Is the BMP the worst armoured vehicle in existence?

>>33724602
Among mass produced vehicles? Yes.

in existence now? maybe

but at its inception, it was extremely influential. NATO brass feared not only its tactical flexibility but they were concerned that the low-pressure gun could pose a threat to the M60 even from the front.

>>33724644
>BMP gun
>threat to anyone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tz_xWpZPyY

>>33724602
>>33724631
>>33724644
Serious question what is wrong with it?
I am not a huuuge tank fag but i was always inder the impression the BMT was OK for its time

File: 1464936326987.jpg (3MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3008x2000px

>>33724602
it was great for its time, it was the NEVA BEEN DONE BEFO of armored vehicles during its prime. It made the West take notice, and for good reason.

nowadays it's an aging piece of equipment that's constantly forced into combat situations that it wasn't designed for, all while facing weapons that can easily knock out much tougher targets than a plucky little commie APC. It doesn't help that very few of the ones still in service get adequate maintenance or competent crews.

It's sad that they're getting BTFO in Middle Eastern shitholes when they really belong in museums, they're neat pieces of engineering.

1966
>Small IFV capable to support infantry and destroy any tank with Malyutka
>Bad
Pick one

>>33724696
>Neva been done befo

No entirely true. It's an evolution of the conceptualized M113, and it was done first by the ARVN when they used the m113 acav.

File: M113.jpg (438KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 2100x1500px

>>33724602
Nope. That title goes to pic related.

>>33724687
yes but try some reading comprehension, asshole.

they were threatened by it, doesn't mean it was actually dangerous.

>>33724724
M113 was great for its time.

>>33724720

Such a vague GAV*N post

>>33724754
No, sparky can go fuck himself, the m113 is rightfully being put to pasture.

But the history is the history.

>>33724720
>and it was done first by the ARVN when they used the m113 acav.
West German HS.30 IFV predates the M113.

>>33724738
>BVP was even greater for its time

File: BVP_М80А_VS.jpg (686KB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 3888x2592px

>>33724782
>BVP

>>33724720
>can we please keep the gavin posting to a minimum

>>33724777
True, but the HS.30 was a complete piece of shit and the concept suffered for it.

>>33724602
The BTR-60 exists, so no.

>>33724602
No.

>>33724720
> it was the NEVA BEEN DONE BEFO
>what is
>SPz 12-3
>Pansarbandvagn 301

File: BVP M80.jpg (938KB, 1778x1000px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 1778x1000px

>>33724788
>>33724782

BVP M80 is still great.

>>33724694
>ergo nightmare (Cramped, tight, commander not in turret), iffy armament (the 76 gun was inaccurate beyond ~300m, significantly shorter than its advertised range of 500; AT-3 was MCLOS so also iffy, post-73 tactics rendered it ineffective), poor armor (vulnerable to 20mm frontally and .50 from the side, very vulnerable to mines...) and shit survivability.
The BMP-2 fixed many of these flaws but not all of them.

File: BVP M-80.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>33724782
>>33724788

>>33724888
>>33724872
Is that Serb or Croat?

File: Bradely 2 .jpg (325KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1600x1200px

>>33724602
it is good for a light amphibious vehicle

the worst armoured vehicle is the Bradley
>designed to be amphibious
>sink
>designed to carry 10 fully load soldier
>can only carry 4
>uparmored, no longer be amphibious
>still die in one hit, kill all the crew and passengers

File: БВП М80.jpg (114KB, 1079x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1079x720px

>>33724788
>>33724782

File: БВП М-80.jpg (148KB, 1079x720px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1079x720px

>>33724896
Serb.

>>33724897
Brad carries 6 or 7, you pleb.

Pentagon wars was fiction.

>>33724898
Oh hey, that's my photo, I think!

>>33724934
OK, Saša.

>>33724900
That's most certainly my photo.
A little background on the vehicle, it's basically a M-80A1 (or M-98A, if you prefer) with a new Vidrica turret fitted with new electronics, new sights, fire control system and up-gunned to a 30mm (M86) cannon. But basically the chassis is the same, only with more protection against small arms fire for tracks. Oh and the preferred ATGM system is still a pair of twin (slightly modernized) Maluytka launchers.

