The BMP series is my all-time favorite vehicle, but I can't

File: M247-sergeant-york-tn1.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

My Favorite flop right here

First of its kind, so that's to be expected. Also, it was designed with the idea that battlefield would be irradiated wastelands with few healthy soldiers left.

>>33186135
So was every other modern vehicle on the battlefield. That's not an excuse.

>>33185903
I too want to be a sardine

>>33185903
It's absolutely revolutionary as a concept. It changed the game. Prior to the introduction of the BMP, the concept of an APC was in its infancy. You had BTR-40s, 50s, and 152's on the ComBloc side and M59's on the US. They were less armored and maneuverable than the BMP, and usually had a .50 in the way of armament at the outside.

They were genuine battle taxi's, meant to deliver troops safely to the battlefield, not participate themselves. The BMP is meant not just to participate but be a force unto itself. It's as dangerous if not more than the troops it carries. It's a threat to anything that crawls on the ground, tanks included. At the time, its recoilless rifle and ATGM's were conceivably more dangerous in first strike than a tanks main cannon.

Couple these with the fact that the Americans had nothing even remotely filling this role, and that less than 10% of the US army even had APC's whereas the Soviets churned out enough BMP's to carry over 150,000 men into battle, the BMP was a game changer not just in design but in mass implementation too.

Tl;dr, BMP's were fucking terrifying in the 60's. You have a jeep with a recoilless rifle as its western counterpart.

Basic BMP-2 is very lackluster and over the years it has fallen in the ranks of IFVs for being old and dated. If you compare it to M2 Bradley with no lifecycle upgrades or modernization equipment, the BMP would actually be as good. You'd only need to modernize it and it can do the basic needs that every IFV can with the half of upkeep costs.

Though, BMP-3 exists so I guess it would be a good idea to get them instead in some cases.

>>33186339
>BMP would actually be as good
>worse armor (M2 can resist even 73mm frontally, BMP is penetrated by 7.62)
>worse firepower (30mm can't scratch even the rear of the bradley, AT-5 can't do anything to M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A0
>worse optics (No thermals!!!)

>>33186338
>They were less armored and maneuverable than the BMP
M113 easily matched it
>usually had a .50
Sufficient to kill the BMP. At longer ranges you could just mount a Dragon like many did.
>It's as dangerous if not more than the troops it carries
One LAW or even a nearby mortar hit and it's gone. Don't even need a LAW, just pump some .50 into it.
>recoilless rifle
Can't hit the broad side of a barn door at 500 yards
>ATGM
AT-3 is also hilariously inaccurate and easy to jam, plus it's slow as fuck so a 105mm is going to hit the BMP long before the AT-3 hits the tank

>>33186376
And how was the bradley in the 80s? It's obvious that modern russian gear is heavily outdated with the whole SU breaking up thing

>>33186479
>And how was the bradley in the 80s?
everything I just explained. The only thing that changed since the M2 was better TOWs and armor that could stop the infantry RPGs in addition to already resisting anything the BMP could throw at it

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1950x2910px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1950x2910px

Not really a shit tank, at all, but definitely one of my favorites, the plucky little duck, Mr. PT-76. Amphibious, lightly armored, but packing a mean punch against other light vehicles and devastating against infantry. Most famous for overrunning Lang Vei SF camp during the Vietnam war.

If I'm ever rich enough to own a tank as a weekend plaything, it'll be this cute lil' feller.

>>33185903
>Pareto inferior
Uh...you know what that means, right?

File: sheridangulf.jpg (400KB, 1024x660px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1024x660px

>>33185903

>military vehicles that you know are shit but you love them anyway.

That's my jam. I'll post a few of mine.

I love the idea behind the Sheridan, and I love the way it looks, but it was useless at just about everything besides pretending to be Soviet armor.

File: syJuiyG.jpg (339KB, 1094x813px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1094x813px

This thing is retarded but apparently it had a really good service record.

File: mbt70.jpg (35KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x367px

>>33186591

MBT-70. Similar problems to the Sheridan, hilariously overcomplicated, hilariously expensive, but it looks fantastic.

>>33186376
Your right about the thermals, but try to remember the bmp began line production in 1966, whereas the bradley hit the scene in the 80's, two decades later which was an eternity in cold war tech.

But I am pretty sure your way off the mark on survivability. Yes, the bmp CAN be penetrated in the rear by small arms fire, theoretically. But its minimum point is the rear fuel tanks, 2 layers of 5mm steel. Not bulletproof, but not exactly paper either. It's impervious to .50's from the front, and designed to withstand fire from 23mm autocannons.

The bradley can probably withstand certain kinds of 73mm recoilless rounds to the front, but probably not an AP warhead. And it almost definitely cant withstand a 30mm auto cannon to the rear.

But I think his point was an upgraded BMP-2 would be almost as capable as a bradley, and they are. BMP-1M's have more firepower than a Bradley and are rated to withstand 30mm's from the front and sides, and .50's from the rear, which is probably where the bradley sits.

All of this is kinda speculative though, as the US is really secretive about the actual survivability of their vehicles and we have shitloads of info on the BMP.

File: DSC_0158.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>33185903
>military vehicles that you know are shit but you love them anyway.
J21R, a 1947 jet aircraft that used the chassis of a previous pusher-prop plane with a jet engine jammed into it.

>>33186639
Bradley is rated for 14,5 mm all-round and 30 mm from front.

>>33186665
Swedish chef magic?

File: M60A2 Starship.jpg (391KB, 1440x1142px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1440x1142px

>>33186591
>>33186620

It’s a shame that the U.S. didn’t keep fiddling around with the Shillelagh missile, abandoning it right before the Computer Revolution that would have made it a viable weapon long before the Soviets got around to making gun launched missiles.

File: DSC_0157.jpg (882KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 2560x1440px

It had an 8 machinegun pod as an optional armament along with the 4 machineguns and one autocannon in the actual plane. That's respectable dakka.

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>3318613

>>33186473
>M113 easily matched it

Nope, M113 is significantly taller and uses aluminium for armour compared to steel in the BMP

>[.50 M2] Sufficient to kill the BMP. At longer ranges you could just mount a Dragon like many did.

Only if you ambush it and get it in the sides at close range. Across the frontal arc the BMP-1 is resistant to 23mm autocannnon rounds.
Meanwhile, the BMP-1 has a 73mm cannon firing HE-Frag & HEAT.

>[recoilless rifle] Can't hit the broad side of a barn door at 500 yards

Are you genuinely retarded, or just pretending?

>AT-3 is also hilariously inaccurate and easy to jam, plus it's slow as fuck so a 105mm is going to hit the BMP long before the AT-3 hits the tank

It's still a threat to tanks, just ask the Israelis who were on the receiving ends of them. Remember, this is the mid 60's, for the time this was scary shit.

