Georgian Army New APC/IFV 'Lazika IFV'..

[Kunal Biswas]

Lazika IFV has been unveiled at the Vasiani, Georgia

Lazika Tracked Infantry Combat Vehicle has been unveiled at the Vasiani military firing-range. The Georgian President and Defence Minister drove a few kilometers in a new armored vehicle along with military servicemen.

Lazika is a Tracked Infantry Combat Vehicle with a combined armor providing protection from 14,5mm caliber armor-penetrating bullets. Lazika has a remote control weapon module, equipped with fire control system, with 23 mm caliber cannon and 7, 62 mm caliber machine gun mounted on. The fighting vehicle ensures detection and identification of a target (at a distance) and fire control in any kind of weather conditions with day-night and thermal vision cameras. The maximum speed is 70 km/h.

Lazika is the number two armored vehicle after Didgori although it is different in terms of purpose and characteristics. Unlike Didgori which is patrolling, light armored, reconnaissance vehicle, Lazika, which has been presented today, is heavy armored, mobile and offensive fighting vehicle that is not produced by many states. I should say that we have seriously worked in this area and coping with this challenge indicates that we can further develop this direction," said Defence Minister Bacho Akhalaia.

"When manufacturing Lazika, its producers took into account experience of international military industry. Lazika is the second Georgian armored combat vehicle which was produced on the basis of Military Scientific-Technical Center "Delta" subordinate to the Ministry of Defence of Georgia. The first vehicle Didgori was presented to the public on the Military parade on May 26 of 2011.


Developer: STC Delta
Class: IFV
Crew: 3
Passengers: 7
Maxim Speed: 70km/h
Operational Range: 400km
Armament: 2A14 23mm autocannon + 7.62mm rc mg
Protection: Resistant against 14.5x114mm AP rounds and mines according to STANAG level 4
Equipment: Day-Night, Thermal Vision cameras.

The vehicle is modular and has room for AT, AA weapons, aswell as guns.


Source: http://army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2400.html#.T0na2gP7oG4.facebook

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[methos]

23 mm does not say much... 23 x 115 mm or 23 x 152 mm? 23 x 115 mm is a piece of junk for AP(DS) rounds, while 23 x 152 mm can compete with 25 x 137 mm rounds in terms of performance... then there is also the barrel length which remains unknown... there are 23 mm guns with 1,000 mm (L/43) barrels and others with 1,880 mm long barrels (L/82). I think we can say that the barrel is longer than 1,000 mm, but we don't know wether the combo 23 x 115 mm and long barrel can pierce through BMP-1/2 armour at longer ranges.

 

[blueblood]

23 mm does not say much... 23 x 115 mm or 23 x 152 mm? 23 x 115 mm is a piece of junk for AP(DS) rounds, while 23 x 152 mm can compete with 25 x 137 mm rounds in terms of performance... then there is also the barrel length which remains unknown... there are 23 mm guns with 1,000 mm (L/43) barrels and others with 1,880 mm long barrels (L/82). I think we can say that the barrel is longer than 1,000 mm, but we don't know wether the combo 23 x 115 mm and long barrel can pierce through BMP-1/2 armour at longer ranges.

2A14, 23x152 mm.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Damian, do you think something like the Lazika could have been developed with the M113 as a starting point?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Another technical thread derailed :-(

 

[Armand2REP]

Small countries that do not even manufacturing cars are trying to make Armored war machines!

Most of the equipment in Lazika is from Ukraine and Belarus. You can't really blame them for trying to make a product that suits there needs. It looks like a decent design. The most important feature is crew safety and comfort, something totally lacking in Soviet models.

 

[pmaitra]

Most of the equipment in Lazika is from Ukraine and Belarus. You can't really blame them for trying to make a product that suits there needs. It looks like a decent design. The most important feature is crew safety and comfort, something totally lacking in Soviet models.

You probably don't know much about Soviet and Russian designs, or perhaps you do but just not willing to acknowledge?

The Soviets made some of the best secure helicopters, be it fortified cockpits (Mil-24/35) or helicopter ejection seats (Kamov-50).

Regarding this Lazika, it is an ok design, which a high silhouette and less than desirable number of wheels. Nothing that great, but a step in the right direction, regarding armour.

 

[pmaitra]

Nope, are You kind enough to remind me via PM?

Click here.

 

[Armand2REP]

You probably don't know much about Soviet and Russian designs, or perhaps you do but just not willing to acknowledge?

The ride in a BMP or BTR is not a conformable one, nor is it a safe one. The reason Russian troops ride on top of their vehicles is due to discomfort and the fear a mine will kill them. Crew comfort and safety are the most important features of any IFV. The specs of it are secondary to getting troops to the battle rested, relaxed and safe. It is the reason the vehicle exists.

The Soviets made some of the best secure helicopters, be it fortified cockpits (Mil-24/35) or helicopter ejection seats (Kamov-50)

No one is talking about helicopters.

Regarding this Lazika, it is an ok design, which a high silhouette and less than desirable number of wheels. Nothing that great, but a step in the right direction, regarding armour.

STANAG Level 4 is good protection for a 14t vehicle. Puts it into the same realm as the current VAB Mk2. The interior is spacious and they didn't overcrowd the seating. The suspension could use some work. Too many bumps takes its toll on the squad over time. If the ventilation is good they can probably get away without A/C in Georgia.

