find a flaw

I don't have one in my driveway

>amphibious
>great cannon
>decent armor
>looks cool

No flaws here f.am

>>32459178
Made by Russians.

>>32459742
>decent armor
>great cannon

But thats where you are wrong, jimbo.

>>32459178

It was great for its time (IE the time when most of the west rolled around in M113s) but now Its a bit worn out.

The finnish ones with the new camo looks cool tho

>>32459764
Provide three well informed points as to why I am wrong

File: 1469226441859.png (850KB, 939x1200px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 939x1200px

>>32459742
>decent armor

>>32459178
Not available on the civilian market, feels real bad man

>>32459779
Those are bmp-2s.

1 inch armor max (stryker has more), cannon wobbles more than a rusty red ryder wagon wheel.

>>32459779
>this kills the anon

>>32459810
You just need to use New York windage with the gun

>>32459810

Strykers is like what, 30 years younger too?

>>32459764
>>32459795
BMP-2 armor is rated to take light 20mm fire to the front arc and 7.62 all around, not bad. Poor in modern standards but still a viable option for poorer countries, just have to know how to use them.

>>32459764

BMP-2=/=BMP-1. One is an oversized T-70, the other is an effective IFV.

>>32459779
The 2A42 is a very dated autocannon, with its capabilities far below where a 30mm autocannon should be. Even the US 25mm autocannons outperform it by a substantial margin.

Armor wise, it's pretty bad as well. It's still on a BMP-1 chassis, and without uparmoring, the armor is at its thickest only 33 mm or so thick. The front is not going to protect it from even a semi-modern autocannon and ammunition at combat ranges, and the side is penetrable by 7.62 if you get close enough.

You can only uparmor the thing so much. Against modern threats, the armor is not going to stand a chance. The gun is not going to do much better either. It's obsolete as all hell. Good for the times, but times have changed.

>>32459822
New york windage dont work to well when your gun is bouncing around while fireing line a whore houses bed.

>>32459832
Its also wheeled.

>>32459868
Light frontal 20mm and battle rifle ammo is poor anyway you take it. The orginal m2 brad, also anfib, gave it frontal 20mm resistance and full .50 all around.

Yeah its cheap, but the OP asked for flaws.

>>32459880
I am well aware of the differences.

The BMP-3 kept the 100mm low recoil gun, god knows why.

>>32459916

Large caliber assault guns are usefull for supporting infantry

>>32459916
The HE capibility of a 100mm gun is better than any 30mm auto cannon.

>>32459916
>>32459929
And it can fire GLATGMs, which is a bit safer to reload than externally mounted stuff. Generally faster and longer ranged, too.

>>32459916
BMP 1 had a smoothbore 73mm gun, BMP 3 has a 100mm rifled gun that's also capable of firing ATGMS; completely different.

>>32459929
Low velocity means thats all you are going to do with it is hit static targets though, having the flight time of a sparrow and the ballistics of a cumshot does not lend itself to killin moving targets.

>>32459961
>static targets though
Like ATGM teams, trenches, or HMGs?

>>32459947
Bmp-2 has neither. Thanks john madden.

>>32459961
>See guys running for cover
>nail them with the 30mm
>survivors get inside a building
>bring the entire house down with the 100mm

>>32459973
Yes, but not other technicals, tanks, etc.

Yes, i know it has missiles, but you can toss them on the outside, and double them for her pleasure.

>>32459178
>find a flaw

Reloading the main gun

>>32459986
So the majority of what a rifleman will face? Sounds pretty useful to me.

>>32459982
Yes anon, nobody is doubting the guns abilty to hit the broad side of a barn.

>>32459975
Okay?
>>32459916
>The BMP-3 kept the 100mm low recoil gun, god knows why.
Considering that the 2A70 has only been on the BMP3, I assumed he was referring to the low velocity gun on the BMP 1 and corrected him.

>>32459961
It isn't intended to destroy armored vehicles though, GLATGMs and the autocannon are.