File: shillelagh missile.jpg (62KB, 563x741px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 563x741px

>>33186679

>>33185903
>pretty much any NATO IFV on the market
it was better than pretty much anything on the market for years m8, a lot of NATO IFVs didn't pop up until far after the BMP

File: J_29F.jpg (251KB, 1114x736px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1114x736px

>>33186674
Yeah. It seems like it was mostly a test bed for the ejection seat and as the first swedish jet. Pic related was introduced a year later

File: T-72_maneuvers.jpg (159KB, 900x740px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 900x740px

>Has a lack luster service record due to being employed by mud or sand armies that have inferior training or tactics or both.
>export variants are downgraded
>Not particularly resilient
>lower quality optics and lacks thermals until you get to the most modern of variants.
Despite this
>125mm with ammunition that could pen NATO's best tanks during the cold war
>long range and reliable
>Made in large quantities
>simple to operate
>autoloaded
>Still instilled fear into Nato commanders at the prospect of thousands of them rolling over Western Europe.
>Change the fluids and they will be ready to go after 20 years in storage
>Neglect and run them hard for years in the desert and they are still going

File: explain cow.png (486KB, 526x700px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 526x700px

>>33186717
>yfw a tiny irrelevant country somehow creates a domestic fighter on-par or superior to both the MiG-15 and F-86
>Ends up having something like the fourth-largest air force in the world in the 50's

Fucking Swedes, how did they do it?

>>33186746
It's really interesting watching how the SAA is using them in Syria effectively, not to mention all the jury rigging everyone is doing with them. They'll probably have one of the region's best armored forces once the dust settles
Plus they've got non-monkey models now that are fairly scary for what they're able to take on

http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2014/12/syrias-steel-beasts-t-72.html

>>33186614
I never understood the ontos. why not just put a few recoilless rifles on a m113? Why use an entirely different vehicle?

>>33186838
>Why use an entirely different vehicle?
It costs more to develop.

>>33186473
The M113 isn't proof to a .50 on the front or small arms fire anywhere else. The earliest BMP in service can withstand 23mm autocannons to the front. Also, the M113 has this nasty habit of killing everyone inside with aluminum fumes from any hit versus the BMP confining its achilles to the rear doors.

Yeah, a .50 will penetrate a BMP, in the rear. The M113 has almost the same armor profile as the BMP. All around small arms protection, .50 protection in the front, with the BMP having better armor in the front.

A .50 isnt sufficient to knock out BMP's unless you catch one unaware. From the front it might as well be spitballs, which is the intended angle of attack.

And where did you get your info on accuracy. Numerous hours of war footage can attest to the groms usefulenss. Wiki itself says it actually can hit a man size target at over 700 yards, which kinda disputes your claim.

And the AT-3 is slow, but super accurate. The only tactic South Vietnamese, US, and Israelis had to counter it was to shoot everything you had and hope the gunner flinched. It's first combat use was knocking out M48's and M113's in number. I would attribute a large amount of the success of Egypt in 73 to their large number of ATGM's.

Plus, the entire point of this was that an upgraded version of the BMP would be able to hold its own versus the bradley, which nothing you say even questions. Your arguing against weapons that werent even used on the BMP by the time the bradley was in production, having been replaced by weapons that we know can still disable M3 Bradleys and M1's...

File: this_was_1952.jpg (95KB, 1280x860px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1280x860px

>>33186766
We still have really good military tech even in our contemporary cucked state. The only issue is the amount of military funding.

Admittedly though, we were mostly quick to adapt foreign innovations(advanced radar tech etc) and good at coming up with innovative uses for them.

>>33186766
>Fucking Swedes, how did they do it?
Neutrality. WW2 destroyed every economy in the world except the US, and the Soviets and Brits had enough scraps leftover crawl along until the 1960s.

>>33186844
Yes, to a degree I'm sure it was fun to spend money on it.

But the Ontos is awesome. I'ts pretty much the 60s version of the Hetzer. A tiny ass ambush vehicle. Its also as well armored as the M113, while being 1/4th the size and weight and not so roll happy. Would it have been cheaper to put 6 106's on an m113? Sure. But not nearly as effective. The M50 also had an APC variant, which sounds awesome.

>>33186849
>Also, the M113 has this nasty habit of killing everyone inside with aluminum fumes from any hit

One of my favorite myths.

>versus the BMP confining its achilles to the rear doors.

lolwat? BMPs are notorious death traps because of how cramped they are and how terribly thought out the rear door designs were, not that they put fuel in them.

>>33186838
>why not just put a few recoilless rifles on a m113?
"why not just use an autocannon" would be my question.

File: 7918a853e2d2f200d91f549a43f0823b.jpg (435KB, 2580x1485px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 2580x1485px

>>33186766
bloody beautiful too.

File: a_3_163.jpg (106KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x714px

>>33186960
Many were equipped with a 20mm. It was actually a fairly common fitting in NATO.

>>33186956
It isn't a myth. The Israelis walked into Lebanon in the 80s because their m113s were getting them killed. Aluminum is used in aircraft design for weight, using it in an apc is retarded when you could use steel.

Yeah BMP's are cramped, which is why they also have top hatches. The rear doors aren't stupidly designed for any reason other than their fuel tank. What else are you talking about. Its a fucking door. It opens outward. The main complaint of soviet and russian troops is the tendency of the fuel tanks to rupture and light the area outside of them on fire, forcing you to use the top hatches.

And that its cramped as fuck...

>>33186982
I meant a larger caliber autocannon that can do more damage with HE munitions though.

>>33187020
>The rear doors aren't stupidly designed for any reason other than their fuel tank.

You can't get out of them unless you're wearing nothing but the simplest of gear so if you're actually equipped you're struggling to get out, they have a history of sticking and is one of the main reasons that people ride on the outside of Soviet era vehicles. How are you this fucking retarded to think that having two sets of doors is anywhere near a good idea when a simple ramp is far more efficient and easier for people to move through

>>33187080
I didn't say the vehicle was perfect you mong. If I coulda designed it myself with 20/20 hindsight I prob would have one big downward ramp, and I prob would do the same on the Bradley versus the single tiny ass door it ended up with in the same way.

And the reason russkies ride on top isnt the small door fuckwit. Its because the bottom is 5mm of steel and the equivalent of wet toilet paper to IED's, same reason marines were riding on top of LAV's in Iraq.

Do you actually think that troops would rather ride on top of a bulletproof tank because abu hajjar is gonna eat dirt? It's because IED's in Chechnya were killing more of their boys than the Chechens.

File: swingfire.jpg (98KB, 736x543px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 736x543px

>>33186679
To be fair, even without computers guided missiles were awesome. The problem was that the US put it onto an MBT chassis. Which was far larger than and more expensive than it needed to be. Compare to the Swingfire from the same era which was fitted to a light tank chassis instead.

And I say that as someone whom absolutely loves the Starship. The big problem was that right around the corner we got muzzle reference devices and digital computer fire control systems as well as laser rangefinders. These allowed tank guns to have the accuracy to compete with ATGMs at combat ranges. And at much less cost per shot. Not to mention more could be carried in a vehicle.

>>33186473
>M113 easily matched it
Kek
I'm sorry but no. They aren't even comparable vehicles. One is an APC and the other is an IFV. You use them in a completely different way.
The real Western counterpart to the BMP-1 would be the YPR-765 that the Dutch army used.

It sits in the same weight class as the BMP-1, but it has one less passenger, no ATGM and no amphibious capability.