>>33724602

No, I would say armored half-tracks or armored cars/trucks but it would depend what it's facing. Like if your opponents have only pistols and you got one of those, ya pretty much golden. Unless it doesn't have ammo but then that's being retarded.

>>33724887
>ergo nightmare (Cramped, tight
Yes
>commander not in turret
Double yes.
>(the 76 gun was inaccurate beyond ~300m, significantly shorter than its advertised range of 500
Actually the advertised range is 800 meters with 1300 meters being maximum, the PG-15 round can actually go further then that but it becomes increasinly harder to hit anything but very large area targets.

Syrians found that it was effective to 500 meters and not 800 meters but they like the egyptians did not have that much time to train with the BMP before going into combat so insufficent training can be blaimed and im gona prove that.

TRADOC states that at 800 meters you will have a 50/50 chance of first round hit on a stationary M60 patton tank but they also talked about the effects of crosswind has on the PG-15 projectile that the BMP-1 fires.

They stated that THE GUNNER MUST BE HIGHLY TRAINED TO COUNTER CROSSWIND EFFECTS. In other words the gunner must be trained to a certain level to achive 800 meters effectivness even in windy situations.

>AT-3 was MCLOS so also iffy
Well it is MCLOS so of course it will be iffy. You can counter this with long term training but it's shit compared to SACLOS. The BMP-1 did get SACLOS missiles latter but it was kinda late and somewhat shitty attempt since the gunner was exposed to everything that wants to hurt him and much easier rate but it had some advantages.

>post-73 tactics rendered it ineffective
Cant argue with that.
>poor armor
Actually at it's time the BMP had actually pretty good armor. The front was proofed against 20mm AT THAT TIME and 50cals had to be closer then 200 meters when engaging the sides.

Latter when 20mm APDS or APFSDS rounds and SLAP rounds for 50cals were introduced things changed fast for the BMP.
>very vulnerable to mine
True
>shit survivability.
In the context of the time it came from. Most IFV's and APC's are somewhat equal in that sense.


But yeah the BMP-2 is better then BMP-1.

>>33725177
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA392787
>Link for people who wants to check out TRADOC.
Tradoc also stated some other vulnerbilities that the BMP-1 have like no stabiliser, deadspace for the gunner due to commanders station etc but also spoke of some strengths that the BMP-1 have.

the bmp was revolutionary the best nato had was the US m113 and armored 6x6 trucks at the time. it took 10 years for us to catch up to this superior form of mechanized infantry vehicle

>>33725177
>You can counter this with long term training
>conscript army
>long term training
MCLOS literally not compatible with conscript army

>The BMP-1 did get SACLOS missiles latter
Nope. SACLOS updgrade was only for 9P122 BRDM-2 based ATGM vehicle.

>>33725242
The BMP is a upgunned M113 conceptually.

>>33725308
Wouldn't it be a upgunned BTR-50? The M113 is hardly the first box with tracks.

>>33725308
up armored as well, faster, somewhat better amphibiously
the soviets had much better combined arms armored warfare concepts than NATO despite our relations with the Germans
the mt-lb was better than the m113 in my mind as well due to it's lower profile which is what matters for a tin can apc

File: boxart.jpg (235KB, 1024x627px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x627px

>>33725294
>MCLOS literally not compatible with conscript army
It is. If you serve 3 years or more depending on your role in what ever part of the armed forces you are serving in it is very possible for it to work and it have. Egypt in 1973 yom kippur war is a classic example of MCLOS missile being used great in a conscript army.

>Nope
It did. Check out the BMP-1P. I did mention how the gunner was exposed and how shitty it was in some sense with some advantage so it was kinda obvious.

>>33724687
They COULD penetrate the front of MBTs of the time. Now, they were unlikely to actually hit at range, but even from range, if you got enough of them firing, hits will eventually happen. And at closer ranges, they'd be very dangerous. Considering that there's one for every rifle squad in the regiment, some will indeed probably close to closer range. It makes the APCs a threat in addition to the tanks which accompanied them.

>>33725320
Sure. Up armed box. Don't get caught up in the specific name, just talking conceptually.

>>33725323
bmp-1 has about the same armor, is slower, and slightly faster in the water compared to the m113.

