BMP-1. Tank landing

217
Write a sequel about BMP-1 I was compelled by a discussion in the comments, in which many wondered why motorized infantrymen preferred to ride on top of their armor rather than sit in the troop compartment. Many attributed this to the fact that the BMP-1 and its similar machines are extremely inadequately protected from shelling and explosions in mines, but the Israeli supercarts ...


Photo perfectly illustrating the features of the tank landing tactics: all fighters are observing, at the same time ready to open fire and / or jump from tank. This is impossible to do in an armored personnel carrier




I will say once again that armored vehicles and, in general, any weapon created under a certain tactic. The BMP-1 is one of the brightest examples of the armored vehicle’s specialization for a very specific tactic. Only, that's bad luck, this tactic is little known. Famous article on "BO" 2012, Oleg Kaptsov "Landing on armor. Why no one trusts domestic BMP?" opens with a statement by the Chief of General Staff, Army General N.Ye. Makarova: "BMD-4 is a version of the BMP-3, no protection, again everything is at the top, and it costs more than a tank." Very, I must say, speaking statement. “Again, everything is above” - Army General N.E. Makarov sees this as a flaw. Meanwhile, this is a tactic, and a completely certain kind of tactic.

What are the advantages of a tank amphibious landing party?


Not long ago, I read the memoirs of E.I. Bessonova "To Berlin!". These are memoirs of a platoon / company commander from the 49-th mechanized brigade, 4-th tank army. Why platoon / company? Because Bessonov was a platoon commander, but he almost always commanded the entire company, since the company commander appeared and disappeared in a completely unpredictable way, but for some reason he was not appointed as company himself.

Memoirs are good. The author had a tenacious memory, a good syllable and the ability to tell interestingly. The most interesting thing in the other: Bessonov commanded a tank descent, infantry units, planted on tanks that were part of the breakthrough defense and rushed forward, tearing off the enemy’s rear. In this capacity, he passed from Lvov to Berlin, in almost continuous battles, and was a lucky and lucky commander; only once was seriously injured. In his memoirs he, using the example of a number of episodes, he described in detail the tactics of a tank amphibious assault ship and its features.

In general, the task of the tank landing force was to move forward, in a certain direction, as soon as possible, to advance along settlements, important roads, bridges, as well as destroying enemy barriers, columns and troops. Bessonov most often acted on the edge of this movement, 5-7 km ahead of his mechbrigade, and had to clear the way for the main forces of the mehbrigade and prevent its opponent from intercepting. By virtue of this circumstance, defensive tasks were sometimes set for him.

In my opinion, these memoirs are very important for understanding tank amphibious tactics and understanding why motorized infantry have since preferred to ride armor rather than in the troop compartment.

Thinking over this article, I encountered the difficulty of explaining the difference between motorized infantry riding on tanks and armored personnel carriers. She was clearly and well felt in Bessonov’s memoirs, but he does not give her a definition due to the self-evidentness of this moment for himself. At first glance, it seems that the BTR is better than a tank, but the fighters of the tank assault commander of the 49 mehbrigade did not think so, and preferred the T-34. When they were given the EC-2, they liked it more: a wider feed - it is more convenient to sit and a gun. 122-mm gun - it was an argument. Bessonov described how in one of the not-too-successful attacks, tankmen came to their aid and their IP-2 with one projectile struck two German assault guns at once. “I have never seen such a miracle,” wrote Bessonov.

Reviewing the descriptions of fights in Bessonov’s memoirs, I came to the conclusion that the tank had three important advantages for the motorized infantry over any armored personnel carrier, even over Sd Kfz 251.

First, the ability to instantly jump off the tank. Many fights began like this. They drove along the road, then they were fired at with a rifle and machine-gun fire, the infantry jumped from the tanks and turned into a chain. The fighters specially trained and knew how to jump on the move, jumped in different directions, so that the chain was obtained by itself. From the BTR so not jump out. The exit of ten people from the same German Sd Kfz 251 takes much longer, and the soldiers inevitably pile up for a while behind the machine, where they can be mowed by a successful machine-gun line, where they can be hit with a mortar bomb or even a hand grenade. An APC for landing soldiers must stop, that is, become a target. Then, even when the shell hit the tank, the infantry had the opportunity to jump and run. If a shell hit an armored troop carrier with infantry, it almost always led to the death of most soldiers or even all.

