Why is the BMP-2 so lightly armored? It seems like a solid

Unless you're Israel nobody builds heavily armored troop transports.

>>33279347
Too right, my friend. I was driving mine home from the grocery store back in '06 and my neighbor tagged me with his 120mm recoilless rifle. Obliterated the whole load of groceries. I never should have bought a BMP-2, they just aren't armored well enough. That could have been my kids in that crew compartment!

>>33279347
Because mobility > armor

>>33279347
Why put armor on when you could bolt more weapons on instead? Seems to be the reasoning behind the bmp3 at any rate

File: org_esjo292.jpg (976KB, 4048x2273px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 4048x2273px

>>33279347
Who would win 1v1?
BMP 2 or Kurganets?

>>33279425
Lol

File: rule two.gif (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>33279484

>>33279426
Well, this reasoning surely benefited the BMP-2 in every conflict after the Cold war.

>>33279482
That is why the new Russian weapons have so many weapon systems...

File: 2015-06-04-226.jpg (968KB, 3000x1683px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 3000x1683px

>>33279534
>Well, this reasoning surely benefited the BMP-2 in every conflict after the Cold war.
Yes. The BMP-2 is still in service in many countries, is currently in combat and is being modernized by Finland example to fit the modern battlefield.

If you want an armored vehicle to be amphibious, the amount of armor you can put on is always going to be limited.

Ultimately though, it was designed for the Warsaw Pact Vs NATO war that never happened. The requirements were for a highly mobile vehicle that was affordable in large numbers with NBC protection for a war lasting a couple of weeks where the objective was to take Western Europe before reinforcements could arrive from North America.

>>33279534
what the fuck are you even trying to say you turbo retard

>>33279482
Bmp-3 is actually well armored.

>>33279347
Amphibious.

File: BMP-2M.jpg (3MB, 3456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2592px

>>33279347
>And with no real option for armor upgrade.
It is as if you have been living under a rock or something.

The BMP-2 was built to fight a war where you got TOW missiles and 120mm guns peaking out from every bush so armor against those threats was impossible for a infantry fighting vehicle ment to swim over rivers and move generally fast all the time.

But unlike the BMP-1 it can actually hit targets at ranges beyond 1300 meters which is maximum for the BMP-1 with effectivness, fire on the move, shoot at air targets while having the commander in the turret, removing the deadspace created on the BMP-1 commanders position.

>>33279547
Lipstick on a pig

>>33279733
Pigs are great though.

>>33279347
>lighty armored
It was meant to protect against small arms and enemy IFVs, not tanks.

>>33279751
But the problem is that it ain't protected by enemy IFV, even a 14,5mm can pen it from the front.

File: 1.jpg (72KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x681px

>>33279712
Yea, but that isn't a moduilar upgrade.
You can put slat armor on any vehicle.

It's like putting cardboard on the sides of my car to protect it from door bumping.

File: CZPHAh2WQAAireX.jpg (74KB, 599x586px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 599x586px

>>33279347

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9GA0Bbs2yY

>>33279798
Nod really, it is small arms all around and 20mm front. Anyway, they wanted an amphibious vehicle with high mobility capable of protecting its infantry primarily from WMD and shrapnel, and capable of supporting it with 30mm gun and ATGMs. This is what they got.

>>33279810
i have seen a guy hang a board of polystyrol foam on the side of his car in the parking lot. i can only imagine how many times some asshole whacked his door in the side of his brand new car before he decided it would be best to add applique armor.

>>33279810
>Yea, but that isn't a moduilar upgrade.
That is not what you asked for, do I have to spoonfeed you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob4tzk6LHFM

>It's like putting cardboard on the sides of my car to protect it from door bumping.
Well door bumps dont result in you getting engulfed in a violent fire now does it? Besides you missed the additional layers of armor behind the cage armor which will defeat RPG rounds which are the most common weapon amongst insurgents and rebel forces.

>>33279798
14.5mm cannot penetrate it the BMP-2 from the front in a normal scenario. If you are talking about the BMP-2 climbing over a obstacle thus reducing the angle for the lower glacis then sure it is possible.
https://thesovietarmourblog (DOT GOES HERE FOR REAL ) blogspot (DOT GOES HERE) com/2016/05/bmp-2.html

>>33279884
Yeah, and, by the way, they did not care much about protection against their own calibers. .50 and 20mm HE was reasonable and worked perfectly up until 90's when M903 SLAP was introduced.