>low profile

Is a complete meme my friend. The M113 is a whopping 2 feet bigger. On an loud, smoke belching tracked vehicle, you won't be sneaking up on anyone, and 2 feet realistically won't fix a god damn thing

>>33725459
bmp-1 had much better armor. 12.7mm would shred a m113
>2 feet realistically won't fix a god damn thing
would 2 feet of height matter in a fight between a 6 ft tall man and a 4 ft tall man? has there ever been a miss by 1-24 inches ever? it matters retard stfu, m113 was trash nato had no fucking clue in the 1960s except air superiority, navy, and nuclear weapons.

>>33725519
>it matters retard stfu, m113 was trash

At engagement ranges 2 feet is something 1mm in the reticle, kid.

Go meme elsewhere.

>>33725565
yes and an r-7 ICBM only had a accuracy deviation of 5km. that's like 3nm on the world strategic strike chart. it's all relative until the fucking ammunition actually strikes it's target. hmm what could be the most important factor in not getting hit? why do people try to duck and go prone during a firefight, hmm. really makes me think.

>>33725612
>yes and an r-7 ICBM only had a accuracy deviation of 5km. that's like 3nm on the world strategic strike chart.

Yeah, that's why 10% smaller city's had a huge advantage over the 10% larger city's, kiddo.

>>33725459
>and 2 feet realistically won't fix a god damn thing
That's what 5'1" morons say to themselves.

>>33725626
First off, I'm master race 6'1. Second off I fail to see how it's relevant?

Are you saying m113 is more sexually attractive because it's taller? I'm OK with this.

>>33724932
it's sad that so many internet mongs sprout the Pentagon Wars as gospel because it's an entertaining film, extremely warped history aside

>>33725626
>>33725650
>bretendered to betarded :DDDD winwinwin

File: saythattomyface.jpg (16KB, 270x217px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 270x217px

>>33725623
DELET THIS

>>33725177
>advertised range is 800
I knew I got something wrong there. Thanks for the correction and extra details!
>TRADOC
mah nigga

File: Valiant_A38_1_Bovington.jpg (271KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1440px

>>33724602
Beg your pardon?

>>33725623
Semp..ai

File: yw_531.jpg (72KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x478px

>>33724602
Move aside queer bait.

>>33724602
They're kind of antiques really, for the time quite a good all round little battle taxi with enough guns to bother most infantry quite badly.
Then produced in enough numbers to make anyone scared.

We can pick apart its flaws, but like anything of its 1st generation there's a lot of learning into what works, what sucks and all the rest that other versions get improved upon. Soviet doctrine at the time called for something fast-ish, capable of going across rivers, swamps, rough ground and pack a fair bit of punch- it completed those components quite well.

>>33726007
ching chong my bing bong

>>33726033
>the worst armoured vehicle in existence?

>>33726060
>chinese manufactured engine
>chinese manufactured transmission
>chinese manufactured electronics
even nowadays those things are appallingly bad let alone the 60's

>>33726088
Not just that. Look into Chinese steel from the Era. Mao did a number. The damn things were made from melted down tractors

>>33725177
>>post-73 tactics rendered it ineffective
>Cant argue with that.
What tactics? In Slav hands (and more importantly proper arty support) they kick ass just fine. Any piece of equipment no matter how advanced would get its reputation torn to shreds in the hands of Arabs- as with all things modern combined arms warfare is g-loaded and there's no way around that.

>>33725196
>Tradoc also stated some other vulnerbilities that the BMP-1 have like no stabiliser,
They wouldn't have made as much if they incorporated adequate for our standards FCS. Remember during this time the second generation of post WW2 tanks would enter, and their biggest improvement over the past generation would be further improved FCS up to including some forms of automation.

>>33725294
>MCLOS literally not compatible with conscript army
It is. MCLOS like Malyutka are so goddamn cheap even during their time ATGM teams can be expected to fire off a decent amount in training.

File: IDF_Artillery_Corps_Cadets_Competence_Day_M113_Zelda.jpg (108KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x533px

>>33724724

Agree. Even Israeli hates M113. Zelda is nothing more than little aluminium-walled tractor.

>>33724834
What's wrong with a BTR?