Secondly, the fighters rode in a tank, sitting along the sides behind the turret or, sometimes, in front of it, carrying a weapon (there was no other way, there were no fastenings for a tank descendant on the tank). The tank usually drove a 7-8 man, and this meant that the crew of the tank received observers who saw everything that was happening around. This is an important point. The survey from the tank (and any other armored vehicles) was bad, and the tankers saw farther and better than the tankers, why they noticed an ambush or faunters before. Next butt on armor to warn tank crews, jump to the ground and fire. In the APC, the soldiers sat inside, their backs to the sides, and, of course, could not see anything. On the armored personnel carrier only the gunner could observe, sometimes the soldiers could get up on the seat and look over the sides. But in this case, the review was worse than that of a tank landing ship.

Thirdly, tank paratroopers could shoot directly from armor if they saw an enemy nearby. Bessonov writes that they very often fought such battles, without leaving the tanks, with all the firepower of the unit planted on the tank. They were jumping at the speed of the street, on the move shelling the enemy, caught off guard. This was done more often at night — a favorite time for a tank descent. If they saw that the enemy was strong, had fortified positions, armored vehicles, or opened heavy fire, then the paratroopers dismounted and fought a normal infantry battle with the support of tanks. In the BTR, the use of weapons by the troops was significantly limited. Of course, you could get up on the seat and shoot over the side, but much less convenient, especially in motion. When they left the APC, the soldiers stopped firing, self-suppression of the fire occurred, which gave an advantage to the enemy.

It was precisely because of the opportunity to see, shoot and jump, the tank amphibious soldiers drove a tank and did not try to change it to an armored personnel carrier. If we formulate the main difference between the tank landing and the armored personnel carrier, then it consists of the following. In the tank desmants, the fighter at any time could actively participate in the battle. In the APC, the soldiers were targets for some time, unable to participate in the battle. As long as the BTR stops, until the doors are opened, until everyone leaves, runs and turns into a chain - how long will it take? A minute or so. During this time they will have time to riddle.

BMP-1. tank landing

Archival photo showing Sd Kfz 251 from inside the troop compartment. Closely, it is difficult to go out, observe, fire from the side. Such an APC did not defend the infantry as much as it exposed it to additional danger.


The BTR in its classic German version (there were similar samples in the USSR) is suitable against a weak and little-initiative opponent with rifles alone. Then the armor protects from bullets, the machine gun suppresses the enemy, the infantry gets out, turns into a chain and completes the attack. Under such tactics of battle and such an opponent, he was created.

If the enemy has large-caliber machine guns, cannons and tanks, and he is engaged in an evil and energetic battle, then the BTR is the target. At a distance of infantry dismounting, the armored personnel carrier will be in the reach of these guns and tanks, and thin armor will not protect it. If the infantry landed earlier, then he and armor is not needed. Armor against an armed and decisive opponent is a very conditional defense. The Germans in the middle of the war understood this, and therefore used the Sd Kfz 251 as a passable truck and mobile firing point armed with a machine gun, sometimes flamethrower or even missiles.

Tanko and BMP-1


In my opinion, the BMP-1 inherited precisely the tactics of the tank amphibian, and adapted to it. Therefore, the motorized infantry had to regularly ride from above, while the troop compartment was only a temporary shelter, when the enemy defense broke through with a nuclear strike, and the armor was under the nuclear fungus.

In order to sit out the shock wave of a nuclear explosion, it was enough to shelter from penetrating radiation, and then to travel in a cloud of radioactive dust, a close and low troop compartment of the BMP-1. Fighting in the zone of a nuclear explosion could be (for which the troop compartment was equipped with surveillance devices and embrasures for firing), but with a low probability. Then, as already mentioned, the tanks were supposed to finish off everything that had survived the nuclear strike.

But the war did not end there, but on the contrary, entered its most rollicking phase. After breaking through the defenses or destroying the enemy grouping blocking the road, the Soviet troops entered the operational space of the enemy rear. Here, they faced the tasks exactly the same as those of the tank amphibious war: go ahead, shoot down barriers, destroy enemy troops, seize bridges, towns, cities. After the passage of the nuclear explosion zone, the BMP-1 was driven into the nearest river or lake, poured with water to wash away the radioactive dust, then the motorized infantry sat on the armor and rushed forward.


BMP-1 with motorized infantry on the armor. Since it is difficult to find a good photo of the BMP-1 with the motorized infantry on the armor, ready for battle, the photo from the exercises of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will go. Note the similarities with the tank descent. Fighters survey all around, are ready to open fire, and at any time can jump off


The BMP-1 was much more comfortable for tank descent than the T-34. First, the almost flat roof of the hull and the small height of the car; more comfortable to sit and easier to jump. Secondly, the buoyancy saved the riflemen from having to search for transport means and allowed them to cross rivers and canals in any convenient place. The tank commander did not have this, and therefore was sometimes forced to bathe, and one of the EC-2 Bessonov fighters drowned at the crossing and could not get it. Third, the troop compartment.

