...standard armoured troop carrier. ...and it has no gun-ports...too susceptible to ground/rocket-fire...it's horizon signature is just far too presentable!
Hate to argue, but MT-LB was intended as a armoured tractor to tow artillery pieces and things like that. For this reason it was armoured only for splinters and sutch. MT-LBU IIRC is a variant with higher roof and is commonly used as a command vehicle. Regular model is actualy very low compared to many vehicles. -LBV variant on the other hand is reputed to be realy good offroad vehicle only rivaled by BV-206 and similar vehicles.
Зачем с БМП сравнивать, это тягач(т. е. инженрных войск), сам работаю на испытательном полигоне, у нас скоро и того не будет. Спасибо отдельное Путину и Медведеву!
сам ты из аллюминия.........я служил,был мех водом мт-лб............Корпус МТ-ЛБ сварен из стальных плит небольшой толщины, обеспечивающих защиту от огня легкого стрелкового оружия. …
A "tank" is a tracked, armoured vehicle with offensive/defensive capability, this vehicle is tracked, it is armoured and it has a cannon, so really it qualifies to be called a tank, while not in the traditional look or capability, but by definition there is nothing that says this vehicle cant be called a tank.
tank implies armor designed to resist small-caliber artillery fire (30mm at least)...an MTLBU only has UP TO 1/2in of armor, as opposed to at least a T-55s 8in max, or a leopard's 30-40in.
It doesn't normally have a cannon. It's a tracked chassis. And its treads are far too narrow to be traditional tank treads--compare them with a T-55s treads
Also--the MTLBu has a 300hp truck engine, probably around 11,000CC. A T-55s engine is 49,000CC, a leo's is 30,000cc.
@vtkrey requirements set by military doctrine schools of thought. Look up soviet, american, german, or any other school of armored doctrine.
MT-LBu armor: 3-10mm (under 1/2in)
T-72 armor: ~350mm (over 1 foot)
That is a distinct difference. Also the steering is different on tanks and apcs. Tanks used a distinct geared steering system. AFVs usually just clutch and brake a track. The steering is different as well
By you requirements, a bren gun carrier (which is as big as my honda) is a tank.
I know there is a huge difference! you just dont understand the only reason we call these vehicles tanks is because the Brits decided so and their Mark Ones werent called "tanks" because they passed this certain criteria. If the Brits decided to call them tin cans then I guess we'd be calling them tin cans! not because of their awesome modern design, technology or capability or basing on any requirements evaluation, but because of what happened nearly a 100 years ago.
@vtkrey - I have to agree with InlineFury on this. I hate when people call BTR-80's "tanks", and so on. I hear people to call BMP-2/3's "tanks" the most though. I understand your meaning here behind the technical definition of word "tank" ...but these things do have classification. :)
@bittemeinrammstein by their definition, a uni. carrier could be considered a tank. Tracks, armor, and firepower doesn't mean a tank. For instance most misc. tracked vehicles like apcs until recently used clutch-brake steering, even though tanks used geared or hydraulic steering. And apc armor is FAR thinner than tank armor.
But in defense, the company who posted this has commented in other vids they are APCs (this vid I think uses the classification to get traffic).
Не понял а где танк вижу моталыгу длинную МЕХВОД МТЛБ после ремонта разгоняли до 85км\ч но фрикционов она уже не слушалась хорошая крепкая машина на широких гусках цены нет
For the same reason the howitzer 2S1 Gvozdika doesn't look anything like MT-LB, even though it too has been build from MT-LB. The shell has been altered. Its MT-LB in the core.
there is no such thing as a "core" here. The hull is different, the turret, the engine, the gun, and the suspension is different. The only similarities are the road wheels and tracks. Even the role is different. It's poor naming convention. Why not call it a BTR-60T...since it has the windows of a BTR-60?
This is not our armored monstrosity. MTLB was twice low, shorter, pretty little artillery carrier and APC. That you have do with him, we told you not to feed him after midnight? Or we forget...
This is one of modification of russian military transporter "MT-LB" (mnogofunktionalniy tyagatch legkobronirovanniy) translate multifunctional light-armoured transporter.
...standard armoured troop carrier. ...and it has no gun-ports...too susceptible to ground/rocket-fire...it's horizon signature is just far too presentable!
SittingMooseShaman 1 month ago
@SittingMooseShaman
Hate to argue, but MT-LB was intended as a armoured tractor to tow artillery pieces and things like that. For this reason it was armoured only for splinters and sutch. MT-LBU IIRC is a variant with higher roof and is commonly used as a command vehicle. Regular model is actualy very low compared to many vehicles. -LBV variant on the other hand is reputed to be realy good offroad vehicle only rivaled by BV-206 and similar vehicles.
sjumppanen 1 month ago
@sjumppanen ...good 'nuff for me...now I know!
SittingMooseShaman 1 month ago
extreme off road ??????????????
fightingfalkon 2 months ago
Зачем с БМП сравнивать, это тягач(т. е. инженрных войск), сам работаю на испытательном полигоне, у нас скоро и того не будет. Спасибо отдельное Путину и Медведеву!
sau0483 2 months ago
Да только у бмп 3 корпус из сплавов а мтлб и бмп 1.2 чисто метал
dNk223 5 months ago
БМП круче
dNk223 5 months ago
7 kol?
hustenovjak 6 months ago
7 kol?
hustenovjak 6 months ago
get it in the water!!!!!!
bigbillysbeard 7 months ago
You can hear the tracks from miles away...
peterhawkfan 8 months ago
Music sucks
Zubrus555 8 months ago
МАШИНА ОТЛИЧНАЯ. ОДИН НЕДОСТАТОК ТЯЖЕЛАЯ. ДАЖЕ НА ШИРОКИХ ГУСЕНИЦАХ ТОНЕТ НА БОЛОТАХ. НО РАБОТАТЬ МОЖНО. ПОВЕРЬТЕ САМ РАБОТАЮ.
lozechka89 8 months ago
МАШИНА ОТЛИЧНАЯ. ОДИН НЕДОСТАТОК ТЯЖЕЛАЯ. ДАЖЕ НА ШИРОККИХ ГУСЯНКАХ ТОНЕТ НА БОЛОТАХ. НО РАБОТАТЬ МОЖНО. ПОВЕРТЕ САМ РАБОТАЮ.
lozechka89 8 months ago
Original MT-LB does not have weapon. It's modernizied one. As far as I understand it's modernized in Hungary.
MrProstokepka 11 months ago
сам ты из аллюминия.........я служил,был мех водом мт-лб............Корпус МТ-ЛБ сварен из стальных плит небольшой толщины, обеспечивающих защиту от огня легкого стрелкового оружия. …
MrNightmatrix 1 year ago
hell yeah for c&c music
cenkaetaya1 1 year ago
haha red alert music :D
XJXslamXHX 1 year ago
@XJXslamXHX No, Tiberian Dawn, Act on Instinct. Get your game music right.
ArsenalSPT 1 year ago
@ArsenalSPT does it really matter? it all C&C
XJXslamXHX 11 months ago
@ArsenalSPT does it really matter? its all C&C
XJXslamXHX 11 months ago
Многоцелевой тягач легкий бронированный. Умеет плавать. Корпус алюминиевый.
Ivan0fff 1 year ago
@Ivan0fff ахаха)) +1
Skyarkhangel 1 year ago
Корпус у него вполне стальной, это БМП и БМД частично или полностью алюминиевые
Vladirkutsk 1 year ago
Thats not a tanks its an APC i wish people would get it right.
InlineFury 1 year ago
@InlineFury
A "tank" is a tracked, armoured vehicle with offensive/defensive capability, this vehicle is tracked, it is armoured and it has a cannon, so really it qualifies to be called a tank, while not in the traditional look or capability, but by definition there is nothing that says this vehicle cant be called a tank.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey
tank implies armor designed to resist small-caliber artillery fire (30mm at least)...an MTLBU only has UP TO 1/2in of armor, as opposed to at least a T-55s 8in max, or a leopard's 30-40in.
It doesn't normally have a cannon. It's a tracked chassis. And its treads are far too narrow to be traditional tank treads--compare them with a T-55s treads
Also--the MTLBu has a 300hp truck engine, probably around 11,000CC. A T-55s engine is 49,000CC, a leo's is 30,000cc.
redreaper2020 1 year ago
@redreaper2020
"tank implies armor designed to resist small-caliber artillery fire (30mm at least)"
And who set those requirements?
PS. obviously you didnt understand my intent.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey requirements set by military doctrine schools of thought. Look up soviet, american, german, or any other school of armored doctrine.