>>33726121
M113 is just an American BTR-50.

>>33726107
I would never trust my life with anything Chinese made before the 2010's, if even that.

>>33726112
>and their biggest improvement over the past generation would be further improved FCS up to including some forms of automation.
Well, when almost every Soviet tank in frontline service have a gun stabilizer to allow it to fire on the move with varying degrees of effectiveness but still better then nothing (T-54/55 having gun stabilisers, T-62's got better and T-64's+T-72's being the best at that time period). Having IFV's who will work together with tanks very closely while being unable to fire on the move at acceptable levels to actually achive more then suppression, in a doctrine that stresses speed and shock then it is a pretty big problem. Even PT-76B light tanks have gun stabilizers and they are older. AFAIK they were pretty good compared to the ones on T-55A (4 times as good according to east germans but I dont remember the source) but the expensive BMP-1 with it's awesome tank killing power is unable to exploit that power while moving.

Pretty fucking bad especially when staying still in the attack equals higher chance of geting hit by enemy fire.

>>33726112
>What tactics?
Tank counter-Sagger tactics are mentioned in short in TRADOC, and were invented by Israel during 73. Utilizing the inherent flaws in the Sagger against it:
>having one tank in a platoon on Sagger watch, with HE up the spout to distract the Sagger operator, even a small flinch from HE near him could make him lose the missile.
>Sagger dodge- the sagger is slow, so around 5 seconds before impact if youradically change direction relative to the missile the operator won't be able to bring it back on target.
And so on.

>>33726280
Even then man.

File: actually fam.png (190KB, 2512x3331px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 2512x3331px

>>33726336
Well actually


This right here works better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igBw7LMxSZk

>>33726305
>BMP-1 with it's awesome tank killing power
goal shifting. the BMP-1 is a mechanized infantry fighting vehicle not a tank destroyer. Take the shitty 1966-69 first run BMP-1 battalion up against any NATO mechanized infantry battalion and the Soviets would have their asses for lunch.

>>33726368
That's baiting from a hull down position and is indeed superior. However, when advancing in the open you have limited options, and maneuvering at the last second while blasting at the launcher is one of the better ones.

>>33726383
>the BMP-1 is a mechanized infantry fighting vehicle not a tank destroyer
While unlike other IFV's and vehicles at it's time is more optimised towards fighting enemy armored vehicles and killing them hence the 73mm and sagger missile and how it did not have HE-FRAG rounds untill after 1973 because it was to kill enemy armored vehicles and it could and it spooked people.

And how is this goal shifting? Do you even see my goal? I am essentially shitting on the BMP-1 for not having a gun stabilizer while every other vehicle it works together have one. Well not the BTR's and BRDM but you get the point. It was ment to work together with tanks but the tanks can fire on the move which is pretty fucking important to the soviets while it cant making it worse then it should be.

>>33724602

Wasn't there a bad Chinese copy of it? I'm sure the knock-off has to be worse.

>>33726435
A BMP battalion wouldn't be deployed against a Leopard battalion. It would run over a Marder unit. There is no way the grom cannot be stabalized it was simply meant to blast enemy light armored vehicles and infantry positions while the soldiers bounded ahead.

The regimental T-55/T-62 battalion had it's seperate task of anti-tank duty. Name a more advanced similar NATO formation within the BMP-1s birth decade. Protip: this is not possible.

File: Chang's Forklift.webm (2MB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x360px

>>33726107
>Not wanting something made with the deaths of 55 million great leaps forward

Come on man, its basically a 40k land raider with that many deaths

>>33726514
>. It would run over a Marder unit.

I could not disagree more. Marders could kill bmps just as easily as bmps could kill marders.

>Name a more advanced similar NATO formation within the BMP-1s birth decade

Not really fair, as the bmp came out in the late 60s in small numbers, and really came a threat in the 70s.

The tech powergap between 60 and 69 for both NATO and the USSR is HUGE.

>>33725565
>m113 literally 33% bigger target
>thinks that would have no effect
Powerful self delusion at work

>>33726664
Well the Marder 1A1 was within that time frame and was supposed to be the match for the BMP-1 I really don't know which gun was better or if the Rh202 had ammo penetration on the BMP-1s frontal armor out to 1km back then. They certainly do now so perhaps it wouldn't be as easy as i thought for the BMP-1 battalion.