This is what the tankers of the war did not have, it was the airborne unit of the BMP-1. That was a real blessing. In it it was possible to sleep parts of fighters in shifts and to the commander. Bessonov writes that when he fought 200 km across Poland and Germany, his sleep fell from his feet all the time. At night, he climbed to the stern of the tank, lay down between the fighters and slept. Several times he slept through fleeting night fights in motion. The ability to sleep dramatically improves combat capability, especially to sleep in a warm, relatively comfortable and safe place.

Further, in Germany it is not uncommon cold and wet weather, with rain or sleet. In the troop compartment, you can also shift and dry in shifts. In a long, multi-day offensive almost non-stop, with frequent dismounting for battle, crawling through mud and snow, such an opportunity would be very valuable.

In the troop compartment can also accommodate the wounded, especially heavy. There were many wounded in the tank desmants. Bessonov writes that the losses due to the almost continuous battles were high. After the raid in the company of 100, 23 was left. On average, every three kilometers of movement were treated wounded or killed. The fact that the BMP-1 could carry the wounded in the troop compartment was very valuable for its quality. An extra chance to survive.

So, speaking of the BMP-1, you should always remember that this model was created under a certain tactic, under a certain enemy and certain typical combat conditions. These conditions should have been realized in a war, which, fortunately, did not happen.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

217 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +31
    5 July 2019 05: 15
    Therefore, motorized rifles should have been able to regularly ride from above, while the airborne compartment was only a temporary shelter, when the enemy defenses broke through a nuclear strike, and the armored vehicles went under a nuclear fungus.
    No. The author is wishful thinking. The position of the infantry "on the armor" of BMP or armored personnel carriers, before the Afghan war in the USSR army was not used, it was that conflict and the need for a change in tactics that led to the fact that the landing force began to ride "on the armor", and the troop compartment was used as a cargo compartment to transport the necessary cargo. The reason is one - the speed of leaving the armored object, in the event of a clash, and this concept included not only the higher simplicity of this process with the "armor", but also the fact that the landing force had a better view and understanding that it was time to leave the armor earlier. than when "under armor".
    And you should not idealize the "tank landing" of the Red Army, they were used due to the fact that there was not the required number of armored personnel carriers, as soon as they appeared, the infantry left the armor of the tanks. The tank is not the best "vehicle" for the infantry, since as soon as the tanks came under fire or began to engage in firefighting, the landing force had to immediately leave the armor, otherwise the chance of dying or getting a shell shock would become 100%
    1. -3
      5 July 2019 06: 07
      The reason is one - the speed of leaving the armored object, in the event of a clash, and this concept included not only the higher simplicity of this process with the "armor", but also the fact that the landing force had a better view and understanding that it was time to leave the armor earlier. than when "under armor".

      Vooooot, and to prevent this from happening, the BMP / armored personnel carrier, with the help of modern detection equipment, must see farther and better than the human eyes of a tank landing party. In this case, the "sudden" appearance of the enemy is almost impossible.
      Here is an article that fully reveals this approach:
      https://topwar.ru/159061-povyshenie-situacionnoj-osvedomlennosti-jekipazhej-boevyh-bronirovannyh-mashin.html
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 06: 11
        Quote: lucul
        Voooot, and so that this does not happen, BMP / BTR, with the help of modern detection tools, must see further and better than the human eyes of the tank landing.

        What is being done now, with the use of small-sized UAVs
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 06: 12
          What is being done now, with the use of small-sized UAVs

          I agree.
        2. +7
          5 July 2019 07: 21
          Quote: svp67
          What is being done now, with the use of small-sized UAVs

          No UAV can replace human eyes here and now. An UAV is flying somewhere, looking for something. But he will not fly over each BMP. And 10 pairs of eyes with proper experience will always be more effective. UAVs do not replace, but complements.
          1. 0
            5 July 2019 07: 27
            Quote: Alex_59
            An UAV is flying somewhere, looking for something.

            Yourself? Acquire UAV controls and visually inspects MAN
            Quote: Alex_59
            But he will not fly over each BMP.

            One UAV is enough to accompany the company column.
            Quote: Alex_59
            And 10 pairs of eyes with proper experience will always be more effective.