>>33279884
And you see so many BMP-2 upgraded like this.
Amazing, thank you!

And I read thesovietarmourblog and while they provide interesting details, they are strongly biased towards Soviet/Russian vehicles.

>>33279347
It's supposed to be lead by tanks and/or dismounted infantry, and it was made in an era where covering your IFVs with ERA wasn't a sound move.
It's not like the other IFVs of the time are really better.

>>33279898
tell me more about SLAP and SLAP-T

>>33279916
Yeah since so many countrys have the money to upgrade their BMP's to maximum high standard am I right?

Point is that you initially claimed that there are no real options for the BMP-2 when it comes to armor but now you are shifting the goal post to the upgrades not being good or that it is not good because it is not used in numbers.

I have rebuked your claim by providing evidence that there are upgrades for the BMP-2, goal posting will not help you.

While there are some bias from the sovietarmourblog, it is not pants on retarded bias since it admits faults in the BMP-2 like the crew comfort, passenger seat and space, gun's inaccuarcy in fully automatic, fumes it creates when firing, possibility for getting stuck in harsh terrain, weak armor in the modern age without upgrades like the BMP-2D but states that in it's time it was credible protection against the threats it faced etc.

>>33279960
Essentially APDS rounds but for 12.7mm machine guns.

End result? Greater material penetration at longer ranges. Vehicles that enjoyed some form of protection from a certain range or invulnerbility to 12.7mm rounds in it's vanila form suddenly found themself vulnerable to it.
>BMP-1 and 2
>BMD-1 and 2 (worse then the BMP)

Vehicles that were already vulnerable to 12.7mm rounds found themself in an even worse situation and in a desperate need of armor increase.
>BRDM series
>BTR series
>MT-LB series
>ZSU series

>>33279596

No it's not, M2/M2A1 tier without ERA.

File: m113.jpg (78KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x377px

It is frontally resistant to 23mm, can destroy every MBT of it's era and engage low flying targets, carries a rifle section at 65km/h, can cross rivers on it's own is protected for NBC warfare, is very cheap to produce and easy to maintain. It made NATO collectively shit themselves when it was introduced and spawned a brand new genre of vehicule, still HEAVILY used as a backbone of ALL mechanised armies in the world today. It was, and still is, an amazing vehicule.
>which would you ride into battle, this or op's?

>>33279425

kek

You the dude who wrote about the FN P90 being on welfare and stealing your truck battery?

>>33281178
>It is frontally resistant to 23mm

When you go over the types of ammunition available to 23mm you realize that means it is 14.5mm resistant.

>>33281423
But what else does it need to protect against in an era where even MBT front turret armour can't stop AT weapons?

File: IMG_0391.jpg (15KB, 203x149px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 203x149px

>>33279425

>>33281568
>BMP-2
>1980
>MBT frontal armor is ineffective

anon plz

>>33279347
>It seems like a solid vehicle, but to be made in '80 and be so lighty armored
It had protection from 0.50 BMG. Main weapon of burger M-113.

Right question is why is the M-113 so lightly armored and armed?

>>33279798
>even a 14,5mm can pen it from the front.
Too bad for imperialist scum 14.5mm was NATO problem not NATO weapon.

>>33281178
M113 is a better APC, BMP-1/2 is a better IFV.
The Soviet counterpart to the M113 is something like the MT-LB.

>>33282221
BTR-50 actually. The MT-LB is an artillery tractor first and foremost, and is more recent.

>>33281777
APCs aren't supposed to be frontline vehicles.

File: 1452639798384.gif (1MB, 386x286px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 386x286px

>>33279425

File: bmp1.jpg (235KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 600x400px

>>33279347
Better question, why is the BMW series so damn a e s t h e t i c?

>>33287320
at least until chris bangle and his flame surfacing

>>33279347
It was meant to be fast and cross water obstacles. Armor doesn't really fit in that equation.

BMPs are getting wasted in current conflicts that revolve around slow paced combat in close quarters environments where heavy armor is much more important than mobility. See: Israel, future procurements of almost every military.

>>33279929
>It's not like the other IFVs of the time are really better.
The M2, Marder, and Warrior were all vastly superior from the start.

>>33279733
rude to call your mother a pig when she does the same thing

>>33290208
No, they actually werent.