>>32459998
I would much rather have more autocannon rounds and missiles. 20+mm chunks up dwellings and whatnot just fine, and more missiles for everything else.

Base brad has about twice the amount of autocannon ammo, same number of missiles.

>>32459986
It also has a 30mm autocannon so I dont see the problem?

Also, I want to question whether you have been in combat or not? Its far more static than you would think...

>>32460001
>>32459961 said due to the 100mm being a low velocity gun, it can only be used for static targets.
Last time I checked a house was a static target smartass, not the mention the fact the gunner can easily lead his targets

>>32460017
I understand its intention, autocannon does it just as well for 99% of the targets.

Anything hardened can just have a missile chucked at it.

>>32460029
The problem is you are tradeing autocannon ammo for the gun.

>>32460034
Yes anon. You gave the thread some excellent examples of static targets. Gold star.

>could lead

Anything is possible with hopes and dreams.

For me its supprising that not more IFVs has low velocity HE-throwing guns.

One 100 shell would throw about as much explosives as 50 rounds of 25mm ammo.

>>32460068
Logically, all things equal, it would be a 4:1 ratio, 25mm to 100mm.

File: 2A70.webm (907KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 854x480px

2A70 is not a tank gun for fuck sake

it is closer to a breech load mortar

>>32460077
Not true! It might be quadrupling the diameter, but it isn't quadrupling the area inside.

The BMP-1/2 series are probably some of the more mediocre IFVs produced, and haven't aged particularly well.
At least they replaced the awful Grom with a 30mm. But at the end of the day, if you cared about your soldiers, there are better options.

>>32460068
Because the ratio is multitudes smaller than you imply, and anything the low velocity gun could handle, the autocannon will too.

T-15 dropped the gun. Its a waste of space, capability, and logistics.

>>32460055

The thing is, to support infantry you need explosives delivered at you target, and combat is still rather static.

Large caliber guns can throw way much more explosives at the target than autocannons can.

Usually this isnt a huge deal for APC/IFVs, as this was the role of tanks but ow that we can mount larger caliber weapons, then why not do it?

>>32460096
Autocannons deliver explosives (well, more importantly shrapnel) just as well.

>>32460090
Its about the same, ratio wise.

>>32460077
Not in any way correct.

Compare it to soda bottles for example, where a 25mm would equal something like a shot glass and a 100 mm something like a 1,5 l soda.

The volume inside those containers would equal the explosives

File: file.png (22KB, 150x310px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 150x310px

>>32460068
3UOF8 HEI
>High-explosive incendiary shell for Slavshit 30mm autocannon
>Explosive mass: 49 g
3OF32
>100mm HE shell for the 2A70, previously use for the T-54 cannon.
>Explosive mass: 1.7kg

keep in mind that 100 HE create more Fragmentation due to thicker shell

>>32459751

Another thing to take into consideration is that its extremly rare that you know the exact location of your enemy, and beeing able to throw a HE shell in the generall direction is really good when you cant pinpoint the enemies.

>>32460145
1700/49 = 34

I wasnt that far off after all...

Fuel tanks for doors.

>>32460174
Your loseing more than 30 shells of ammo however.

>>32460181
Its diesel, not gasoline. It isn't an issue.
In fact, it gives better effective armour than if the doors were just plain steel.

>>32460181
>>32460209
The doors was rarely filled in combat anyway, it was just a way to increase the transport range

>>32460204
I doubth that, but do you care to elaborate?

File: marder-001.jpg (79KB, 800x510px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x510px

How would you compare a BMP-2 with a Marder 1?

>>32460209
HEI will zip though and ignite spilt diesel just fine, you just have to aerate.

>>32460225
There is no way (i.e. a valve or tap) to 'turn off' the rear fuel tanks, and if they pose no danger why would they worry anyway?

>>32460258
Dont ask me, im not
>>32460209

>>32460258
See
>>32460253

It will burn under the right conditions. Airtight containers it wont, but start pokeing holes, its not so airtight anymore.