            Alas, no. One skillful UAV calculation is more effective than 10 eye pairs
            1. +7
              5 July 2019 07: 55
              Quote: svp67
              Yourself? Acquire UAV controls and visually inspects MAN

              What do you cling to the wording. It is clear that he manages the calculation. But each soldier has not yet been given a UAV. Therefore, it is not necessary to idealize. A UAV can detect many threats, but not all. Would you agree to go blindfolded inside the BMP somewhere in Grozny in the first Chechnya if you are promised to oath to hang UAVs above you? Me not. And not one sane commander will not agree. Let the UAV work, no question. But eyes are eyes. Let the eyes look, and let the UAV flies.
              1. -3
                5 July 2019 07: 58
                Quote: Alex_59
                But so far, no UAV has been issued to each soldier.

                Yes, because this is simply not necessary. The UAV reconnaissance and surveillance zone is much larger than that of a motorized rifle squad or platoon
                Quote: Alex_59
                But eyes are eyes. Let the eyes look, and let the UAV fly.

                This is another question.
              2. +9
                5 July 2019 09: 54
                Would you agree to go blindfolded inside the infantry fighting vehicle somewhere along Grozny to the first Chechnya if you are promised to swear an oath to hang over you? Me not.

                in fact, there were several reasons for riding on the armor. Firstly, these are higher risks of death from an explosion of ammunition (RPG, LNG) in the internal volume of BMP / BTR. Secondly, there is a lower likelihood of serious injuries in cases of collision with a mine. Most often, landing on armor received only varying degrees of shell shock, and not heavy explosive explosions. Thirdly, it’s purely psychologically easier to sit on the armor and watch the picture. You can determine (conditionally) where the shooting is being carried out and immediately outline the places of shelter. When in the airborne squad under fire, dismounting is more difficult, since you are disoriented, you don’t understand where the shelling is being conducted from and what the area around is like. Fourthly, we often had SO jammed with all kinds of junk: BP, company and platoon property (including reinforcement weapons - AGS, RPG, RPO, etc.), food, equipment, etc. Fifth, it’s just crowded there. In full gear you feel like a herring in a bank
                1. +3
                  5 July 2019 17: 46
                  I saw another 6 reason: after undermining BMP1, the b / c cannon in a few seconds could start self-destructing with the help of self-destructors. With corresponding consequences.
                  1. +2
                    8 July 2019 12: 31
                    "In addition, when the BMP-1 was detonated on an anti-tank mine, the fuses of the 73-mm gun shells often became on the combat platoon and self-destructed after a short time interval. This detonated the entire ammunition load, killing the crew and the landing party."
                    https://topwar.ru/96558-protivotankovye-vozmozhnosti-otechestvennyh-bmp.html
                    And no one has fixed this for the entire operation of BMP1 ?!
                2. +2
                  5 July 2019 22: 35
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  these are higher risks of death from an explosion of ammunition (RPG, LNG) in the internal volume of BMP / BTR.

                  RPGs and the like explode from the outside. And first of all it affects those who are on top and without armor. Inside, the main ambush, the risk of an explosion of a tank pierced by a godfather or BC again hit by a godfather.

                  It is interesting that the Chinese in their BMP seemed to solve this problem, they just lowered the tanks down.
                  1. 0
                    6 July 2019 12: 19
                    From a collision with a mine or a land mine, the lower location of the tanks does not help, unfortunately.
                    1. 0
                      6 July 2019 19: 34
                      Quote: Red_Baron
                      From a collision with a mine or a land mine, the lower location of the tanks does not help, unfortunately.

                      It is believed that the MPMs are well protected from underground mines. But these hippos look very sad on the battlefield.
                      1. -1
                        6 July 2019 20: 00
                        MRAPS are not for the battlefield, they are for roads and columns.
                3. 0
                  7 March 2021 22: 35
                  You have reflected far from all the reasons why they ride on armor. I will try to fill the gap.
                  Inside the BMP-1 it is stuffy, there is simply nothing to breathe, especially in the summer in the southern regions.
                  Inside it feels very sick, very much. The BMP-3 has solved this problem.
                  Ammunition and mattresses are transported inside.
                  Visibility from the outside is better, you can see a shot from a grenade launcher and have time to react.
                  The visibility from the inside is so low that fire through the loopholes is ridiculous.
                  What is the conclusion from this? The design should be revised, modernized.
                  It should be possible to open the hatch above you and stick out under the cover of the hatch, something like driving a driver in the stowed position.
                  A platoon should not have 3 BPMs, but 4-5 vehicles.
                  Need an air conditioner.
                  The gun should be replaced with a BMP-3 cannon with a caliber of 100 mm and the ability to raise the barrel to a large angle.
        3. 0
          5 July 2019 12: 13
          Armored vehicles, UAVs and ground robots for various purposes should be tied together network-centrically. One saw - everyone knows the coordinates of the enemy. You see it yourself, but you can’t get it - another one works.
          1. 0
            6 July 2019 12: 20
            This is ideal, but so far it has not been implemented anywhere, even among the most technologically advanced.
            1. -1
              6 July 2019 20: 10
              Implemented 36 years ago in the USSR, but ... for the Granit anti-ship missiles.