The reason why the Western counterpart is less capable is simple. A difference in doctrine. The Western unit foregoes the extra firepower of the ATGM and the enhanced mobility of amphibious capability, heck it has a much lower power/weight ratio. It even scraps a passenger. All this specifically to enhance it's protective qualities.

It is rather telling that the Western vehicle that really equals the BMP's capabilities, the M2 Bradley is twice as heavy and much larger in size. All because it had to have a much higher protection standard. And even then it still had 1 less passenger until later upgrades. By which time the new BMP-3 came about with additional seats too.

This is why Russian equipment keeps scaring the shit out of the West. Because the Russians go "Protection is not as important as firepower.". And when the West has a look we go "Oh my God! This thing could kill us! We better up the protection!"

File: BMD-1_intro.jpg (645KB, 2200x1300px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 2200x1300px

>>33186639
>try to remember the bmp began line production in 1966, whereas the bradley hit the scene in the 80's, two decades later which was an eternity in cold war tech.

Yes, but it’s not like the Soviets (let alone the entire East Block) switched to BMPs overnight, they were still using plenty of BRT-152 6x6 armored trucks into the 1980s. And even with the Soviets putting so much of their GDP into the military during the Cold War, their GDP was still a fraction of the U.S. (let alone the combined West).

I’d say a much greater threat the West back then was the BMD airborne IFV, which if the Cold War had gone hot, would have resulted in up to seven Soviet airborne _mechanized_ infantry divisions dropping into Western Europe, which would have torn the shit out of NATO.

File: bradleyrear.jpg (247KB, 759x480px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 759x480px

>>33187152
>bradley
>single tiny ass door

>>33187307
I speak to Airborne guys all the time. And they are astounded when they hear about the BMD. The thought of being able to air drop behind enemy lines and then have armoured vehicles to move around in and cause shit for the enemy is really appealing.

People would say "But it has paper thing armour!". But they don't understand. As airborne you drop behind the enemy front line. The heavy assets aren't there. And in the land of no tanks, the man with a light tank is king.

File: kurwa.png (163KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 325x325px

>>33187370
>The heavy assets aren't there. And in the land of no tanks, the man with a light tank is king.

I just imagined Ivans riding around in BT-7s performing drive-bys on US Army Logistics and overrunning USAF airfields.

>>33186376
I believe the Brad is a great IFV when it's not breaking down, but there is no way in hell a pre-2000's brad w/o ERA or applique armor addons is taking a 73mm SPG-9 hit to the front and driving away. And yes the early brads could be penned by a 30mm 2A42 at basically angle as well.
The current brads however could feasibly do so, they can take multiple PG-7 hits for example - but that's not to say that there won't be weak spots even in the current brad - If I was a BMP-2 gunner with a drop on a brad and didn't have the AT-5 ready you bet your ass I'd hold down the trigger on the brads turret

File: 73mm_PG-9.jpg (134KB, 929x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 929x1024px

>>33187370

Indeed and during the Cold War, HEAT ruled the battlefield and the BMD’s 73mm low-pressure gun was more than enough to take out a main battle tank of the period.

>>33187421
>aiming at particular parts of vehicles with a vehicle weapon

Go back to wot

File: warriormicvdismountsheadout2.jpg (60KB, 410x256px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 410x256px

>>33187020
>Aluminum is used in aircraft design for weight, using it in an apc is retarded when you could use steel.
You sir are a fucking idiot.
Pound for pound, aluminium has the same strength properties as steel. It is however much less dense. So you can design a vehicle that uses aluminium armour of sufficient thickness so that it serves as the vehicle's frame, rather than having to make a heavy steel frame to hang steel armour or other off of. This saves a lot of weight.
That is why the M113 is aluminium rather than steel.

>Yeah BMP's are cramped, which is why they also have top hatches.
You really are showing yourself to be an idiot. The top hatches exist so that the passengers can stick their heads and guns out and fire at enemies while still mostly inside the vehicle. Western APCs and IFVs have these top hatches too for the very same reason.
See my picture of some Brits doing just that in Basra. Why? Because more eyes out looking for danger is safer than being under armour but blind.

>>33186473
.50 wasn't enough for many angles on a BMP until SLAP-T's came out very late in the cold war.

>>33187441
Heck even now with their ATGMs they are a threat. And the 30mm autocannon is a danger to low flying helicopters too. A really well thought out piece of kit.
Yes losses will be had, but losses are inevitable in combat. So Russian doctrine is to inflict more losses on the enemy.

>>33186838
It was originally intended to be airdropped or carried by a helo - either internally or sling loaded

>>33187450
And by that point BMPs started being fitted with reactive armour plates and variour other bits of add-on armour.
But more importantly, the BMP-2 is rated against 30mm across the frontal arc. With the new ones even higher. This means all those autocannons we got on Western IFVs are useless at stopping an attack. Except for the CV9035 and CV9040 (and soon the British and French with their own 40mm)

File: daimler-ferret-1958-daimler-ferret-tank-193853387-2.jpg (238KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x1071px

I don't know a lot about armor but I saw one of these for sale with a deact 1919 on it and thought it was fucking neat.

>>33187445
Then riddle me this fucko, if aluminum is so great why does the bradley have a steel construction. The BMD and M113 use aluminum for weight to be airmobile because its better than wood, toilet paper, and happy thoughts, not because its the best.

You know the bmp has firing ports right? The top hatch, in addition to being some weird viewscope in your mind, doubles as a hatch...

See, a hatch is another word for a door, and doors are openings through which one can pass. So a hatch on the top, in addition to being a viewscope to complement the other dozen or so viewscopes equipped with bulletproof glass the vehicle has, allows people, which are what operate these vehicles we are talking about, to go in and out of the vehicle.

For example, many tanks have a bottom hatch. Now in addition to this perhaps doubling as a viewscope to see how far off the tarmac you are or sanding your face off while the vehicle is moving, doubles as a door, through which the crew can pass if they need to leave and the other hatches are compromised for some reason.

File: BMPT_354354321.jpg (187KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1600x1064px

>>33187483
>So Russian doctrine is to inflict more losses on the enemy.

Yeah, that's... kinda everybody's doctrine.

>>33186838
They mounted M40 recoilless rifles on M113's already.
The Ontos was intended for airborne applications - ie paradrop/drogue release and to be carried internally or sling loaded by heavy lift helicopters like CH-47 or CH-53.

The Marine Corps also used jeeps, and the M247 Mule to carry recoilless rifles in the airborne role. The corps left their Ontos in country and transferred them to a US army light infantry brigade because they had been relegated to static defense by that time.
The Ontos was replaced by the very recoilless rifle carriers it was meant to augment - the Jeep and the Mule - as well as the TOW jeep and the TOW carrying Gama Goat

>>33186982
The Swiss widely equipped their M113's with 20mm

>>33187614
I think his point is there is a very russian philosophy of "no such thing as too much gun"

Like in your pic. Having an 100mm cannon, 30mm autocannon, 30mm AGL, GPMG, and AT missiles as standard on their apc's seems pretty normal to them, whereas the US morally struggles with putting a .50cal on theirs.

>>33187630
How many can it carry? Won't you run into a bradley problem where you can only carry 4 and basically made a paper thin 30mm tank? If it carries a squad then awesome, a .50 for firepower is pathetic by modern standards.

