The BTR-80/82 armored personnel carrier and the Vystrel armored vehicle continues to be successfully used by the Syrian Arab Army.
Photo: twitter.com / MathieuMorant
The Syrian Arab Army continues to successfully use the BTR-80/82 and the Vystrel armored vehicle, supplied by Russia. There are no data of its loss, the Vestnik Mordovii newspaper reported.
When photos of this military hardware for the first time appeared online, some skeptical military experts predicted that soon it will be lost because terrorists have too many anti-tank weapons, author of the article, Roman Katkov, noted.
Photo: twitter.com / MathieuMorant
However, according to Katkov, the BTR-80 armored personnel carrier are used in Syria for the third year, while the BTR-82 and the Vystrel – about one year, and there is no information about its losses.
Photo: twitter.com / MathieuMorant
“According to our data, Syrians, who used the old Soviet BTR-60 and the Czechoslovak OT-64 and BRDM-2, highly appreciate fighting qualities of the Russian light armored vehicles. The vehicles, supplied by Russia, are reliable, unpretentious in exploitation, and easy to learn. The BTR-82 has a high for its class 30 mm cannon, which is capable to hit enemy manpower at a distance of 4 km, and enemy armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles – at a distance up to 2 km,” Katkov pointed out.
Photo: twitter.com / MathieuMorant
There is only one minus – Syrian troops have very few number of this military hardware. There are more than 3 dozen of the BTR-80 in Syria, but the Syrian Army has a significantly fewer number of the Vystrel.
What if the enemy manpower is more than 4 kms away? Why is it not capable of hitting them?
Actually they can probably accurately range much less then that, but needless to say 4k (effective) is pretty far out and operating light armor in the open terrain with such range is unwise. It is on par with most fielded equipment in terms of effective range, for example M2s effective range is only 3k. It mainly comes down to the fire control system behind the weapon system in determining how much of that range is truly usable, also how quickly a turret can traverse is important factor when having to deal with either high speed or multiple targets.
In addition to what Reallyseriousnews said, you realise this is a direct-fire weapon? How often do you think anyone gets to engage targets at even 4km with direct-fire weapons? That requires an unobstructed line of sight. Fights only rarely happen in such flat, open spaces, free of vegetation and undulation of ground. And against infantry, who are smaller and harder to detect than vehicles? A slight depression or fold in the ground is enough to render an infantry team invisible and unhittable by such a weapon. 4km is quite sufficient.
An obveis type of vehicle for infantery fight. Difficult to hit because it can move fast everywhere and dont use as much petrol as a tank and are cheaper to produce as well.
Look at the socalled “Tiger succes” in Aleppo. Rbel-Nusras are still there because of something else than heavy shekking by tanks, artillery and unprecise airstrikes.
If they are really that good they should be sent in Aleppo, there are most needed know. There was a video of Syrian solders trying to get to the Ramuse artilery colege on foot! And guess what, they were all killed! Why are they having this armored vehicles if they are keeping them by side instead taking use of them when they are most needed?!
They do not have adequate numbers of these to be throwing them into a confined environment. They become easy targets when they are brought into city and opposing forces have a ready supply of atgms which light armor can not stop. These are more useful as either outter cordon or troop transport short of objective. The greatest threat to armor is actually the infantryman on the ground.
If they are defenceless against ATGMs then this “RUSSIAN BTR-80/82 & VYSTREL ARMORED VEHICLE CONFIRMED ITS HIGH QUALITY IN SYRIA” is a lie.
That’s a silly statement. All APCs and IFVs are pretty much defenceless against ATGMs. You won’t find a single such vehicle in production or service in the world with enough armour, even frontally, to resist that class of weapons. Even MBTs have relatively limited ability to resist such. Unless some kind of active defence system can jam or divert the warhead, MBTs can only resist over the frontal arc, and even then there are vulnerable areas. Look at Yemen: those are pretty good tanks the Saudis are getting killed left and right. Also, when you possess limited mechanised forces, it’s preferable to deploy them in open country, not because they aren’t useful in an urban environment (they are), but because they are even better in terrain where they can exploit their mobility, unconstrained by the fear of anti-armour ambushes from every basement and upper story.
This looks like an excellent armored car. It would be nice if someone would supply the Lebanese with 100 of these for security purposes.