              For ground robots, everything is much more complicated.
    2. +3
      5 July 2019 19: 57
      I disagree about the Afghan machine was ordered specifically for the concept of vigorous strikes and the author correctly described the tactics. And the fact that such a war did not happen to anyone, the car was not to blame. And also in the fact that I had to fight in another war for which it was not adapted. Yes and better than our BMP at that time there was no one in the aggregate of all technical characteristics and capabilities of this hard worker.
    3. 0
      4 August 2019 13: 21
      I agree 100%. Main review and responsiveness. Sitting inside nichrome is not visible and you can not have time to jump out.
  2. +5
    5 July 2019 05: 37
    The idea itself can be flawed, in fact, an easily-organized BMP that should go with the landing in the forefront — that is, a good target with weak armor, and also with a certain number of people, for landing which you need to at least slow down, or even freeze for a while battlefield? Perhaps it was necessary to initially build heavy, well-protected BMPs, based on medium tanks?
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 06: 12
      Quote: Thrifty
      The idea itself may be flawed in essence of an easily-scanned BMP

      Not. The salvation of these BMPs is not in armor, but in speed and in the ability to swim
      1. +4
        5 July 2019 06: 47
        in the ability to swim

        For the sake of the ability to swim, the BMP lost normal armor. But here I am interested in the question that the lack of armor cost many people their lives, but the ability to swim saved someone ??? How often was buoyancy required not in exercises, but in hostilities ???
        1. +6
          5 July 2019 07: 11
          Quote: Flamberg
          For the sake of the ability to swim, the BMP lost normal armor. But here I am interested in the question that the lack of armor cost many people their lives, but the ability to swim saved someone ???

          BMP-1 was created for the war in Europe and not in Afghanistan, it would have reached the English Channel in 2 weeks and there was another war in Afghanistan
          By the way - how are we now planning to fight in Europe with NATO? This is not Syria, here you need an atomic blitzkrieg
          1. +3
            5 July 2019 07: 20
            BMP-1 was created for the war in Europe and not in Afghanistan, it would have reached the English Channel in 2 weeks and there was another war in Afghanistan

            I know it. Here the Americans scored on buoyancy and their ravings on the forehead just can’t be taken from autocannons, only with a serious caliber. So the question is, do you need buoyancy at the expense of booking?
            By the way - how are we now planning to fight in Europe with NATO?

            No way. The war with NATO is very likely the end of the world. This war will begin and end, there will be no one to fight for.
            1. 0
              5 July 2019 07: 39
              Quote: Flamberg
              So the question is, do you need buoyancy at the expense of booking?

              If you want to make a claim to the BMP-1 - then another era was, tactics, strategy and purpose, 1 theater of operations 1 enemy (and no one planned to bury the country after the war). If in relation to the current situation - in view of the expansion of the geography of threats they are trying to approach more flexibly - just three types of infantry fighting vehicles, the main thing is that ultimately the quality would not be harmful to the quantity (and the turnover).
              And by the way, if there is a war with NATO, our goal should be victory and not revenge before death.
              1. +1
                5 July 2019 08: 04
                If you want to make a claim to the BMP-1
                No, I just wanted to hear the pros and cons. I understand that beha car of his time.
            2. -1
              5 July 2019 21: 39
              Quote: Flamberg
              So the question is, do you need buoyancy at the expense of booking?
              Of course. Forcing the Dnieper has shown that this is an extremely important property. Plus, constant hemorrhoids for the enemy in our latitudes (where there are a lot of streams), that we can not only drive, but also swim, so you can’t do a couple of defense nodes on the roads. The bad thing is that the technique crawls ashore sucks, it does not work out everywhere.
          2. 0
            5 July 2019 11: 53
            All of these infantry fighting vehicles and tanks will turn into piles of burnt and spoiled scrap metal, from ATGM attacks from the second to the fifth generation — armed with NATO countries and their number is increasing every year.
            1. +2
              5 July 2019 21: 40
              What is the difference how many ATGMs, if their operators are burned out?
        2. +7
          5 July 2019 07: 31
          Quote: Flamberg
          How often was buoyancy required not in exercises, but in hostilities ???