MT-LBu armor: 3-10mm (under 1/2in)
T-72 armor: ~350mm (over 1 foot)
That is a distinct difference. Also the steering is different on tanks and apcs. Tanks used a distinct geared steering system. AFVs usually just clutch and brake a track. The steering is different as well
By you requirements, a bren gun carrier (which is as big as my honda) is a tank.
redreaper2020 1 year ago
@redreaper2020
I know there is a huge difference! you just dont understand the only reason we call these vehicles tanks is because the Brits decided so and their Mark Ones werent called "tanks" because they passed this certain criteria. If the Brits decided to call them tin cans then I guess we'd be calling them tin cans! not because of their awesome modern design, technology or capability or basing on any requirements evaluation, but because of what happened nearly a 100 years ago.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey - I have to agree with InlineFury on this. I hate when people call BTR-80's "tanks", and so on. I hear people to call BMP-2/3's "tanks" the most though. I understand your meaning here behind the technical definition of word "tank" ...but these things do have classification. :)
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein
I agree on BTR's being wheeled, but BMPs...
vtkrey 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein by their definition, a uni. carrier could be considered a tank. Tracks, armor, and firepower doesn't mean a tank. For instance most misc. tracked vehicles like apcs until recently used clutch-brake steering, even though tanks used geared or hydraulic steering. And apc armor is FAR thinner than tank armor.
But in defense, the company who posted this has commented in other vids they are APCs (this vid I think uses the classification to get traffic).
Love ur bids btw :)
redreaper2020 1 year ago
were is the extreme
elveezultra 1 year ago
@rwbrdms1
C&C: Tiberian Dawn - Act on Instinct (music)
gnias4knachr 1 year ago
:)):)):)) =)) this its extreme ???
MsBumerang1 1 year ago
what the fucking extreme is that>?
MATUXAZ 1 year ago
This uses the engine from Kraz-255B truck,which i happen to own.
Henzzman 1 year ago
Не понял а где танк вижу моталыгу длинную МЕХВОД МТЛБ после ремонта разгоняли до 85км\ч но фрикционов она уже не слушалась хорошая крепкая машина на широких гусках цены нет
PLRtx 1 year ago
what is the theme music?? it sounds so familiar!!!!
rwbrdms1 1 year ago 2
"U" version = 7 road wheels in track :)
peterbilt281 1 year ago
now that would be sad if u missed that target
TheMasterNeko 2 years ago
@TheMasterNeko u'd fire again O_O
DrHavoc1 1 year ago
easy target
Goldrag 2 years ago
Lehetne extrémebb.
Esetleg valami válság off-road ez?
91feco 2 years ago
LOL! This is sh1t! But music from Star Wars in the end of movie is very NICE! xD
ZEROfromVSI 2 years ago
MTLBU-U is a very good vehicle... what are you talking about "Shit"?
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
were is the extreme ?? XD
DerPanzerFahrer1 2 years ago 29
lolz!
vitali1985 2 years ago
Englisch please = )
DerPanzerFahrer1 2 years ago
@DerPanzerFahrer1 IT GOES 43 MILES AN HOUR!!! That is extreme!
Dannyb338 6 months ago
how is it the mtlb-u looks nothing like the mt-lb?
jbgandhi2 2 years ago
For the same reason the howitzer 2S1 Gvozdika doesn't look anything like MT-LB, even though it too has been build from MT-LB. The shell has been altered. Its MT-LB in the core.
Kovahevinallekarhu 2 years ago
there is no such thing as a "core" here. The hull is different, the turret, the engine, the gun, and the suspension is different. The only similarities are the road wheels and tracks. Even the role is different. It's poor naming convention. Why not call it a BTR-60T...since it has the windows of a BTR-60?
jbgandhi2 2 years ago
Because, it started its life as a MT-LB. I grant that, it has been redesigned mostly, but similarities still remain.
Kovahevinallekarhu 2 years ago
0:28 lol Red Alert 4
patrikasLTL 2 years ago
Yes, soviet.
y3623951 2 years ago
This is not tank. This is multiporpuse light armored truck. It is used as transporter for personnel, cargo and as artillery truck.
It's armament is for defence only.
UWKS911 2 years ago
Я в курсе. В кантемировке служил.
y3623951 2 years ago
Отлично! я народу заморскому объясняю, а то тут везде все пишут танк, да танк.
