Question:
Why are not used BTR-Ts based on T-5x and T-6x tanks. The first version of Israel’s BTR-T was based on the T-55. The vehicle is clearly more protected compared to the APC or the same MT-LB. I also wonder why there are no APCs with dynamic protection like the Bradley. I’ve seen several times how Bradley held several RPG hits on the sides.
In order to clarify the need to convert old tanks in storage into heavy APCs as in Israel, we will have to delve into the background. During the wars of 1967 and 1973, the IDF captured from the Syrians and Egyptians a huge number (literally many hundreds) of trophy Soviet tanks T-54/55 and their later modernization – T-62. They were developed in Kharkov shortly after the war and had an extremely reliable engine. Combined with armor, it was the reason for the Israelis’ careful treatment of the trophies, they were given a second life in the IDF. Collectively, all these Soviet tanks in IDF service are referred to as Ti-67.
At first, the T-55 was simply adopted by the IDF as is, spare parts were made themselves or bought on the market. Later the trophies were modernized in the number of more than 350 pieces and partially received the British 105 mm cannon. There were copies with the standard Soviet 100 mm gun and enough shells in case of war. T-62s were left with the Soviet 115 mm gun. After 12-15 years, many tanks were fitted with Western engines, instruments and transmission – there were no questions about the armor.
And only when in the 80’s the army began to receive the latest Merkava in sufficient quantities obsolete Ti-76 began to be transferred to reserve units. But even there their life continued with additional armor, engine and transmission replacement – they began to be converted into heavy BMP “Akhzarit”. In 20 years about 500 heavy BMP “Akhzarit” were made from Soviet tanks. They are still in service and are not going to be withdrawn.
So, as long as the tank could be used as a tank, it was used as such. Exhaustion of ammunition of Soviet calibers, moral deterioration – this is the reason for their conversion into heavy BMPs. Therefore, as long as the T-55 and T-62 can be used as a mobile protected gun with plenty of ammunition in storage, they will be used that way.
Note that shell depletion is a common trend for the AFU and the RF Armed Forces. Large stocks of 100mm and 115mm shells in warehouses is a serious argument in favor of keeping their guns, even though they have long since been removed from service. Why change a tank cannon for a machine gun if artillery has become an important advantage on the battlefield?
Well, making heavy BMPs from old tanks can be started when mobile warfare returns again. Meanwhile, for the sake of dispersal, fighters prefer to advance to enemy positions on motorcycles and quad bikes. In a heavy Akhzarit, the entire troop would probably die before reaching the trenches, just like in a regular BMP.
Honestly, it’s wild to think that armies are still holding onto these decades-old tank platforms just because they have ammo in storage 🤯! Instead of embracing modern designs with dynamic protection and mobility, they’re stuck playing it safe with outdated tech. If the battlefield demands speed and adaptability, why waste resources on heavy, slow APCs that might get flattened before even reaching enemy lines? The idea that troops might die inside these clunky vehicles before firing a shot is terrifying 😰. Seems like a classic case of military tradition clashing with actual battlefield realities 🚀💥.
This explanation really clarified a lot about how practical considerations like ammo stocks and existing engine reliability shape military decisions. It’s interesting how the Akhzarit conversions show a smart reuse of old tanks instead of just scrapping them 🚀. Also, the point about modern warfare favoring speed and mobility over heavy armor makes a lot of sense—sometimes lighter vehicles like motorcycles are simply better for certain situations 🏍️. I wasn’t aware that running out of specific ammunition types could be such a major factor in whether tanks get converted or kept in service. Military tech choices really have so many layers beyond just equipment specs! 🔥
Honestly, turning ancient tanks into heavy APCs sounds like a creative way to save money and use what’s already lying around, but I can’t help picturing soldiers trying to charge on motorcycles and quad bikes while clinging to these armored dinosaurs 🏍️😂. Also, the idea that a shell shortage keeps these old guns alive just feels like military thriftiness at its finest 💸💥. And let’s be real, who wants to be stuck in a heavy armor box when you can zip around like a ninja on a quad? 🚀😅
This article provides a very insightful explanation about why Israel chose to convert older Soviet tanks into heavy APCs rather than developing completely new platforms. The point about ammunition stockpiles influencing the decision to keep the original tank guns is especially interesting—it’s a practical reminder that logistics and existing resources play a huge role in military vehicle evolution. Also, the comparison between heavy BMPs and lighter, more mobile infantry transport methods like motorcycles showcases how modern tactics prioritize speed and flexibility over heavy armor in many combat scenarios. It makes me think about how battlefield conditions and technological advances continuously shape the balance between protection and mobility 🚀🛡️