          And when you go by car, count how many rivers and canals you cross, and you will get an answer. Otherwise, in front of each blown-up bridge, the infantry will be forced to get out from under the "thick armor", heroically cross to the other side, capture the bridgehead, hold it until the engineers build a bridge or pull up the pontoon ferry means, and all this on foot and without cover for "light armor" and its weapons. What do you think the infantry losses will be?
          1. 0
            5 July 2019 07: 44
            What do you think will be the loss of infantry?

            I believe that this issue is purely theoretical, because all serious opponents possess nuclear weapons and war with them is the end of the world, and we will have an advantage over all types of weapons over a not serious opponent.
            1. +4
              5 July 2019 07: 47
              Quote: Flamberg
              I think this question is purely theoretical

              Oh, this issue has already been practically resolved both in the second period of WWII and in the post-war years. The infantry should be able to cross water obstacles on the move, this has a beneficial effect on saving the lives of soldiers, since it deprives the enemy of time to organize resistance and even in a nuclear war, "light armor" will save soldiers both with armor and speed
              1. -2
                5 July 2019 07: 55
                What? Tomorrow's war? Do not talk nonsense. Do you think in America they want to see a fungus from a hydrogen bomb on the lawn of a white house? I do not think that the elite in the west wants to live in peace after a nuclear conflict. Why do they need it? Everything is fine with them, and they are unlikely to enjoy sunbathing after a radioactive rain. All NATO movements and the demonization of Russia are aimed at providing the soldiers of the strongest strongest army, the most important thing they need, ENEMY.
                1. +4
                  5 July 2019 09: 05
                  Quote: Flamberg
                  Do you think in America they want to see a fungus from a hydrogen bomb on the lawn of a white house?

                  Judging by their statements, they think that only they can do such "fungi on other people's lawns". We do not have discussions about the possibility of a limited nuclear war and a preemptive global strike
                  Quote: Flamberg
                  All NATO movements and the demonization of Russia are aimed at providing the soldiers of the strongest strongest army, the most important thing they need, the ENEMY.

                  1. +2
                    5 July 2019 09: 16
                    Judging by their statements

                    So it is necessary to divide by ten, or even more, what politicians say. Words are also weapons. In general, balabolit is not tossing bags.

                    The fact of the matter is that on the wall does not weigh a gun, but the FAB5000. If it explodes, no one will be left on the stage ... and then the stage itself will not be found either.
                    1. +1
                      5 July 2019 09: 20
                      Quote: Flamberg
                      So it is necessary to divide by ten, or even more, what politicians say.

                      If you think that there are only politicians at the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters, then you are mistaken
                      Quote: Flamberg
                      If it explodes, no one will be left on the stage ... and then the stage itself will not be found either.

                      Unfortunately, but many have the opinion:
                      - Russia does not use its weapons, since the "children of the elite" live in the West
                      - Russian weapons are no good
                      - Russia will not have time to use it, since the high-tech weapons of the West will have time to get ahead of it
                      1. +5
                        5 July 2019 09: 37
                        If you think that there are only politicians at the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters, then you are mistaken
                        I do not suffer from excessive naivety. Moreover, if our general staff does not talk about preventive strikes, this does not mean that they do not count them, right up to the landing on the coast of California. I am more than sure that the general staff has plans in general for any occasion.
                        Unfortunately, but many have the opinion:
                        - Russia does not use its weapons, since the "children of the elite" live in the West
                        - Russian weapons are no good
                        - Russia will not have time to use it, since the high-tech weapons of the West will have time to get ahead of it

                        About the children of the elite, they rather say what they have.
                        I do not consider our weapons junk, and amers fools. They are probably trying to convince their sixes that Uncle Sam is cool and he has everything under control, and the bear is not dangerous. That would not be much written placing targets for nuclear weapons on its territory.
                        Although the events in Syria have clearly shown that Russia can, knows how, and practices.
                        Plus competition in the arms market.
                        My opinion is just like twice two. As long as there is at least one percent of what Washington burns in the fire of a hydrogen bomb, the Americans will not risk direct aggression.
                      2. +2
                        5 July 2019 09: 57
                        And at times, some sort of American general tells a story like - Russia has more, more modern, more powerful - give money to ours !!! and more)))
                2. -3
                  5 July 2019 21: 43
                  They think we "dare not." Seriously. Therefore, they were hysterical when they recognized Florida in the cartoon: they had already decided everything, but here all the ideas are in the trash, they do not want to be charred.
          2. +4
            5 July 2019 08: 56
            You did not consider that only lightly armored vehicles can be transported, and tanks, supplies and support on wheels will stand in front of the river. If the point is then in buoyancy?
            1. +5
              5 July 2019 09: 10
              Quote: Korniliy
              You did not consider that only lightly armored vehicles can be transported, and tanks, supplies and support on wheels will stand in front of the river.