>>33724897

It was amazing how the Bradley managed to be literally worse than having no vehicle at all.

>>33726547

F

>>33726514
>A BMP battalion wouldn't be deployed against a Leopard battalion
And did I state that? You might have unironically thought that when I said "awesome tank killing power" somehow ment that BMP's would be hunting tanks and not that it simply has the capability to knock out any NATO MBT from the front.
>It would run over a Marder unit
No doubt since it can kill a tank so they are small fry.
>There is no way the grom cannot be stabalized
You can but you have to drive very slow and on even terrain to do good performance. Otherwise you have to stop and shoot to be able to engage point targets and that is not fast.
>simply meant to blast enemy light armored vehicles and infantry positions while the soldiers bounded ahead.
But it is not simply ment just for blasting lighter vehicles and infantry. It got enough power to blast M60A1 Pattons which is one of it's main points for having in the first place. Every vehicle in NATO is a target for the BMP-1.

But when it comes to infantry targets the BMP-1 is actually lacking since the 73mm HEAT rounds dont have the fragmentation in all situations so it rely on it's coaxial machine gun with it's 2000 round belt do deal with infantry targets. When moving and firing, the coax got the best chance to hit anything compared to the main gun.

If the BMP-1 had a stabilizer it would excell at everything. It would hit point targets while moving fast (bunkers, machine gun nests, vehicles etc). It would lay down a steady stream of bullets while moving keeping the enemy infantry head down and it would not be forced to stop to fire so the chance of it getting hit by enemy fire is goes down since moving targets are hard targets to hit. The overall speed of the offensive would be much faster.

>>33726978
>when it comes to infantry targets the BMP-1 is actually lacking

It carried HE-frag rounds for the cannon as well, highly effective against infantry. The HEAT was still effective against fixed fortifications with infantry in them too.

>>33726813
All marders have 20mm. It was a big improvement over the 20mm on the hs.20

>>33726833
It's amazing how, even though it's shitposted from inception, it's literally the best IFV pre 2000

>>33726813
The Marder a1 has more than double the weight of the bmp. So it seems to be much more armored. I guess its useless against the 73mm gun.

One thing the Marder has for it, is the max effective range of its gun.

Rh 202 = 2000m
2A28 Grom = 1300m

Now the Question is:

Will the 20×139 mm penetrate the front of the bmp at these ranges?

>>33727231
I seriously don't think so not without modern APDS or under 1km (which I think would be the preffered engagement range of either vehicle). Although with the high speed bursts even older ball ammo could bust through the the plating. By then would the 73mm gun have landed it's shot?

I'm still leaning towards BMP-1 though Marder 1A1s would make great defensive vehicles against the Soviet attack.

>>33727231
Considering there are documented cases of the "20mm-proof-from-front" BMP being penetrated from the front by .50bmg ball ammo at >500m, probably. There was a ton of variation in manufacturing quality across its production span and the Soviets were notorious about grossly overstating the capabilities of their equipment.

>>33726336
You'd have to spot said missile and communicate to your driver or the other tank where and how to maneuver however. This is really iffy especially when on the receiving end of arty prep fire- downsides of picking suitable firing positions from terrain features is that those are more or less pre-sighted. Like seriously the Soviets even have ridiculously precise maps for this shit.

>>33726305
>Well, when almost every Soviet tank in frontline service have a gun stabilizer to allow it to fire on the move with varying degrees of effectiveness but still better then nothing (T-54/55 having gun stabilisers, T-62's got better and T-64's+T-72's being the best at that time period). Having IFV's who will work together with tanks very closely while being unable to fire on the move at acceptable levels to actually achive more then suppression, in a doctrine that stresses speed and shock then it is a pretty big problem. Even PT-76B light tanks have gun stabilizers and they are older. AFAIK they were pretty good compared to the ones on T-55A (4 times as good according to east germans but I dont remember the source) but the expensive BMP-1 with it's awesome tank killing power is unable to exploit that power while moving.
Except that the Soviets never meant for the BMP to lead the charge, being 10 m behind the tank at most. They also have no business usurping the tanks in suppressing and destroying enemy positions before unloading. Their job is to deliver the supporting infantry as close to the targeted enemy position as possible and once there, provide fire support to the troops. You don't need firing on the move capability to provide fire support for infantry ffs- look at the STUG.