File: 1480271220717.jpg (215KB, 1500x945px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1500x945px

>>33290235
>Capable of destroying latest T-series
>BMP-2 wasn't capable of destroying Abrams or Leopard 2
>Bradley 25mm, Marder 20mm, Warrior 30mm could easily penetrate BMP-2 from the front
>BMP-2 30mm could not penetrate any from the front at combat ranges, regardless of variant
>NATO IFVs had thermal optics (This is a fucking huge deal)
>BMP-2 had an ancient IR sight and optics dated back to WW2
>NATO had superior tactics
>Soviet tactics boiled down to "make a big line and zerg rush"

But hey, at least you could make two other targets for every Bradley, right?

>>33290250
All of which came up quite a bit not from the start, fuckhead.

>>33290250
>This is what amerishits actually believe

File: 1473994868440.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>33290250
>Being this much of a simpleton

>>33290371
>>33291595
not an argument

>>33279547
It's still in service because those countries are either too poor or have not been in active combat for some time and don't see the need in spending money on a new fleet of armored vehicles

It all comes down to money

>>33284877

Meanwhile, in the vietnam war, they were used almost exclusively as ad-hoc fighting vehicles.
It's sort of like how WW2 strategy dictated shermans as infantry support and that TD's would engage armor, but the reality is you will have to use assets beyond their intended purpose.

>>33290250
Pentagon Wars is a pretty good movie

File: SlcRffd.jpg (163KB, 800x1085px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 800x1085px

>>33290250
>BMP-2 wasn't capable of destroying Abrams or Leopard 2
IS and Houthis force have proved that you are wrong
>BMP-2 30mm could not penetrate any
no
>NATO IFVs had thermal optics
new NATO IFV have thermal, the same as new Soviet IFV

File: BMP2 Berezhok.jpg (200KB, 1024x710px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1024x710px

>>33290250
picrelated is Algeria BMP-2
they are equipped with thermal and Kornet

Kornet are far more modern and versatile than any ATGM being use by Bradley, Marder and Warrior

>>33293433
It's really not and you're rather uneducated for even suggesting that it has any basis in reality.

>>33293468
>IS and Houthis force have proved that you are wrong
By what, blowing up monkey models in the middle of nowhere with dismounted Kornets that were never mounted on the BMP-2 until the past decade? We're talking about FROM THE START you moron. BMP-2s were equipped with the god awful AT-4 and the not much better AT-5, both which are COMPLETELY USELESS Against NATO MBTs since 1980.

>3UBR11
>Did not appear until 2000's
>3UBR8 wasn't even in service until 2000's and Marder 1A3/M2A2 are fully immune to it

>new NATO IFV have thermal
ALL NATO IFVs have thermals. They always fucking have from the M2 to the Marder 1A1.
>the same as new Soviet IFV
The Soviet Union NEVER produced an IFV with thermal optics outside of the BRM-1 which was a DEDICATED RECON VEHICLE. BMP-2s literally all were and most still are rolling with fucking WW2-tier sights.

File: file.png (1MB, 1167x639px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1167x639px

>>33293543

they were using Konkurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RUgRtpUKc

using Kornet again NATO tank is overkill

>>33293616
Yeah, a modernized version against a monkey model. The AT-5 never left it's A variant while the Soviet Union was still being a blight upon the planet.

AT-5a could not, and still can not defeat the side armor of a legitimate American M1A1... no shit a monkey model crewed by retarded Saudis without any DU plates or composite armor is easy game.

>>33293499
>Kornet are far more modern and versatile than any ATGM being use by Bradley, Marder and Warrior

>>no top down attack

lel

>>33293632
>the crew magically confers additional armor protection

>>33293654
That's... not what I said at all.
Good job having the reading comprehension of a grade schooler, though.

>>33293616
And then we remember that Turkish Sabre (M60A3) that survived a Kornet.

>>33293468
>Soviet
>thermal anything that isn't a) French and b) from the last ~decade

File: file.png (546KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 800x533px

>>33293543
>BMP-2s were equipped with the god awful AT-4 and the not much better AT-5
pic related is a Finnish BMP-2 with Konkurs
i just steal this from google because it is really that easy
>>33293632
>Yeah, a modernized version against a monkey model.