File: M3A2-Bradley-Armor-1.jpg (62KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x480px

>>33187610
>Then riddle me this fucko, if aluminum is so great why does the bradley have a steel construction. The BMD and M113 use aluminum for weight to be airmobile because its better than wood, toilet paper, and happy thoughts, not because its the best.
Because the Bradley sits in the weight class and armour protection level where you need a steel frame. The aluminium armour as a frame construction is a sub-15 tonne deal.

>You know the bmp has firing ports right?
Yes, they are for use on an NBC battlefield. Allowing the vehicle to remain buttoned up. View from them is however atrocious.
Note that the Bradley also has a roof hatch for it's passengers. They even stuck vision blocks on it so a buttoned up crew can still use it to look around. But according to you this would only exist because the rear door is of a shitty design.

Seriously try to actually read up on why something exists on a vehicle.

>>33187179
I dont think the western unit forgoed the power of the ATGM.
It's just that western meduim ATGM like the Milan were actually pretty light. Milan is lighter than it's contemporary AT-4 Spigot or AT-5 Spandrel. And by the time the Metis was in service the Dragon had already been in service for 6 years.
Western ATGM's were more infantry centric - it's too easy to pop a hatch and fire a Milan or Dragon from it - why develop a a mounting and a system to fire internally?
M47 Dragons were btw standard issue for M113's in european theater past 1975 although not all of them got the mount

>>33187545
It's what I'd want if I was rich.

>>33187445
>Pound for pound, aluminium has the same strength properties as steel.

You are -actually- an idiot.

Pound for pound aluminum is much stronger than steel- which is precisely why it's used for aircraft. The M113 and Bradley use aluminum armor because they were designed around weight restrictions- amphibious or air-transportable. Aluminum alloy is simply stronger than steel for a given weight- so if you're designing an armor that needs to stop something like 14.5mm, it will end up being about 1/3rd lighter than equivalent armor in steel.

So why do we use steel in larger vehicles? Because steel ultimately has better qualities all around than aluminum if we don't have strict weight restrictions. It is significantly more ductile, and more resistant to fatigue. An aluminum hull might stop 14.5mm, but a steel hull rated equivalently will stop 14.5mm for much longer if it's subjected to repeated hits.

Armored vehicles also aren't build on a frame in the sense that a truck or locomotive is built on a frame- they are of monocoque construction. The body is the chassis.

>>33187693
Exactly. When a Russian designer is told "You have 1 more tonne of weight you can add" he will think about what guns he can add.
Ask the same question to a Western designer and he will look into how much more armour he can add.

This is because in Russia it is still politically viable to take losses in conflict. So their design philosophy favours offense in every way.
Meanwhile in the West, it is not politically viable to take losses. So politicians keep telling the military to minimize losses, and that is the philosophy we operate under.

You can even see it in our (mechanized) force structure. 8 man squads that break into 4 man fireteams. This is as small as it can get. Because a single loss means a fireteam is no longer capable of covering the 4 cardinal directions and is thus less capable.
Russians meanwhile operate 6+ sized squads that don't split up into fireteams.
It also highlights we have much higher training standards for our non-commissioned forces, granting them some minor command responsibility like a fireteam leader, while the Russians do not.

So as you can see, taking losses is not even thought of as a possibility within how shit is organized here in the West.

>>33187693
The BMPT is not an APC or IFV at all. It's a dedicated city fighting vehicle that never really went into service.

>>33187834
NATO was always pretty big on ATGMs. They just doctrinally never saw a point in mounting them on tanks, which already had bigass cannons to do the job.

>>33187791
Top doors generally are a backup. Its more exposed than the rear.

I genuinely don't get what your saying though, like the hatches primary purpose is to provide occupants a scenic view while driving cross country not in combat? When they take fire they button up. So its not to look around in combat. The top hatches proved pretty useful for the BMP because the rear doors had a nasty habit of pissing fuel all over the back where troops would get out and lighting on fire, giving the dudes inside the opportunity to get out not on fire.

File: ferret armored car.jpg (70KB, 736x551px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x551px

>>33187545
Ferrets are cool as fuck, there's nothing like a nimble little scout car.

>>33187740
It used the same Swedish turret and gun as the Pbv 302 - which is very similar to the M113 and carried 8 passengers+3 crew.
My guess would be 9 passengers+3 crew or 10+2

It's a pretty small turret and not much bigger than the hatch it replaces

>>33187881
I'm talking based off of armour properties for the most part. You wouldn't want to make an APC out of 7075 after all. But yes aluminium is great for weight restricted vehicles.

>>33186376

They put AT rockets on the BMP so it can definitely do some damage. Also armor is a joke on IFV anyway. Most of the "tank" losses during desert storm were bradleys that drove between abrams that couldn't be penetrated by the Iraqis.

>>33187951
Roof hatches serve multiple purposes. An alternative way of getting out is one. A means of standing up and being able to look out or shoot at the enemy is the other. But they were never there simply because the rear door sucks as you claim.

Also I would love to see a report where the rear door got shot and caused a fire. Considering the BMP uses a diesel engine. The flashpoint for which is really quite high. Anything that can ignite it is going to ignite the ammunition stored inside the vehicle. It's why the Swedish STRV-103 used it's diesel tanks on the side hull as a means of additional armour.
Now if it ran on gasoline, then you would have a point.

>>33187901
>When a Russian designer is told "You have 1 more tonne of weight you can add"
They were never told that. They were told "shave 1 more tonne of weight from you vehicle".

>>33187834
A better way to put it is this - the west 100% wanted the capability to dismount the ATGM.
This is present even on some western ATGMV's. For many this meant carrying it internally for the operators to dismount or popping a hatch
This is seen even on the Marder - the MILAN can be easily detached from the turret and lugged around.

As for heavy ATGM's
All the TOW carriers save for the Brad and M113 TOWUA can dismount their TOW's.
The HOT had a jeep launched variant that could be removed from it's carrier, although it was not a easy proposition.

As for eastern ATGMV's and IFV's - no eastern ATGMV aside from the lightest Light utility vehicle mounting can dismount it's ATGM for dismounted use easily, and the IFV's didn't get the capability to dismount their ATGM until BMP-2 - but it's not as easy as Marder because they have to be disconnected from the system that allows internal aiming and firing.
The BRDM-2 Spandrel usually carried a Spandrel ground mount/launcher so the crew could dismount and use the missiles but that was in addition to the vehicle launcher

>>33187617

I'm not sure but weren't there pictures of M113s being carried by helicopters, too?

>>33188067
>The flashpoint for which is really quite high. Anything that can ignite it is going to ignite the ammunition stored inside the vehicle.
To ignite ammunition you need to hit it. Not every projectile has trajectory that penetrates both fuel tank and ammunition. Second flash point is relevant ignition of fuel vapors incidence tank If fuel tank is penetrated through and fuel splashes out as small particles spray things change.

BMP door tanks are meme of course. Most dangerous source of fuel fire is tank inside crew compartment serving as troop bench.

File: argentineCH47BcarryingM113.jpg (39KB, 700x544px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 700x544px

>>33188120
Yeah. But it sits right at the weight limit for the CH-47. So I expect the M113 to not be carrying full fuel or ammo.