>>33726435
>While unlike other IFV's and vehicles at it's time is more optimised towards fighting enemy armored vehicles and killing them hence the 73mm and sagger missile and how it did not have HE-FRAG rounds untill after 1973 because it was to kill enemy armored vehicles and it could and it spooked people.
This is the Soviets we are talking about here, they have HEAT warhead boners so hard it would shatter KE arrows. Its not as if a HEAT warhead can't be used to destroy softer targets and fortifications- heck the US does the same thing.

>And how is this goal shifting? Do you even see my goal? I am essentially shitting on the BMP-1 for not having a gun stabilizer while every other vehicle it works together have one. Well not the BTR's and BRDM but you get the point. It was ment to work together with tanks but the tanks can fire on the move which is pretty fucking important to the soviets while it cant making it worse then it should be.
Again its not meant to fcking tango it up with the tanks - its not a goddamn BMPT which actually is envisioned for such a role. The BMPs mission is to ensure the infantry mobility and protection so they can drop in on enemy positions while they are still hunkering from arty fire that only stops at the very last moment. The firepower is there to provide fire support much like the assault guns of WW2 did for the infantry.

>>33726978
>But when it comes to infantry targets the BMP-1 is actually lacking since the 73mm HEAT rounds dont have the fragmentation in all situations so it rely on it's coaxial machine gun with it's 2000 round belt do deal with infantry targets.
I doubt those on the receiving end would be able to feel the difference if hit by a HEAT or HE-frag desu. While it has half the explosive content, you have to remember RDX has 1.5 times the explosive power of your regular old TNT. Plus you have the goddamn tanks for blasting positions and arty ffs.
And lol coax can't do shit with poor stab.

>>33727454
>documented cases
Which?

>>33727458
>You'd have to spot said missile and communicate to your driver or the other tank where and how to maneuver however
Crew training. Inform your driver of incoming missile, prep for cue, dodge. It was done and was quite effective.

>>33724720
Did the ARVN ever use their M113s as ATGM platforms? That's really what sets the IFV apart from the APC. The APC concept had been around since WWII, but the Soviets originated the idea of using them as a missile-armed tank destroyer as well as a transport. That's really what made it a new idea, and is why armies don't have dedicated tank destroyers anymore.

>>33727602
Gulf War. You had humvee's killing BMP1's at between 600-1000m using their .50's. Ideally from the side but they'd get up there and the things would be Swiss cheese from all sides.
>inb4 muh monkey models
There are no monkey model BMP1's, just standard Arabic incompetence.

>>33727458
>10 m
100m actually.
>>33727454
>Considering there are documented cases of the "20mm-proof-from-front" BMP being penetrated from the front by .50bmg ball ammo at >500m, probably. There was a ton of variation in manufacturing quality across its production span and the Soviets were notorious about grossly overstating the capabilities of their equipment.
and yet you gave no links.

>>33727623
>Crew training. Inform your driver of incoming missile, prep for cue, dodge. It was done and was quite effective.
That just merely speeds up the response to move times, doesn't mean you can spot ATGM launches any better than the poor dime-a-dozen ATGM victims on YT- thermals weren't a thing yet.
>>33727646
>Gulf War. You had humvee's killing BMP1's at between 600-1000m using their .50's. Ideally from the side but they'd get up there and the things would be Swiss cheese from all sides.
links please.

>>33727646
That's interesting, there are tons of US manuals after 1973 which states that you have to get in within 200 meters to reliably penetrate the sides of a BMP-1.

Must have been using SLAP rounds.

>.50 SLAP has more pen than the 20mm AP that BMP-1 is rated for
>vatniks refuse to accept reality

>>33725620
That's cute, but 1 man in that could kill 100's....ok maybe 24...if they pinned you down to keep you from reloading the bren.

And that's why it was made.

>>33727810
>armor made to protect from ammunition made 30 years ago has trouble against modern munitions

i don't see the issue. i wouldn't expect a t-34 to survive a strafing run from a gau-8 either.