              Of course have. The infantry either captures the bridgehead, and does this quickly and to a considerable depth, or overcoming a water barrier away from the main crossing point, taking advantage of the lack of enemy defense or its weakness, quickly makes a march to the desired area and captures the crossings from the rear, from there where the enemy is waiting the least.
              With all this, the infantry provides faster crossing guidance for heavy armored vehicles.
              By the way, I do not deny the need to have heavy infantry fighting vehicles, everything should be in moderation
              1. +2
                5 July 2019 18: 19
                To transfer equipment across the rivers, engineer troops with pontoons eat.
                1. -1
                  5 July 2019 20: 06
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  To transfer equipment across the rivers, engineer troops with pontoons eat.

                  They eat, but so far they can reach, and until they begin to haul the equipment to the other side, the enemy can make it, organize a strong defense there and break all their equipment with ordinary artillery fire, or simply drive the tanks out for direct fire or use ATGM calculations
                  1. +4
                    5 July 2019 23: 58
                    In modern realities, everyone will be at a glance - whoever has air superiority will win.
                    1. +1
                      6 July 2019 05: 45
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      In modern realities, everyone will be at a glance - whoever has air superiority will win.

                      In modern realities, "air" may turn out to be NOTHING at all.
                      Air defense systems, on both sides will not let anything fly
                      1. +1
                        6 July 2019 19: 40
                        Quote: svp67
                        Air defense systems, on both sides will not let anything fly

                        In modern realities, air defense systems are carried out "at once". The infantry, from helicopters, for example, will be covered with some MANPADS. But armored vehicles shine on radars from afar, and even the ancient Maverick will arrive 30 km away just like this ..
                      2. 0
                        6 July 2019 20: 03
                        Now air defense systems are carried out "at once", because the crowd piles on them, like a gopot on a fighter. For carriers of the Mavericks, Pantsir-SM (40 km) and Tor were made. And in general, in order to launch rockets from a distance, you have to fly high, and this is fraught.
                      3. +2
                        6 July 2019 20: 22
                        Quote: bk0010
                        For carriers of the Mavericks made Shell-SM (40 km) and Tor

                        Thor car is chic, but still short-range. And the new Shell-SM so far is only in the pictures. And in general, the experience of hostilities for the Carapace is rather negative (compared to the same TOP). This has already been written. How much better is the new model just again, the battle will show.

                        But in general, it is worth remembering that the visibility of the horizon from a height of 10 km is 357 kilometers. Alas, flyers always have an advantage. From above it is visible further, and throwing no matter how heavy is more convenient.
                      4. +1
                        7 July 2019 18: 19
                        Not Thor, Buk, of course. As for the fact that from 10 km he sees at 350, so he will also be visible at 350 km.
                      5. -1
                        6 July 2019 21: 34
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        In modern realities, air defense systems are carried out "at once".

                        But more than once modern long-range systems have not been used.
        3. +2
          5 July 2019 10: 21
          For the sake of the ability to swim, the BMP lost normal armor. But here I am interested in the question that the lack of armor cost many people their lives, but the ability to swim saved someone ???

          you confuse warm with soft. The whole point of the landing is that it is on the cutting edge of the offensive. When the use of engineering tools to overcome water barriers is out of the question. How are you going to form rivers? On rafts made from improvised means? Or the bottom?
          1. +2
            5 July 2019 10: 28
            When the use of engineering tools to overcome water barriers is out of the question.
            Well, tell me how many times this came in handy.
            1. +1
              5 July 2019 11: 34
              Well, tell me how many times this came in handy.

              Yes, not once or twice. Google to the rescue. In 1987 when crossing Helmand in the region of Lashkargah, they almost drowned their behu because they did not drown the FVU or something like that, I don’t remember
              minus is not mine
        4. +1
          5 July 2019 12: 16
          IFVs were made for the war in the European direction, and Europe is full of rivers and lakes. Without the ability to swim - no way. The requirement to sail - according to the results of World War II - an attack on Berlin.
          1. +3
            5 July 2019 14: 32
            That's right. The BMP-1 would be good in offensive operations of the Soviet army of 1944-1945, but only together with the PT-76 tank, provided that the tank division would consist only of amphibious equipment, so that crossing the river occurred without losing the pace of attack.