>>32460246
The Marder had better sights, a worse gun, better armor but couldnt swim (AFAIK)

File: thats pretty tactical.jpg (90KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 476x476px

>>32460087
lewd

>>32460181
To be fair if your rear doors are getting shoot at you are doing something wrong. That said I remember reading they were filled with sand before combat.

>>32460246
Marder 1 is THICC

File: 70b865368ead8372b35d30ab66ac167b.jpg (35KB, 470x265px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 470x265px

>>32459751
Criticized by Chinese

>>32459868
Russia is a poor country?

Is good but troop compartment suck. Made for starving russian midget fighters with no vests and only ak.
During winter very nice but summer it gets too in the back.
Also fuel is stored inside the back doors. Remember this when shooting bmp-2 from behind )))

>>32461282
>summer it gets too
I meant too HOT

>>32460433
Very.

>>32460433

It has a GDP slightly greater than mexico

File: file.png (616KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 680x453px

>>32461282
>Made for starving russian midget fighters with no vests and only ak.
this meme need to die

File: chile 2.jpg (528KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1280x848px

>>32461299

friendly reminder that GDP is retard

most south Amercia country are better equipped than USMC

not to mention money sink hole like zumwalt, F-35, LCS, Gerald R. Ford

>>32461302
Yeah yeah 3 with normal assault gear in training situations.
However in real battle situation loadout:
Try this shit with 4 people on each side. Everyone with full gear including flak jackets and body armour, 3 pkms, 3 rpgs and couple of extra ammo crates. It is nowhere near as comfy as in your pic.

>>32461330

Russians call things they can't afford money sinkholes

File: 1436696275658.jpg (38KB, 192x238px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 192x238px

>>32461330
>MG3 and SCAR

File: FuckenChile.png (194KB, 187x411px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 187x411px

>>32461330

File: 14491605646570.png (956KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 800x600px

>>32461349
>4 people on each side. 3 pkms,
are you making this up on the go?

i don'r really familiar with russian motor rifle squad, but i know that BMP-2 can only carry 6 troop in the troop compartment( one more sit next to the driver)

and i don't think they have 3 PKM on platoon level

some mountain brigade have 3 PKM at Squad level though, but that a huge Reconnaissance squad operate behind enemy line, not the motor rifle squad

>>32461423
While I think you are correct when talking about russians, I am not russian. Other countries use bmp-2 as well.
>but i know that BMP-2 can only carry 6 troop in the troop compartment
That is true when you play by the book. But you can always fit more people because higher-ups think it's a good idea
>3PKMS
It is not unusual. This is because there is 1 pkm in the back as a backup weapon. 4 guys on both sides because there is two, 4 man squads. Both squads have 1 machine gunner on both sides.

File: 1470365697827.png (3MB, 2514x1950px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2514x1950px

>>32461349
>three GPMGs for eight men

>>32461465
>Other countries use bmp-2 as well.
And they use 6 or 7 man squads, the Fins and Swedes still do, even with the new CV-90s.
>But you can always fit more people because higher-ups think it's a good idea
What? And any way, wouldn't that be a 'disadvantage' of any IFV?

>>32459178
>cramped
>very hot and suffocating in summer (problems multiplied by lack of personal hygiene in slav militaries)
>bumpy nauseating ride, hull pitches up and down. All things together make slavs love riding outside on top of armor otherwise it turns into vomit torpedo
>gun is mounted very low, can't really shot over the heads of troops, that makes great problem for infantry fire support
>ATGM mount suck, only one missile, missile can't be stowed outside for prolonged period, main gun fire may damage loaded missile, reload is tedious
>gunners sight don't go more than 20 elevation angle that kills half of teh idea of having such gun elevation
>burns like match, troops literally sit on the aluminum fuel tank, you can't design worse fuel system
>like all IFV armor is paper thin and doesn't protect from even outdated AT weapons

>>32459178

It's a box on tracks with NBC protection cheap enough to equip the Warsaw Pact conscript hordes en masse for a cataclysmic war where mechanised forces are supposed to rush through ground zero of USSR tactical nuclear weapons used to break a hole in NATO lines while resisting NATO's own use of such weapons to try and halt the advance.