>>33187693
The BMPT series is a niche urban fighting vehicle designed to address the issues with using lightly armored SPAAG's in urban environments. It's ATGM are primarily carrying HE warheads anyway.

As for the BMP-3 - it has fire on the move ATGM capability, the armor is decent and is nearly on par with non uparmored western designs.
Russia keeps (slowly) making BMP-3's - tacking more and more upgrades to them - hell their new APC/IFV line they are planning to keep the BMP-3 in service for years to come.
Armata APC is replacing the hodge podge heavy/urban assault APC's that use older tank gulls.
Kurganets is replacing the MT-LB, BMP-1/2, and being used as a hull to replace support vehicles that use BTR, BMP, MT-LB hulls.
Bumerang is replacing the BTR-70/80/etc series that badly need to be replaced anyway - and is quite interesting being a V-shaped hull wheeled IFV.
BMD-4 and BMP-3 will continue in service and will recieve upgrades

>>33187519
BMP-1/2D was only a thing in Afghanistan.

>>33186849
>>33186956
>>33187020
>>33187080
>>33187152
>>33187610
>>33187791
>>33187951
>>33188067
>>33188175
First off, the fuel tanks on the doors are empty prior to entering combat. This is done in preparation for any mission. The extra fuel is there so you can drive a BMP all the way from Berlin to Cologne on a single tank. Sometimes the doors are even filled with sand which offers dubious protection against HMG rounds.

Secondly, people love shitting on the door designs, "Why didn't it just have a ramp?", the reason is because of two things: The BMP has a low profile, and the BMP is also supposed to dismount it's infantry on the move. Soviet thinkers believed that if a vehicle at any time stopped, it was a sitting duck, so even infantry had to dismount on the move. Big ramps aren't really good for this.

Keep in mind that also Soviet vehicles are also designed to be crewed by manlets, and motor rifle troops carried the bare minimum gear anyway as they were expected to spend most of their time mounted. Most Soviet attack plans didn't call for dismounted assault anyway, speed is king to them.

In a modern day conflict now where mechanized infantry are mostly expected to fight dismounted and have to carry a lot of gear, then yes, it becomes a problem. At the same time however, the BMP-2 is a relic from a different era with a different line of thinking. These days, speed is not as important as heavy armor is, and the Armata platform is an example of how the Russians have recognized that asymmetrical warfare is going to be the standard for the entire 21st century. They're not up-armoring to keep up with the West, they're following the example of Israel who have plenty of experience with armor in urban combat operations.

>>33187901
Russian MRD's have had 8 man squads for literally the longest time. As for fire teams from what I understand it's a newer concept to the Russians.
Not sure if VDV or Naval infantry have different squad sizes.
US Army is 9 men, USMC is 13, earlier there were some 11 men squads in mech units.
Odd numbers because the Squad Leader is his own entity distinct from either of the fireteams

>>33188120
The Ontos could be carried in a helicopter internally with the guns removed.
It's also why the Russian's are reluctant to fully retire the BMD-1/2 even though BMD 3/4 exist and are much more capable - because they can carry more than one (loaded) inside a Mi-26 and they can be easily sling loaded by later upengined variants of the Mi-17

>>33188431
>It's also why the Russian's are reluctant to fully retire the BMD-1/2 even though BMD 3/4 exist and are much more capable - because they can carry more than one (loaded) inside a Mi-26 and they can be easily sling loaded by later upengined variants of the Mi-17
No it is because their were poor. Current modernization program calls for BMD-4M replacing all BMD-1/2.

>>33188363
BMPs use 6-7 man squads
BTRs are only 8 because the driver and gunner are also considered to be a part of the squad

>>33187965

I agree. I immediately had dreams of owning a big ranch so me and a /k/omrade could drive around taking turns lighting up old cars with the. 30. Dreams...

>>33188599
This is a shitty argument. The only armies that have a chance of defeating Russia in a symmetrical non-nuclear war are the USA and perhaps China. Why does Russia need more than a few hundred BMD-4's? Who could withstand even that?

Russia makes up very long term replacement schedules, and then fulfills them slowly. Makes sense if you never throw anything away and your 30 year old relics are more advanced than 90% of the armed forces on earth. No need to spend half your GDP on new tanks your prob never gonna use and will be outdated soon enough anyways.

Spend enough to have a smattering of cutting edge shit and keep the factory and r&d wings doors open.

>>33188752
>Perhaps China
Absolutely China. Their technology is gaining an edge on the Russians and that's not even factoring the huge numerical advantage. China would have conquered Siberia a long time ago were it not for the Strategic Rocket Force's ability to turn China into the world's largest parking lot.

>>33188907
Last time the Chinese went to war they didn't do so good. Russia has also been involved in wars for the past 30 years, and knows exactly what they are doing. I do think the Chinese have made massive strides, but I would hardly say they have an edge over Russia.

I also just don't think China is a really aggressive nation. If they didn't bother to conquer Mongolia then they probably have zero interest in the frozen hell known as Siberia.

China's "aggression" in the South China Sea is really just a recognition that they are bordered by 3 nuclear powers to the North, West, and South. There is only 1 direction they can "expand" and exert influence.

>>33188752
>Russia makes up very long term replacement schedules
They are actually very fast full army rearmament should end around 2025.

>Spend enough to have a smattering of cutting edge shit
Russian military is supposed to be armed in 2025 with ONLY cutting edge shit.

>>33187442
>with a drop on a brad
This implies an ambush, likely at less than 600 meters. If can do otherwise, you won't "center mass" a vehicule.

>>33189081
Thats not very fast by cold war standards, just fast by 21st century lazy west euro standards. Also, the RSFSR is in desperate need of new kit. Rolling around in BMP 1s in 2008 killed alot of people that it shouldn't have. Not having thermal optics as standard on your tanks when fucking britbongistan fits them on mraps is not very good.

But I will say that their new line of armored vehicles is exactly what the 21st century ordered. Though I don't know why they didn't refit a few thousand T-55's into those terminator APC's real cheap and quick in the early 2000's.

>>33189003
/r/ing that news story of china getting BTFO by their own REDFOR.

File: 0005-arma2_vehicles_tracked_BMP3.jpg (49KB, 800x347px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x347px

>>33185903
The BMP-3 was a blast to use in Arma 2: Wasteland. It had a unique loadout of 100mm cannon / coaxial 30mm / ATGMs / PKT machine guns, which made it able to engage basically every other vehicle in the game (including scrubs in lowflying jets, to a certain degree).

I had more fun gunning in BMPs than anything else in the game.

>>33188907
>China
>conquer Siberia
Why, they just buy it for cheaper than it would be to wage a war
Plus China and Russia are officially allied because the Burgers went full retard after the USSR fell

>>33188752
>Russia makes up very long term replacement schedules, and then fulfills them slowly. Makes sense if you never throw anything away and your 30 year old relics are more advanced than 90% of the armed forces on earth. No need to spend half your GDP on new tanks your prob never gonna use and will be outdated soon enough anyways.
To be fair Russia kicks units down the line. T-14 for the guard units. While the older T-72s are going to motorized or VDV units. Which don't need the top line stuff anyway. And the old T-90s are being gifted to Syria to help them out.

