In some aspects the Ukrainian vehicle is definitely better than those from Canada and China, because it carries an anti-tank missile. Actually, even though the Ukrainian APC claims to be "totally new", it shows all the signs of being a development of the Soviet APC, but the Soviet BTRs were absolutely incomparable with anything else in the world - the Soviets were always the best in this field - but the Ukrainian machine is okay.
However, if it were my decision, I would rather buy the Russian BTR-90 because it's faster and can carry nine troops instead of six, which is the greatest advantage in my opinion. Besides, the BTR-90 has an 800km range on roads, while the Ukrainian machine only has a range of 600km. That's a big difference, I would say - 200km under combat conditions is really a lot.
In addition, I believe that the Russian-made armour is much better than the Ukrainian. But when it comes to usability, since Thailand is not going to fight a real war anyway, it doesn't matter what they actually buy. Moreover, it's a waste of money because any APC made in any country would be destroyed by a single RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a couple of shots from any 20mm, or 30mm rapid-firing cannon mounted on a helicopter or jet-fighter, or by a single anti-tank mine.
It could also be destroyed by a single Molotov cocktail - so it's vulnerable to opponents that can't afford anti-tank grenades, but can afford a bottle. So, the combat effectiveness of these vehicles is doubtful in any case.
During combat missions by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, soldiers always sat on top of BTRs [bronyetransporter, or armoured transporter] and BMPs [boyevaya mashina pyekhota, or infantry fighting vehicle] while on the road, because it increased their survivability. If an RPG hits it, or it runs over an anti-tank mine, the soldiers inside will be killed - with 0% chance that any will survive.
But when they are on top of the vehicle, they could only be killed by a sniper's bullet or by a machine-gun, and in this case they will not all be killed at once - those who are not killed will have a chance to take cover. That is to say that while these vehicles were initially designed to provide armoured cover for troops while on the road, this feature is not used in practice.
The conclusion is that the soldiers would feel much more comfortable, and would travel much faster, with less fuel consumption, on non-armoured vehicles. But because countries such as Switzerland, Thailand and Singapore have never fought a modern war, they still believe in the value of APCs, despite the fact that the concept behind them is flawed. The use of these vehicles by the Soviet army was partly justified by the fact that the Soviets were prepared to fight a nuclear war, in which tanks and APCs can provide a lot of protection to troops against an atomic blast, but even in this case their value was doubtful. But to use them in non-nuclear wars, where an enemy is armed with RPGs and similar weaponry, is just ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment