most countries would have a hard time getting a hold of state of the art equipment such as Bradleys, BTR 90s and Strykers. Do not assume America produces poor quality equipment because of any childish hatred you have towards them.
thenoobfactor 5 months ago
@thenoobfactor I'm sorry, but putting BTR-90 in the list next to Stryker and Bradley is not correct. BTR-90 was in development since 1992. Only some 30 produced. Not accepted in service by Russian Ministry of Defence. On its request Russian industry started to design new APC called project "Gilza". Military were not satisfied. Abandoned. Now, Russians develop yet another project called "Boomerang". But, better Russians buy Ukrainian BTR-4: would be cheaper; western layout; in production.
Alexander1068 5 months ago
@Alexander1068 Why dont russians just work on modernizing their 1960s and 70s era equipment instead of pouring money into such stupid projects. Only 15% of the Russian military is modernized. Why throw money into a bottomless pit to prepare for a war they will never fight?
thenoobfactor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thenoobfactor Well, to some extent you're right: it's better to modernize old equipment, instead of producing new. That's what they're doing with APCs: according to Russian Ministry of Defence, some 230 BTR-82 woud be produced in 2011. Half of them believed to be BTR-80 upgraded to BTR-82 level. In short, some of the equipment can be and being modernized. However, some things like BTR-80/90 has outdated design with engine in the back. There should be new APC with Western layout.
Alexander1068 5 months ago
@thenoobfactor they are fighting a war right now and have been since the 90s in Chechnya
navySEALteam5 2 months ago
@navySEALteam5 And that is not a conventional war in which these new "wonderweapons" are of any use. The Russians still seem to think that the next war will be a mechinized battle with the Americans in the Fulda gap.
thenoobfactor 2 months ago
@thenoobfactor yes and also they can sell these or use them as troop transports
navySEALteam5 2 months ago
@thenoobfactor Well and the next war, which was in 2008 was exactly that. You need to transport troops one way or another, everything in warfare is important. Don't you think that Russians, with their encyclopedic knowledge of war with allmost about any type of enemy for the past 1000 years would know what's good and what's not?
They don't think about Americans only you see, they have plenty of countries around them to worry about as well.
allidsarebusy 2 months ago
@allidsarebusy And they have perfectly functional APCs already if only they would modernize and maintain them.
thenoobfactor 2 months ago
the variant of the stryker with a 105mm cannon is king of apcs
MegaHungrybear 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear
the piece of crap that can be taken out with a rpg7?
lulz...
natsplit 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear
Dude, the stryker protects agains small arms fire only, you cant even compare these .
The stryker may be good enough when killing civilians in Iraq, or insurgents who use 50 year old weapons, but in a real war it is useless ...
Proceed999 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear why? Why not btr witr anti-tank rocket or BTR with 100+30мм cannon?
Goldrag 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear
The Stryker's chassis is crap. The protection is incomplete, the whole area behind the tires is unprotected and when one goes flat the suspension is struggling, making cross country operation impossible. Just look at some statistics, it's just a road vehicle. The SLAT armor is one attempt to make things a little better.
bonham1981 1 year ago
@bonham1981 Both trucks are crap. They are lack proper protection against modern ATs. At least Stryker has doors at rear to increase protection of troops.
zipacna1980 1 year ago
@zipacna1980 Uh as a former stryker driver for the us army. I can tell you first hand that the stryker is yet another betrayal by out government. The vehicle is junk and does not provide the armor protection that it claims to. Numerouse people have died in stryker explosions.
MrAnarchist99 1 year ago
@MrAnarchist99 1st. Thank you for serving. 2nd. What you say is absolutely true! It doesn't even get the job done- It is easily stuck in mud and cannot exceed the speed of 35 mph to avoid losing it's wheels!
blackshark1984 1 year ago
@MrAnarchist99 I am glad you're a "former" drive of the Stryker. The US army is not doing his duty defending the homeland, it's serving privates and grabbing oil and resources around the world...
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
i guess the use of subtitles is out of the question
Conservativepacheat 1 year ago 9
Being an American, I've always respected the Soviet and Russian infantry fighting vehicles. In fact, I think that - within their respective operational envelopes - Russian IFVs are far more effective in their element than Russian MBTs are in theirs.
Treetop64 1 year ago 2
Very nice vehicle. I wonder if they ironed out the survivability issues because I still see Russian soldiers riding on top of their vehicles during the Georgian war.
ComeAndSeevX 1 year ago
Слава Великой Православной Святой Руси. Слава Упячке и Онотолею Вассерману.