In a conventional war used by professional soldiers it's an outdated death trap.

>>32461996
It was never cheap enough. USSR planned to equip all mechanized infantry with IFV. It was able to do only for ~ 25% of units.

>>32461939

agree with most of your point but

>gunners sight don't go more than 20 elevation angle that kills half of teh idea of having such gun elevation
BMP-2 and anything that armed with 2A42/2A72 in Soviet inventory have 2 sight
one for direct fire, one for anti aircraft, the one
the direct fire sight only have limited elevation,but not the anti aircraft one

>doesn't protect from even outdated AT weapons
even modern MBT are vulnerable to outdated AT weapon

though ERA is a think

Russia modern ERA for IFV are bloody effective. Video related can stop tandem HEAT, light enough so it is floatable, it also act as box armor again KE round
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9uaIlgXync

>>32459178
it doesn't come equipped for these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjVE6bocSNk

is instead equipped with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17PuAAqAsyw

>>32462053
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrqGE9pdSYg

>>32459800
They are, although demilitarized...

>>32459751
Soviets, not Russians.

Crap gun articulation, especially downward. Also an externally loaded ATGM.

Otherwise fine for the price.

File: tsm1528.jpg (160KB, 853x591px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 853x591px

find a flaw
protip: you literally cannot

>>32460087
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7NvJaZlrd8

>>32459178
>cardboard armor
>cannon useless beyond 500m
>terrible optics
>cramped like a sardine can

should i keep going?

File: bmp-3-1-35-um-8.jpg (803KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 2048x1536px

>how do you want your troop compartment
>just borch my shit up
>say no more tovarich

File: 14799123434912.jpg (486KB, 1100x890px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1100x890px

>>32462861
not enough ERA

File: bmp3.jpg (79KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x480px

>>32462997
it is the first IFV with internal toilet

the west only now catch up in this aspect with the German Boxer/Puma

>>32462997
Whats up with the FN-MAG?

>>32463051
Hint: [spoiler] its a model [/spoiler]

>>32459886

I think you fucked up. The 2A42 is honestly the best part of the system and was the best 30 mm autocannon of its time.

>>32463019

I have allways wondered why India never decided to switch to the BMP-3 after having produced thousands of BMP-2s.

It all makes sense now.

File: bmp-2 (7).jpg (234KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1280x853px

>>32462803
Designed by a Russian in a Russian design bureau, manufactured in Russia by Russians. Fuck off.

File: bmp with era.jpg (566KB, 2348x1598px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 2348x1598px

>>32463005
Thicc

>>32462986
>>cannon useless beyond 500m
Fan fact: BMP-2s shoot during qual up to 4000 meters against soft targets. Bradley can't go so far all its rounds simply self destruct at 2500-3000 meters.

You need to be a manlet to operate on of those.

>>32464529
Go compare effective penetration range of Russian and Americaan helicopter cannons too. IIRC the difference is like 3 to 4 times in 2A42 favour.

>>32459178

Shit armor
No FCS

>>32465552

Yeah, and 25mm APFSDS shits all over the BMP-2's 30mm.

>>32459742
>amphibious
>decent armor
Pick one and only one, because you can't have both.

>>32460258
>here is no way (i.e. a valve or tap) to 'turn off' the rear fuel tanks
Yes there is

>>32459178
TOW missle

>>32465944
30mm APFSDS > 25mm APFSDS. But yeah soviets were too backwards to procure APFSDSs.

>>32462997
there isn't even any room for troops in there?

>>32459178
Step 1: Shoot with a .50
Step 2: Fire
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit (Also dead russians)

>>32466190
Not quite. The guns and the exact ammunition are what matters. I could easily make a 30mm gun that has less penetration than a 25mm gun. I could make a 25mm gun that has more explosive filler than a 30mm round. That's because caliber is not what matters. It can be indicative of general trends, but should never be used as the be all end all.