>>33727747
I think it's got more to do with nonexistent quality control and manufacturing that was all over the place. Some may very well hold up to 20mm, others may be made of paper.

Then you have to add in Arab lack of maintenance and the fact theirs were ancient.

File: 14773220.jpg (25KB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x264px

>>33726547
Be me having to use one of these on a daily basis...what has been seen can't be unseen.

>>33727832
>armor made to protect from ammunition made 30 years ago has trouble against modern munitions
>.50 SLAP first produced in 1985, 32 years ago

>>33724602
Talk to any Anti Armor Team in the military. They'd rather go up against a Tank than a BMP because of the Turret Speed. Doctrine is to hit Armor with .50 cal to make the crew bottle up then when Javelin hits it more damage is done due to the overpressure.

>>33728191
>because of the Turret Speed

wat

>>33728218
how fast the turret can rotate

>>33728271
No shit, Sherlock. How slow do you think a tank's turret rotates? Electric and hydraulic turret drives are a thing now.

>>33724602
no

the soviets basically wanted their infantry to stop riding around on their tanks all the time so the tanks could move about faster so they made their infantry a vehicle to carry them that also offered protection from NBC threats since everyone at the time expected the coming war to involve massive use of nuclear weapons.

in this task it was successful

it was given weapons to massively increase the firepower of soviet mechanized divisions but not to make it one for one equal to anything or able to hold its own in any kind of fight.

the 76mm cannon was, however, a poor choice of armament based on ww2 era thinking.

ergonomics were terrible but this is true of basically everything the soviets built

>>33728309
Soviet-era tanks had glacially slow turrets. Most militaries STILL train as if they'll be fighting Soviet-era tanks, because if they aren't then they're fighting the US and are fucked anyway.

>>33728363
I need more turret speed facts, this shit is fascinating. Shit, turret facts in general.

>>33726121
Not every piece of equipment is designed to be quality good. Some are just designed to be cheap, easy to maintain, easy to employ, easy to sell, easy to crew.

But /k/ would rather talk about how xy looks cool, the official bullshit stats of the vehicle on xy site look good or "my country stronk".

Most vehicle crewman are too hell bent that they bump head in one of this or that it isn't well armored against possible enemy equipment (ATGMs lel), not noticing that there is a reason there is an extra mechanised brigade south of them because $5 tin cans instead of a billion dollars moar project was chosen.

My 2 cents.

>>33725339
>Egypt in 1973 yom kippur war is a classic example of MCLOS missile being used great in a conscript army.
Pro tip: Egyptian Malyutka operators were hand picked and passed extensive training soviet operators can't even dream about. With tens of live missiles expend during training per operator (soviet IFV operators fired ATGM like once or even not did this at all) and they trained on the simulators every day even during combat deployment.

>BMP-1P.
This is polacks ghetto work.

>>33730589
>Pro tip: Egyptian Malyutka operators were hand picked and passed extensive training soviet operators can't even dream about. With tens of live missiles expend during training per operator (soviet IFV operators fired ATGM like once or even not did this at all) and they trained on the simulators every day even during combat deployment.
Not him, but I would suspect that this illustrates how one COULD in fact make it work even with conscription.

File: great success, high five..png (1MB, 1417x795px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1417x795px

best invention ever.

File: bmp's in route.png (1MB, 1340x426px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1340x426px

platoon is now inbound.
eta: 15 minutes.

>>33724897
Everything dies when hellfires hit home.

>>33725909
>Literally kills the driver
How is it even possible to fuck up this bad?

>>33731895
>driver could die by changing gears
>driver could die by using the breaks
>driver could die by sitting funny
>driver's corpse could not be retrieved if the gun sat in almost any position
This belongs in an art museum.

>>33730589
>Pro tip: Egyptian Malyutka operators were hand picked and passed extensive training soviet operators can't even dream about. With tens of live missiles expend during training per operator (soviet IFV operators fired ATGM like once or even not did this at all) and they trained on the simulators every day even during combat deployment.
and you have a source for this Chaim?
With 800 tanks knocked out I understand the need to make the Egyptians 10 feet taller, but as we see time to time they rarely live up to the promise.