Tralivali89 1 year ago
Great video, I like most of Russias military equipment :D
I also like the Red Alert music they're playing on the background
CommandoFin 1 year ago
Броня лёгкая - максимальная её масса около 3 тонн!
romwwa 1 year ago
@romwwa от бтр-90 отказались
andreyRUS17 1 year ago
На западе тепловизеры у пихоты,а наши ещё думают ставить на бэтр или подождать.Кстати Китайцы молодцы обскакали Россию во всём,кроме (яд) оружия.Интересно если они перебросят свои войска в сибирь.Будет Россия бомбить своих (яд) оружием?
tartuga2009 2 years ago
на хуй надо
мы на украину рванем в бега
оккупируем ее и там поселимся
kukkia 1 year ago
Нет, в этом случае на месте Китая будет ядерная воронка, а в Сибири китайцы сами передохнут от холода и партизан.
r0mushka 1 year ago
Comment removed
tropickman 2 years ago
The BMP carries heavier armor and armarment thatn the BTR's,but the BTR's carry more troops and are faster.Both are excellent infantry combat vehicles.
fixdeluxe1 2 years ago 2
Didn't understand it, but loved the video!
PorscheTech911 2 years ago 2
@PorscheTech911 I understand there talking about what that things can so simple ^^ but russian i did no knew it!?!? xD
JonnyBgr 2 years ago
omg they played hell march
RFXCGZZ 2 years ago
"Возможно что появится тепловизор" По моему сейчас тепловизор должен быть на любом виде бронитехники и не только он один
Oleginkot 2 years ago 21
военный интернет-эксперт здесь, слушайте его, генералы и конструкторы! :)
Scoutrussp7 2 years ago 2
@Oleginkot
дык это выпуск от 01.02.2004 и хрен его знает когда озвучивалось)
А так да, у нас до сих пор на штурмовых вертолетах нету прибора ночного видения, когда у буржуев он есть у каждого рядового)
lolshtoo 2 years ago
I just have one question: What's the difference between using a BTR-90 over a BMD-3? Or simply a BTR or BMD in general
Solamentuno 2 years ago
BTR,BMD are different classes.
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
I understand that yes, but why use one or the other for a situation? Or both? To me, the BTR seems like a light attack armored carrier designed for all terrain. As for the BMD, it is a lot heavier and slower, and also is all-terrain. But what I feel is this: why have a BMD and a BTR when you could integrate units comprising BTR's and Type 90's (correct me on the tank type, I forgot the Russian standard).
Solamentuno 2 years ago
ask another man,my english is not very well and i don't know a lot about russian military.
you can ask Rur0uni86 user.i always take the information from him
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
you can find him in this video:
На смену БМП приходит БМПТ гроза
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
maybe in this video about БМПТ you can find necessary information,because BMPT looks like mix BTR and BMP,
it's my opinion
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
Definitely not a mix of those two, and it's purpose is not infantry support, but TANK support. I do not know the full title of that vehicle in russian, but BMPT is short for (translated in enlgish off course) "fighting vehicle for tank assistance/support" and it is meant to cover russian tanks in urban surroundings. It only has the crew of 5 and no infantry carrying capacity.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
main difference between bmd and btr - bmd is airdropable with crew inside, btr is not airdropable at all (as I know).
originalreal 2 years ago
The BTR should be airdroppable considering that it weighs less than a BMD ( at least it looks like it). Doesn't the BTR also come with hooks for carrying?
Solamentuno 2 years ago
there's more to airdropping than just weight. you have to factor in size and stress platform (the thing the vehicle is attached to). certain things can be dropped easily (like light guns) but vehicles are really hard to design for. the BTR is prob far too long. also you want to drop a IFV that can pack a punch- to provide basic fire support (AA/AT) for your paratroops
garythegit 2 years ago
no matter how good xcountry performance a 8x8 vehicle has, it will still be unable to match a tracked vehicle. period. depends on the terrain that the unit is meant for. if you want rapid response then BTRs can take advantage of road networks. but if you want difficult terrain then something like the BMD would be better. also they are different weight classes. the question is like comparing the M3 bradley with the stryker
garythegit 2 years ago
That makes sense.
Solamentuno 2 years ago
btr is just armored truck with mashingun. its made for transport infantry to battlefield. bmp and bmd designed for transport and fighting with infantry and tanks on battlefield. all they can swim, but only bmd can be airdropped.
weights:
bmp1=12,6t
bmp2=14t
bmd1=7,6t
bmd2=8t
btr70=11,5t
btr80=13,6t
btr90=22(!)t
use wiki and all will be clear=)
originalreal 2 years ago
First you have to make a difference between mechanized and motorized infantry in russian army.