>>33189466
Nah it's fast. Think about it. The US still has their old ass Bradleys and is only now looking at replacing them. Even worse the M113 is only now looking at a replacement.
Great example of how neglected the Bradley is. Cav units in Iraq had Bradleys on overwatch and Abrams doing scouting because the Abrams had better sensors.

Another example. The F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15 fleet in it's entirety. Instead it only did so partially and the F-15 is still flying around. Now the F-35 is to replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8, A-10 and part of the F-15 fleet. And it is looking increasingly likely that it is only going to be replacing the old standard Hornets and not the Super Hornets.

Similar shit happened with ship replacement. The Zumwalt was to replace all the destroyers. Instead they only get three and the Arleigh-Burke is to continue on in service much longer than it was intended for.

We just dont have a coherent modernization strategy in the West. We got a pork barrel throw money at politician's constituents strategy.

File: M113.gif (44KB, 367x275px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 367x275px

I remember a story way back about a particular incident with a OSV and a Bradley platoon

The BMP's firepower is nothing to shake a stick at - and people really underestimate how huge of an improvement the 2A42 is over the 2A38. Basically there was an OSV with it's engine off hidden in a ditch somewhere while dismounts watched the platoon - all four Bradleys drove right past it, the OSV turned it's engine on, and every single M2 was wasted in a volley of simulated 30.

>>33189519
OPFOR regularly kicks the shit out of our army too. That's the whole point. If they lost all the time then they'd have no reason to exist.

>>33190234
>The BMP's firepower is nothing to shake a stick a
>>33190234
>wasted in a volley of simulated 30

>>33190677
I've had that expression wrong this entire time. I feel like a retard after googling it now.

>>33190692
i was more commenting on the use of US Army laser tag as evidence of the lethality of the BMP-2's armament

>>33190721
The point is that the 2A28's fire rate is not that high, with just that the OSV would have hit one Bradley and then the others would have enough time to maybe lose another before they took it out.

The actual 2A42 is much more valuable regardless. Nevermind it's increased ability to suppress infantry, strike flying targets like Heloes, or just hit shit past a klick, the 2A42 is more capable at tank killing as well.

During the prototyping of the BMP-2, there was a fierce competition between two design bureaus for whether the BMP should be equipped with another low-pressure gun, or with the newly developed 2A42. Push came to shove and eventually the bureau in favor of the 73mm held a test to see which gun could kill tanks better.

The 73 fired 3 shots at the side of a defunct T-72 at 1,200m.
One shot went over, the other went under, and one hit, but the T-72's sideskirt deflected the shot.

The 30 on the other hand let loose 3 8-round bursts at the same range. The T-72's optics (Gunner's sight and periscope), roof machine gun, radios were all shredded off of the tank, and the main gun was penetrated in two areas, a complete mission kill.
The 2A42 proved superior in pretty much every role and it's just one of the reasons why each new iteration of BMP was a huge leap forward.

>>33189519
Stride 2014? That was the entire point of the exercise, OPFOR had nukes.

>>33185903
>The BMP series is my all-time favorite vehicle, but I can't find out why.
Because you're manlet.

>>33190797
Dont forget that experience in Afghanistan showed the low pressure gun with it's limited elevation was not useful. Meanwhile Shilkas pressed into fire support vehicle service were able to lay down tremendous fire at enemies up high on cliffsides or buildings. And so when the autocannon was fitted to the BMP, it was mandated it be able to have high elevation because of combat experience.
Being able to shoot down helicopters was a bonus.

>>33186376
>worse firepower (30mm can't scratch even the rear of the bradley, AT-5 can't do anything to M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yTb3vF35M

File: 14849321347650.jpg (190KB, 1242x664px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1242x664px

>>33186376
>AT-5 can't do anything to M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A0
ISIS disagree with you

File: file.png (950KB, 1323x609px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1323x609px

>>33186376
>>33186376
>BMP is penetrated by 7.62)
>30mm can't scratch even the rear of the bradley
the upper glacis can handle 100mm APDS

and 3UBR8 is more than enough again Bradley frontal
Penetration, RHA (60 degrees):
1000m = 35mm
1500m = 25mm
2000m = 22mm
Penetration, RHA (0 degrees):
Muzzle = 85mm
500m = 80mm
1000m = >70mm
1500m = >50mm
2000m = >44mm

>>33191516
>the upper glacis can handle 100mm APDS

That's a Strv 103 you dumbfuck

Bradley's frontal armor is rated above 120mm, lol no the russians don't have a 30mm round that can do anything to it, meanwhile late 80's 20mm fired by the marder could kill the BMP past 2km

>>33191537
>That's a Strv 103 you dumbfuck
Strv 103 have the same frontal armor as BMP-1
> above 120mm
of what? air, aluminium foil?

> meanwhile late 80's 20mm fired by the marder could kill the BMP past 2km
the upper glacis can handle 100mm APDS

>>33191574
>Strv 103 have the same frontal armor as BMP-1
Same concept, not the same fucking thickness. A 100mm AP will go through the front and out the back of a BMP.

>>33191574
>Strv 103 have the same frontal armor as BMP-1
Complete fucking bullshit.

>>33191537
>Bradley's frontal armor is rated above 120mm
Sorry. That is the biggest load of male bovine manure I read in a long while. And someone earlier in the thread claimed the M113 was superior in all ways to the BMP.

You are going to have to have deliver some really credible sourcing on that if you want anyone here to believe you.

>>33191636
Even more bullshit than the BMP shrugging off 100mm APDS?

File: 3563456345681242.jpg (490KB, 1216x2280px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1216x2280px

>>33191516
>the upper glacis can handle 100mm APDS

File: 32523464563.jpg (324KB, 1300x919px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1300x919px

>>33191516
>and 3UBR8 is more than enough again Bradley frontal
>Penetration, RHA (60 degrees):
>1000m = 35mm
>1500m = 25mm
>2000m = 22mm
How can we solve vatnik lies problem?

BTW BMP-2 never used 3UBR8 in combat, and it is procurement for Russian military started only couple years ago.

>>33191648
Oh that was bullshit too. But 120mm topped it.

>>33186766
Borking and Ikea

>>33187881
>it will end up being about 1/3rd lighter than equivalent armor in steel.
Aluminium is 1/3 the density of steel. You're claiming equal thicknesses of steel and aluminium give the same protection? Really?

The real reason aluminium is used on lighter vehicles is because it is better at stopping low calibers, weight for weight. Weight for weight steel is better at stopping higher calibers and is less bulky. The crossover is at around 20mm cannon rounds.

Also the low density of aluminium means improved stiffness for the same protection, which allows monocoque construction. You wouldn't be seeing monocoque steel APCs.

At the time it was deployed West had nothing similar.
And BMP-2 is roughly comparable to early Bradley.
BMP-3 is more than competitive with later Bradleys.
What's with the idiots on this board who shit on EVERY Soviet/Russian/non-American weapon?
Soviets had great weapons. There's no shame in admiting it. And no fucking purpose in being ignorant about capabilities of your potential opponent.
And another thing, for both sides of argument, stop using meme variants or special ammo or other equipment that wasn't issued in relevant numbers.

BMP was a solid idea and design, but is a suicide box in asymmetric guerilla war.