UWKS911 2 years ago
Is that Soviet tank?
nguyenkhan202 2 years ago
OMG what a junkk ,,
endendendend1 2 years ago
на него ЗУ шки круто стваить
kalashishe 2 years ago
да уж в такого монстра попробуй не попади...
chronos20121987 2 years ago
Ну и ящик
RIO1987RUSgosu 2 years ago
Да это вообще первоначально тягач был
Camyrai 2 years ago
Почему "был"? Это и есть тягач - Многоцелевой Тягач Легкого Боронирования (МТ-ЛБ).. Ребята по бедности на него башню поставили.
PoorSong 2 years ago
das schaft mein Passat auch^^
LegendHunter91 2 years ago
Maaannnn!!!! that was some extreme off roading
blueberrywine69 2 years ago
there is a massive length of flat armour above the track and below the angled armour top armour which is a pretty big liability.
grannman 3 years ago
Russians are so cool, nice music. love it D:
omgmahrox93 3 years ago
This is not our armored monstrosity. MTLB was twice low, shorter, pretty little artillery carrier and APC. That you have do with him, we told you not to feed him after midnight? Or we forget...
ComRedOne 2 years ago
Yes, the MT-LB was much lower, but this is the MT-LBu.
This individual vehicle also seems to have upgraded armament, but that is the only major difference to the real MT-LBu.
SAsgarters 2 years ago
забавная вещица, но старовата уже, и не так надежна
Nrrrrrrrrrr 3 years ago
/watch?v=yDyxLoBNatc&NR=1
Buffik2000 3 years ago
На таких сейчас геологи в Сибири ездят!
Buffik2000 3 years ago
Так он и есть многофункциональный. И нефтяники и геологи используют.
fromeastsoul 3 years ago 10
This is one of modification of russian military transporter "MT-LB" (mnogofunktionalniy tyagatch legkobronirovanniy) translate multifunctional light-armoured transporter.
fromeastsoul 3 years ago
Сейчас на таких ездят геологи в Сибири:
/watch?v=r3iKorRFK58
/watch?v=drq5IpPQETU&feature=related
/watch?v=NPX8QCuTiVE&feature=related
Buffik2000 3 years ago
Can you magnetize a entire tank with
magnetic power magnetic charged from the
wheels to the engine parts.Tanks put in a
High powered magnetic chamber to produce
metal parts with magnetic quick charged
magnetic steel. computer controls the power
of the force and what parts are more
magnetically used.
humexavier 3 years ago
Lawl command and conquer
emoklan 3 years ago
Heh, and as far as i'm aware the MT-LB was one of the smaller (in both engine and size) Soviet APC's ;]
shinra18 3 years ago
nise musik;))))
aflads 3 years ago 3
lol looks like russian BTR just without the weels lol
kerier1911 3 years ago
it looks cool do they sell these in the u.s i want one for personal trips
kjwdis 3 years ago 3
Wouldn't be able to afford with US gasoline and diesel prices...
RussPatriot1 3 years ago
i wouldnt pay for gas if i had that thing...hell you would be stupid to look at me wrong if i was on the road in that thing
kjwdis 3 years ago
yep. It's a beast.
RussPatriot1 3 years ago
wtf. US is like one of the cheapest countrys to buy gasoline :E
Gekkouu 3 years ago
no, not cheap at all.
RussPatriot1 3 years ago
Yes. Cheap as chips.
H31MU7 3 years ago
;))))))))
aflads 3 years ago
Come try the UK nearly $2.50 per litre!
jamesdfrench001 3 years ago
???
aflads 3 years ago
that thing is a fuckin monster :o
rhino145 3 years ago
HOLY SHIT!!!!!
Dane5525 4 years ago 3
CHECK OWT TATRA TRUCK TRIALS
flaskogoon69 4 years ago
where is extreme
off road here?
janezick 4 years ago
i think this is a btr 80 with tracks. and the turret is at rear.
alamaniac 4 years ago
it might be some wierd design from on of the eastern european countries as its difinetly not a MTLB other then the tracks possibly
simplyalif 4 years ago
geile maschine...würd ich gern wiedermal fahren
Panzerfahrer1988 4 years ago
soviet design - ectremly reliable
JohnSilverOO7 4 years ago 5