 

[Damian]

The ride in a BMP or BTR is not a conformable one, nor is it a safe one. The reason Russian troops ride on top of their vehicles is due to discomfort and the fear a mine will kill them. Crew comfort and safety are the most important features of any IFV. The specs of it are secondary to getting troops to the battle rested, relaxed and safe. It is the reason the vehicle exists.

Actually not, again You are wrong.

There are two situations where different ways to move in or on vehicle is used by troops.

Driving outside is only when there is no direct danger of enemy small arms fire or atrillery bombardment, and on patrols when it is faster to just jump of vehicle roof. However if troops will for example assault enemy positions, they will sit inside vehicle.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Offtopic posts moved here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/military-history/32393-pacifism-morality.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Damian, do you think something like the Lazika could have been developed with the M113 as a starting point?

The back look like a M113..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I find it nice, Its light weight armed with a RCWS of 23mm cannon, Big door enough space..

I dont know but Georgians can have latest ERA from US or Isreal even Ukraine as these are pure defensive suits....



This will increase its protection level higher, Its nice to see how they are recovering..

 

[Armand2REP]

Actually not, again You are wrong.

There are two situations where different ways to move in or on vehicle is used by troops.

Driving outside is only when there is no direct danger of enemy small arms fire or atrillery bombardment, and on patrols when it is faster to just jump of vehicle roof. However if troops will for example assault enemy positions, they will sit inside vehicle.

If you bothered to talk to other russians you would know this you moron.

It is quite true. We saw Russians entering a combat zone on their vehicles and there were high casualties when the convoy was attacked. General Anatoly Khrulyov was wounded by shrapnel. You never know when you are going to be attacked and waiting until the last second to jump inside defeats the purpose. Thousands of Russians have lost their lives in Chechnya during the wars and peacekeeping being caught outside the vehicle during an ambush.

I lived in Russia for years, I know more of their soldiers than you ever will.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The back look like a M113..

Here is the M113 for comparison.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

M113 armored personnel carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Here is where your can worship the M113 :-D

THE LEGEND OF THE M113 GAVIN CONTINUES IN COMBAT: THE GREATEST ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLE, EVER!

 

[militarysta]

It is quite true. We saw Russians entering a combat zone on their vehicles and there were high casualties when the convoy was attacked. General Anatoly Khrulyov was wounded by shrapnel. You never know when you are going to be attacked and waiting until the last second to jump inside defeats the purpose. Thousands of Russians have lost their lives in Chechnya during the wars and peacekeeping being caught outside the vehicle during an ambush.

But You propably know that there was some strong cause to do this:
1) lack of IED protected in BTR's and BMP's, (not mine protected but IED -it's importand)
2) control of the terain is far better when you are ON the BMP/BTR then you are IN. And platoon firepower is far better in that case.
3) during ambush you have two option:
a) You are in APC/IFV whit is strong enought to syrvive multi hits by 12,7 and 14,5 and 23mm and if You are lucky even old RPG-7 - for example polish Wolwervine APC (in fact wheel IFV whit better firpower then BMP-2...) or Boxer, or VBCI whit ad-on amrour kit.
b) you haven't that luck and you have "normal" APC/IFV which can't protect you vs this all 14,5, PG7 etc. So maybe not so bad idea is siting in place when you can find cover ASAP - example: on the top of the APC. And during ambush - ever, and in all terain whicle is "bullet magnet" and only way to syrvive is become far from this "bulet magnet".

I lived in Russia for years, I know more of their soldiers than you ever will.

And You went to France by 2REP?

 

[pmaitra]

The ride in a BMP or BTR is not a conformable one, nor is it a safe one. The reason Russian troops ride on top of their vehicles is due to discomfort and the fear a mine will kill them. Crew comfort and safety are the most important features of any IFV. The specs of it are secondary to getting troops to the battle rested, relaxed and safe. It is the reason the vehicle exists.

That is an absolutely ignorant comment. Riding outside BMPs and BTRs was a practise adopted by the Soviet Army during the Soviet-Mujahideen War in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with comfort. Read below and educate yourself:

• The Mujahideen would attack Soviet convoys in the mountains.
• They would disable the first and last vehicles of the Soviet convoy. This would stall the entire convoy, with the armoured vehicles in the middle stuck with a ravine on one side and a mountain on the other.
• Thereafter, they would simply RPG all the remaining vehicles from the mountains.

Sitting atop vehicles gave the Soviet soldiers the following advantages:

• Good peripheral vision.
• Easy dismountability.
• Faster response to attack by the Mujahideen.
• It was seen there were less casualties if soldiers rode atop the vehicles, fully exposed to enemy fire, than if they were sitting inside the armoured vehicles in a relatively 'safer' position. This false assumption has been proven to be wrong. It is a paradox.

No one is talking about helicopters.

You made a generalised comment. See below. Inculcate a habit of going back to what you yourself have written before responding back.

Most of the equipment in Lazika is from Ukraine and Belarus. You can't really blame them for trying to make a product that suits there needs. It looks like a decent design. The most important feature is crew safety and comfort, something totally lacking in Soviet models.

STANAG Level 4 is good protection for a 14t vehicle. Puts it into the same realm as the current VAB Mk2. The interior is spacious and they didn't overcrowd the seating. The suspension could use some work. Too many bumps takes its toll on the squad over time. If the ventilation is good they can probably get away without A/C in Georgia.

Armour or no armour, in the kinds of conflicts that we are seeing these days, carrying troops inside an armoured vehicle does not give the troops the kind of safety that it is meant to. The only pragmatic safety that one could think of is an NBC-contaminated environment.