Syrians have mostly stopped using BMP's because so many hundreds have been destroyed.

>>33191831
Permabanned Russian IPs

>>33192598
Thanks, anon. I am tired of dick-waving and memery. I just want objective facts, no need for degrading other's equipment as a pile of dogshit.

Main problem with the BMP is that it's intended to fight right on the frontlines but is under-armed and under-armored for this.

The Soviets very much designed its 73mm gun to take on MBT's, when it was completely inadequate for this role. The Malyutka ATGM quickly became obsolete as well. This means that it can't fulfill its basic intended role.

Nonetheless users still try to treat it like a tank, which is why BMP's always die by the hundreds in any conflict while clearly inferior models like the M113 don't take as many losses.

File: E.German BMP-2 squad dismounting.jpg (108KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x525px

>>33188289
>the BMP is also supposed to dismount it's infantry on the move.

No.

File: south_china_sea_territorial_disputes_afp_graphic_080514.jpg (106KB, 540x571px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 540x571px

>>33189003
>China's "aggression" in the South China Sea is really just a recognition that they are bordered by 3 nuclear powers to the North, West, and South. There is only 1 direction they can "expand" and exert influence.

China's redeclous claims on the entirety of the S.China Sea is all about seizing control of the potential oil that's down there.

File: M2-Turretless Bradley.jpg (177KB, 1577x661px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1577x661px

>>33190202
>The US still has their old ass Bradleys and is only now looking at replacing them. Even worse the M113 is only now looking at a replacement.

That's because there is nothing fundamentally wrong with either the Bradley or M113 and any potential replacement will only be a marginal improvement yet cost a bazillion dollars each.

As you said, this is pork barrel money spending and military-industrial complex corruption.

>>33188907
>Their technology is gaining an edge on the Russian
That's news to me. Gaining an edge where? Aircraft? Fuck they copied Western design concepts almost 1-1 with their stealth jets, which greatly indicates a level of inexperience to the tech. and possibly even the science behind it. Ground Forces, their next gen vehicles are behind late Soviet era ones= they don't even have anything comparable to the Armata, Kurganets, and Bumerang. Navy-wise the only thing they have going for them is that they can afford to build bigger ships, but then again the tech. that goes into those ships aren't any better than what the Russians and Western Euros are fitting in their frigates. They are building wannabe Burkes with equipment you'd find on equivalent frigates just made in more or bigger.

>and that's not even factoring the huge numerical advantage.
Doesn't matter when Russia has thousands of strategic level weaponry like PGMs that would destroy any chance at mobilizing such a huge war economy- they don't even need to be nuclear. Worst of all they can pump and regenerate those all the while remaining safe under the toughest IADS on the planet.

>>33187307
>Measuring a socialist country with planned economy by GDP in US dollars
That's really not how it works.

>>33186679
>that would have made it a viable weapon long before the Soviets got around to making gun launched missiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra

>>33192961
>inadequate
Jesus Christ, do you people understand M60A1 was like 90% of US tank fleet even in early 80's?
Grom can penetratate it's frontal armor easily.
When BMP came into service it was more than adequate, and West had nothing similar.
Malyutka had awkward MCLOS guidance but later (mid 70's IIRC) variants were SACLOS.
Of course it didn't have a lot of armor, but that's the point, it's an infantry support vehicle, not an MBT. It would operate alongside tanks and infantry. Soviets valued combined arms highly.
BMP was a great design and obviously it was made in line with Soviet philosophy. Shit like "it got blown up in Afghan mountains" or "Bradleys raped it in '91" is totally fucking irrelevant.
For it's time and it's designed purpose it was a great vehicle.
It's successors are great too, especially BMP-3, though it isn't deployed in great numbers.

>>33193130
https://youtu.be/PNybllbrrXY?t=42s
Yes.

>>33193422
90% is too generous. More like 99%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_tank_formations#USA

>>33193426
> a staged shot of troops exiting while crawling along at idle speed

Like I said, no.

>>33193528
>Zapad 81
>Staged
Lol. Like I said, yes. No one implied the troops were supposed to dismount at 40 mph. Also 3:07, same video.

File: MBT-70.jpg (66KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x600px

>>33193302

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra
9K112_Kobra
Service history
Inservice 1976–present

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh
MGM-51 Shillelagh
Production history
Produced 88,194 from 1964 to 1971

Like I said, the Shillelagh had already been abandoned by the time the Kobra first went into production.

>>33193587
The point was made about becoming a viable weapon after the Computer Revolution that happened exactly the time Kobra went in service.

File: M113 rear door.jpg (99KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 375x500px

>>33193582

Yes, it is a staged shot and getting out of a BMP at idle speed is essentially not different then getting out when it's stopped.

U.S. mech infantry could also get out of an M113 or Bradley at idle speed.

>>33193615
>The point was made about becoming a viable weapon after the Computer Revolution that happened exactly the time Kobra went in service.

The point was had the U.S. kept working on the Shillelagh, it would have been an effective weapon while the Kobra would have still been a buggy prototype.

File: cease your faggotry.jpg (24KB, 261x189px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 261x189px

>>33193664
Could you please stop denying a video proof? It's really cringy to read.

File: i said cease it.jpg (457KB, 1136x842px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1136x842px

>>33193676
Oh, so you want to shitpost?
>390 mm
>effective

File: m3a2bradleyhatch.jpg (149KB, 579x480px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 579x480px

>>33193678
>Could you please stop denying a video proof?

What "proof"? We've got a staged vid of Russian troops exiting a BMP at idle speed.

That doesn't support your contention that the BMP was somehow _designed_ so troops could exit "on the move".

File: object 775 exhibition.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>33193587
>Produced 1964

File: su-25-45.jpg (45KB, 700x430px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x430px

It is like A-10 - everybody knows it is shit, but still loves it.

>>33192961
>The Malyutka ATGM quickly became obsolete as well.
you do realize that 99% of targets an ATGM would be shot at wouldn't be a modern tank right? Even for a supposed invulnerable modern tank there are still weakspots like the mantlet and certain parts of the hull and turret front and ofc. the sides and rear which are vulnerable to shitty ATGMs.

File: cease.jpg (37KB, 261x183px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 261x183px

>>33193700
The cringe is real. His point was this:
>Secondly, people love shitting on the door designs, "Why didn't it just have a ramp?", the reason is because of two things: The BMP has a low profile, and the BMP is also supposed to dismount it's infantry on the move.
So yes, its doors were designed for troops to dismount on the move and there is a video of troops dismounting on the move.

>>33193728
If by modern you mean contemporary to Malutka, it was was very much deadly to them too. Ask Israelis.

>>33192961
muhahaha. tell that to the US Army which had Bradley IFVs screen for the MBTs in Gulf War, allowing them to score the most AFV kills.

File: bradley.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>33193737
>So yes, its doors were designed for troops to dismount on the move

God damn, it's been a while since I read so much stupid...

>>33193422
Not just Afghanistan and 91. Basically every conflict since its introduction has shown the BMP to be a death trap

Israelis captured over 100 and determined they were less safe than even the M113

>>33192598
3UBR8 was standard in high readiness units (See: GSFG) since 1986.