Mechanized infantry is meant to provide cover and assistance for tanks, so transport vehicles for these troops need to have the same off road capability of tanks and be able to provide cover for tanks and their cargo.
That's were BMP-1/2/3 (BMD is used by paratroopers) come in (they are IFVs - infantry fighting vehicles).
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
which difference? Mechanized is the term for U.S. forces and motorized for Russian forces, the difference is just the name.
BTR-personal carrier
BMD-fighting vehicle
both for motorized forces
thats all.
youshouldntknow 2 years ago
For motorized infantry BTR vehicles are used (APC - armoured personel carriers). They are faster and can carry more troops than, but their off road capabilities are limited they are meant to provide cover for infantry in urban and urbanized/rural areas with some road networks.
As for BTR-90, it is a heavy APC (about the same as BMP-3), able to provide better protection and "punch" for it's accompanying squad.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago 2
BMD (boyevaya machina desanta - deployable fighting vehicle) vehicles are smaller infantry fighting vehicles designed for paratrooper (VDV) units (Vazdushno-desantnaya voyska - air deployable/airborne army).
They are lighter and smaller than BMP vehicles (I have a picture of VDV BMD-2 beside a Bradley in Bosnia, you have to see it to be able to percieve the size of it - I just have to find it LOL) that can be dropped from a plane with the crew inside.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
Besides BMDs, VDV has other vehicle on their disposal, like the APC version of BMD (lacks the turret, so it can carry twice the number of troops, forgot the name of it), Sprut-SD light tank and self-propeled mortar Nona-S.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
BMD is designed to be dropped with a parachute (yes very heavy but still deployable in Russian airforce), it is used as a paratrooper transport.
In infantry divisions they are used for recon.
BTR are used as APC for infantry, and also for special police units and border guards.
MrRein1988 2 years ago
Da eto S U P E R !!! No ? ? ? Polu4et Russkaja Armija ih ??? i w kakom koli4estwe ??? ili opjat prodadut ??? Kak wi dumaete ???
MrLGpaul 2 years ago
обещают,что будут закупать,а в каком кол-ве хрен его знает
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
This weapon btr90 struck at through tank armor leopard.
Biogem369 2 years ago 6
@Biogem369 what? doesnt make sense
Xiia0Sn00pY 1 year ago
@Xiia0Sn00pY what exactly?
Biogem369 1 year ago
generaldeejee, do you really think that Russian/Soviet constructors missed this moment? LOL! This full-rubber wheels are made of special high-strength material.
pvtSimberg 2 years ago 9
@pvtSimberg
They are not full rubber, they are combat endurable, why else would it have a tire pressure control system?
bonham1981 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just shoot the tires and it will stop driving.
generaldeejee 2 years ago
The BTR-90 can continue movement even at all lowered wheels.
Goldrag 2 years ago 3
Колеса из монолитного куска резины. по ним можно из крупно калиберного пулемёта в упор стрелять и всё равно БТР не остановишь. Его проще целиком уничтожить чем колёса сломать))
oberguga 2 years ago 33
Спасибо Я не
generaldeejee 2 years ago
Tyres are bullet-proof. See this video translated in my video list.
BitnikGr 2 years ago
Okay thanks a lot I now finally can understand this vid :)
generaldeejee 2 years ago
:D you need grenade for those tires and they are so many that even if you shot 2 -3 nothing gonna happen still gonna full with good speed ...
sfs706868 2 years ago
just plug a javelin into it the end
poonjoo 2 years ago
it just a russian hummer
it is with protection like shtora or arena
vaninec 2 years ago
keep in mind you can get 10 of those btr 90 for the the price of a single javelin
natsplit 2 years ago 46
Keep in mind that USA has as much money as China decides to lend it!
tropickman 2 years ago
@natsplit serious? thats insane
Rangerfull3 1 year ago
@natsplit and thats why russian army will win a war...because they can produce so much tanks for their money that you won´t be able to destroy these tanks....
blonderzigeuner1 1 year ago
@blonderzigeuner1 Modern warfare doctrines don't work like that
panzerfaust777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@natsplit
"keep in mind you can get 10 of those btr 90 for the the price of a single javelin"
Of course you are joking, Javelin cost is 40k a missile and 125k for the command unit. Now if a BTR 90 was 17k, I would consider it as a replacement for my SUV with real off-road capability.
bonham1981 1 year ago
@natsplit ...but which one would you rather have? 10 btr 90's or a javelin?
DsBt256 1 year ago