>9M113 Konkurs
>1974–present

>without any composite armor
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf
you cann't remove composite armor from an Abrams and replace it with steel plate

learn about the tank your are shilling for first
>>33293670
those M60 were upgrade by Jew
which make them irrelevant in this augment

>>33293699
Yeah, the Konkurs IS the AT-5 you fucking moron.

>>9M113 Konkurs
>1974–present
You're completely missing the point. Are you doing this on purpose, retard? The AT-5a, or original Konkurs, could NOT DEFEAT THE ARMOR OF EITHER THE ABRAMS OR LEOPARD 2.

The AT-5b, which actually COULD penetrate ONLY the sides and rear, did not appear in service until 1991 at which point the Soviet Union was fucking gone.

>you cann't remove composite armor from an Abrams and replace it with steel plate
No, but you can remove the fucking DU plate that left NATO MBTs invulnerable to whatever the Soviets could throw at them. They had these since 1985, and even then the front was already immune to the AT-5 since their inception in 1980.

>those M60 were upgrade by Jew
which make them irrelevant in this augment
Doesn't stop you from shoving a ton of irrelevant examples and moving the goalposts entire fucking football fields away from each other

>>33293699
>you cann't remove composite armor from an Abrams and replace it with steel plate

Technically you can, but the fact is they dont.

They dont, however, leave the DU in on export tanks.

>>33293699
>NATO tanks don't count in a discussion of Russian ATGM's vs NATO tanks

>>33293664

Just stop writing shitty posts where you make the direct claim that the crew influences whether or not a tank can be penetrated.

>>33293820
Samefagging wont save you ivan.

The fact is the armor is different.

File: 14824223169600.jpg (90KB, 1280x378px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x378px

>>33293730
>The AT-5b
there are no records of 9M113M in Houthis hand

>No, but you can remove the fucking DU plate
so your post about Saudi Abrams lacking Composite armor is a lie then

>>33293779
we are discussing about Russian ATGM against Abrams and Leopard2, not about a M60 upgraded by Jew

Turkist force also lost more than 20 M60s all varaints and those were overshadow by their Leopard 2.

>>33293820
The crew influences whether the fucking tank is in a situation where it is sitting still in the middle of a desert so that goatfuckers can shoot it in the ass. NATO Tankers are not half that retarded and thus do not present their (limited) vulnerabilities to the enemy.

>>33293861
>we are discussing about Russian ATGM against Abrams and Leopard2
>using Kornet again NATO tank is overkill

Hello moving goalposts, we meet again.

>>33293730
Early versions of Abrams and Leo 2 were designed to stop 115mm HEAT round of T-62 not Konkurs.

The AT-5b, which actually could penetrate NATO tanks frontally appeared soon after M1HA, but year USSR collapsed.

>>33293878
>NATO tankers don't face ATGM threat so they can brag about how good they are
Fixed.

>>33293646
Please tell me of those wonderful top-down ATGMs equipping the Marder and the Warrior. Especially at the time of the vehicle's adoption.

And to reply to the initial post, none of those is fully amphibious. While the BMP is.

Besides, while top down attacks have their advantages, the angled warhead means a small diameter and the absence of a tandem charge, so roof ERA completely defeats the purpose.

>>33279347

Being amphibious usually saps a good deal of armor capacity for any given vehicle. It was impenetrable by the .50 cal, which was all that was really needed in theory. In practice, IEDs and anti-tank mines made them useless to actually ride inside, requiring its passangers to ride on the top of the vehicle itself, so it doesn't really matter if its armored or not because what armor it has isn't protecting the passangers.

>>33294427
>and the absence of a tandem charge, so roof ERA completely defeats the purpose.
But dude, both existing top down fly-by ATGMs (TOW2B and Bill-2) have tandem warheads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqb6fzjBItU

>>33294252
Early versions of Abrams and Leopard 2's were designed to defend against 152mm HEAT warheads of the time.

>>33294427
>And to reply to the initial post, none of those is fully amphibious. While the BMP is.

Why are people citing this like it's a big advantage? It's really not. Most small streams can be forded by regular tanks and IFVs. As for big rivers, there are bridgelayers that will literally get your big tanks across in half an hour. That's not terrible time loss.

>>33294252
>The AT-5b, which actually could penetrate NATO tanks frontally appeared

Yeah, the base M1A0 and Leoaprd 2A0. The M1A1 and 2A4 in 1985 were both fully immune except for the tiny weakspot of the driver's hatch.