>>33192909
>Syrians have mostly stopped using BMP's
They're present in every government offensive. We just saw them in Palmyra and Manbij.

>>33193528
>>33193700

Holy shit, the denial is real. Troops exiting BMPs and BTRs on the move is literally doctrinal Warsaw pact combined arms 101. Exiting on the move was practiced across all armies and nations of the Warsaw pact as part of their combined arms offensive.

Here's an NVA dismount doing the exact same thing.

https://youtu.be/7QCwj9RTN4Y?t=1m29s

>>33192961

It literally didn't matter that their AT capabilities were not 100% ideal since majority of the rounds that the BMPs and T-55/62/72 were HE anyways for suppressing NATO defenses. A NATO tank alone (90%+ of the US ones being M60's) would have been outnumbered 3:1 theater-wide and anywhere from 9:1 to 30:1 in their initial tactical situations and that's not counting enemy IFV's.

Read up on the standard Soviet battle plan. BTRs/BMPs were perfectly suited to their doctrinal requirements. The only legitimate criticism I've come across is that BMP-2s can be argued to carry too few of troops.

>>33194837
>majority of the rounds that the BMPs and T-55/62/72 were HE anyways
But anon BMP-1 didn't have HE for the first 8 years of service. Initial soviet IFV doctrine revolved around AT capabilities.

>>33195386
You're right. Later in the 70's they emphasized much more towards anti infantry capabilities introducing the HE rounds and later the BMP-2 in 1980. In this case the BMP-1 still only carried a typical load of 16 HE-Frag vs 24 HEAT rounds after 1974. Still very heavy on HE, though.

File: east_german_bmp_2_by_wolfenkrieger-d4fy0yx.jpg (171KB, 800x764px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x764px

The pintle mounted AT-5 is really nice IMO. Unlike the gun it has actual depression, meaning it can creep up on a hill with only the launcher exposed (Which is hard to find even on thermals, god help you if there's foliage on it), shut the engine off, and just wait.

In Steel Beasts I do this with every BMP and snipe any IFVs or tanks that I see, since only the late-version NATO IFVs with heavy 30mm-immune armor are in that game.

>>33194494
Because it was used badly.
And Israelis only had access to monkey models supplied to Arabs.

>>33197926
>Because it was used badly.

You are saying it has been used badly every time it has seen combat?

>>33197926
>monkey model

There's not much to monkey model with the BMP-1. It was a bare-bones design, the gun had no stabilizer and the AT-3 was much more difficult to use inside the confined turret than outside.

The BMP failed in Arabia for a different reason. Out there, there's not much for cover, and sight lines are fucking huge. That means that ATGMs and air power rule the battlefield. The BMP's whole concept was to be a fast vehicle with a ton of firepower, while sacrificing armor for said speed, mobility, amphibious capability, and firepower.

This falls apart in the desert environment because you have no cover to speed behind, everywhere's an open space, and the ranges are so long you either bring a vehicle that can take ATGMs really well or you're literally just better off with Toyotas. This happened in Libya as well.

Aside from deserts, the only other common kind of terrain in the middle east are urban areas, where you're now also within RPG/LAW ranges where again, that light armor isn't sufficient. Only the Syrian Republican Guard has found a workaround for this by pairing their BMP-2s with the much higher-value target that is their T-72AVs. They're a really effective combo compared to everything else the SAA has been fielding.

The Israelis know this very well and that's why they ditched their light carriers ASAP for even basic designs like a hollowed-out T-55: In that environment, heavy armor is king. For this same reason the Russians have completely changed their armor doctrine from spamming cheap, mobile platforms for small numbers of, but heavily armed and heavily armored ones.

>>33198078
>This falls apart in the desert environment because you have no cover to speed behind, everywhere's an open space, and the ranges are so long you either bring a vehicle that can take ATGMs really well or you're literally just better off with Toyotas.
Infamous Valley of Tears battle with BMP-1 debut happen at close range mostly.

>ll and that's why they ditched their light carriers ASAP
No they didn't they continue to roll old and falling apart M-113 because of budget limitations. But they ditched captured BMP-1 as they found them unsuitable even for secondary APC role.

>>33197926
>Because it was used badly.
It used exactly according to Soviet doctrine.

File: Valley_of_Tears[1].jpg (840KB, 2000x537px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 2000x537px

>>33199078
>Infamous Valley of Tears battle with BMP-1 debut happen at close range mostly.

Define "close range". Within 500 meters, yeah, the Israelis broke the survivors in reverse-slope positions. But mostly you had Syrian tanks moving in the open versus Israeli tanks in good defensive positions, and while they applied their artillery correctly, the Syrians failed to utilize flanking maneuvers that Soviet doctrine required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uc-wTlD-_U&t=15m This video covers very well that such an attack is suicide, regardless of who carries it out. Time skipped to relevant part.

Another engagement in that battle amuses me: Two mechanized infantry battalions lost against just twenty-two men. Twenty-two! Losing upwards of 600 men to just 22 implies a lot more problems than just poor vehicles.

>>33185903
It is also my favorite vehicle to use the LAW on in operation flashpoint. Single hit to kill.

File: BMP Sov1308649058116.jpg (85KB, 520x349px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 520x349px

>>33198078
>There's not much to monkey model with the BMP-1.

My understanding is that the only difference between the Soviet issueBMPs and the export BMPs was the lack of radiation shielding on the export models.

File: T.png (55KB, 1378x411px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1378x411px

>>33187902
>>33188283
>tfw BMPT is back
Apparently they're using the T-15 chassis.

>>33186135
>First of its kind

The first IFV? Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_Lang_HS.30

>>33199078
>But they ditched captured BMP-1 as they found them unsuitable even for secondary APC role.
BMP-1/2 isn't an APC, so obviously it would be unsuited.
Israelis don't use IFVs only APCs, thats why they didn't use the BMP.

>>33202957
>BMP-1/2 isn't an APC
T-55/Centurion aren't an APC but eventually found themselves suited for this role.

>>33203139
The T-55 is a tank.
The Achzarit is a heavy APC.

The Israelis saw no use in modding BMP-1s into APCs since all that would do is just create a slightly faster M113, in an army that is by and large focused on urban warfare.

>>33187965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvXTIT2yJ0

>>33189722
The BMPs main gun seemed too OP in Arma 2 though, I fought AI BMPs in domination and they would shred any vehicles that got in range, including M1A2s. Sustained fire would immobilize an Abrams in less than 3 seconds, and a few seconds more, destroy it. They didn't even use their ATGMs. They were an absolute pain as they would gun you down before you could even get a chance to shoot back.

>>33203395

accepting a 100mm shell into your life is a problem for any man-made object, even an MBT.

>don't do it

>>33185903
I see op has never had the pleasure of having a half hour ride in "the glorious soviet pukewagon" a.k.a. the concrete mixer, the gear randomizer, the "I can make you vomit in 5 minutes mobile". Pretty fun stuff. You just have to be careful not to knock your teeth out with your rifle, watch out for the hatches to not cut your fingers off while mounting/dismounting and stare at the tiny little fucking periscope all time cos otherwise you will vomit all over the interior and cause a vomiting chain reaction. Also remember to wear the helmet, because every bump will kick you in the ass and smack your head against the hatch above you.