The BTR-4E, one of the later variants that been the most produced as well as currently in production.
The BTR-4A and BTR-4E are two infantry fighting vehicles indigenous to Ukraine. They feature a unique design that separates them from prior Soviet designs. The vehicle’s engine is towards the front of the vehicle, allowing personnel to escape from the rear ramp like most western-designs however, the vehicle still retains enough room in the front of the engine for another crew member. The vehicles are powered by either a 500hp 3TD-3 or 400hp 3TD-3A Turbodiesel Engine coupled with an Allison Transmission, allowing for smooth maneuverability. What differs mainly between the ‘A’ and ‘E’ variants is its armament. The ‘A’ features a ‘Grom’ or Thunder module equipped with 4x Konkurs-M ATGM’s, a ZTM-2 (2A42) 30mm autocannon, a coaxial KT-7.62mm (PKT) machine gun, and a KBA-117 (AG-17) 30mm grenade launcher while the ‘E’ has a ‘Parus’ or Sail module equipped with 2x RK-2S tandem-HEAT (w/ ~800mm of penetration behind ERA) ATGM’s, a ZTM-1 (2A72) 30mm autocannon, a coaxial KT-7.62mm machine gun, and a KBA-117 30mm grenade launcher. Additionally, the ‘Parus’ module features a retractable Panorama-2P sight for the Commander to spot additional targets, providing a bonus feature for simulation battles. The BTR-4E, unlike the BTR-4A, is a battle-tested and highly capable platform.
The two vehicles would be equipped with 3UBR8 APDS-T rounds, and when paired with the ATGM’s, provides a solid ant-tank capability. In terms of how gameplay is designed, the BTR-4A would likely perform better due to having a faster rate of fire because of the ZTM-2 (2A42) and access to 4x ready-to-fire tandem-HEAT Konkurs-M missiles but would suffer at night compared to the BTR-4E due to its lack of thermal imaging/TV imaging. The stabilizer and guidance, not to mention the inclusion of an independent Commander sight is also better with the ‘E’ when compared to the ‘A’.
Edit: Ukrainian designations for weapons used since they produced them with equivalent in ‘parentheses’.
Bonus BTR-4MV1 Image, the latest iteration BTR-4 designed for Western Standards (Click Here)
I would also like to see AIM-4 Falcon missiles. Why do I want Gaijin to create a missile so worthless, pilots flying in Vietnam would refuse to launch if they were strapped under their wings? It is an important step in the progression of AAM development and it could be a starter missile which would require upgrade to the AIM-9B Sidewinder. It also opens up the possibility, with little extra work besides the missile itself, for the F-89H or J and maybe later creating the F-101B/F Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger and the F-106 Delta Dart.
That would either suffer greatly from getting uptiered compared to ATGMless version greatly, or be the lowest vehicle in the game making more people to complain about such stuff (which is lmao)
IIRC a big part of the problem was that the AIM-4 was rather poorly integrated with the Phantom. Plus the F-106 could get XAIM-4H which adds a proximity fuse and brings it up to around the same capability as AIM-9B.
I’ve seen an old forum post comparing it to other weapons of the same vintage, and XAIM-4H is a bit better than AIM-9B, to say the least.
SAC charts for the later falcons give it a maximum theoretical G load of 42G if it reaches mach 3.5, but more realistically it’ll hover around 12 to 20G. On aircraft with the FCS to actually make use of the AIM-4 (basically anything other than the F-4) it’ll be a formidable rear aspect IR missile and very powerful front aspect SARH missile.
Special mention to Japanese development of the AIM-4, the AAM-2; as it gained an all aspect seeker and would be a very solid weapon.
It’s really too bad (and frankly kind of surprising given how long the F-106 stayed in service with missile bays that were physically limited to AIM-4) the AIM-4H didn’t enter service.
The BTR-4A and BTR-4E IFV’s
The BTR-4E, one of the later variants that been the most produced as well as currently in production.