            In the conditions of 1960-1970, when the main fleet of Soviet tank divisions consists of T-54, T-55 and T-62, which do not float, the BMP-1 buoyancy gives nothing. Well, such a tank division will come to a wide river, to the Rhine, for example, what will it do? BMP-1 float to seize a bridgehead on the opposite shore without tanks? Waiting for pantons to be brought for tanks is to lose the pace of the offensive with all the consequences. If you do not wait for tanks, how long does the BMP-1 and other floating lightly armored vehicles live on the opposite shore without tanks? On the Sandromir bridgehead there was an ass even for the T-34-85, and what about the small bridgehead for the cardboard infantry fighting vehicle would be full of infantry and it would be scary to think. Neither size nor mobility under tight combat conditions on a narrow bridgehead shot from all sides play any role in the survival of armored vehicles. The only thing that matters is the armor, as there is simply nowhere to drive or hide quickly. The Americans were well aware of this during landing operations in the Pacific islands, so the armored vehicles of their marine divisions are heavy tanks that can only survive on such bridgeheads.

            But Soviet generals were not idiots. And creating BMP-1, they were preparing for a future war, and not for the past. The buoyancy of the BMP-1 is, by and large, an option for peacetime for operation in the temperate zone of the USSR with its abundance of water barriers. And during the war, BMP-1 fights in terms of the use of nuclear weapons. It may so happen that when the Soviet Panzer Division arrives at the Rhine, there will be no Rhine anymore, it has evaporated! But I'm joking. It means that after a nuclear strike on the opposite bank of the Rhine, there will no longer be anyone who can provide serious resistance to the BMP when it crosses there. What, of course, the tankers of Katukov or Bogdanov in 1944-45 could not count on forcing any Oder.

            And when, from the beginning of the 1970s, the non-nuclear scenarios of the war in Europe began to be considered again in the Soviet General Staff, here the role of infantry fighting vehicles and tank divisions in general in capturing riverheads began to be reviewed. The Margelov Airborne Forces deal with this role an order of magnitude more effectively from airborne landing, but even better from helicopter. That is why NATO armored vehicles do not float. In modern warfare, crossing the river is not only possible for swimming. By air, this can be done much more effectively to maintain the pace of the offensive, in conditions of an increased enemy reaction speed compared to WWII. As shown by all the grandiose Soviet maneuvers of the 1970s - early 1980s. Where the task of seizing bridgeheads on the other side of the river was successfully solved only by the airborne forces. Only from the air it was possible to descend like snow on his head, so that the enemy did not have time to get ready for battle and catch him by surprise. On earth, this could not be done. In this, the conditions of the 1970-1980s differed from the conditions of the 1940s. The tank division in the 1970s, in any case, is advancing too slowly with or without rivers. The enemy manages to make against her at new lines of defense. The pace of the offensive must be raised due to new ways of quickly delivering troops to the battlefield! And this is the main postulate of the Ogarkov military doctrine.
            1. +6
              5 July 2019 16: 35
              Well, such a tank division will come to a wide river, to the Rhine, for example, what will it do? BMP-1 sail to capture a bridgehead on the opposite bank without tanks?
              There is even a statute about it. True, the regulations above the regiment are still secret. But the essence is something like this. Half of the rivers that the division may meet in the European theater are forced by tanks and by means of underwater navigation. These are rivers with a width of 0-200 meters. And if the river is more serious, then this is a different scale. On the other side of the river, a bridgehead is captured, with the help of airborne assault brigades of ground forces (not to be confused with the Airborne Forces!). They are immediately reinforced by infantry on BMP, overcoming the river by swimming. The buzzing of "crocodiles" does not allow the enemy to sleep. The bridgehead is expanded so that the enemy could not hammer from the artillery at the crossing point, and the "whistles" isolate the bridgehead by high-quality seeding of bombs along the perimeter. While everyone is having fun, the tankers are smoking, and they watch with apprehension as engineers come to the river, and without letting the tankers finish smoking, they throw them onto their GSP and transfer part of them to the aid of the infantry. At the same time, other engineers are quickly building a pontoon bridge over which all the others roll with songs and dances. Oil on canvas, USSR Ministry of Defense, 70s.
              Like any picture - too beautiful to be a reality. But the plans were about such. laughing
              1. +2
                5 July 2019 20: 17
                Putting tanks in underwater mode also takes time. At this time, the offensive is suspended. And in the early 80s, even this was considered an unacceptable loss of pace of the offensive. Air assault brigades they themselves on the BMP. If they capture a bridgehead, since the enemy allowed our helicopters to fly at the same time, then all reinforcements on the bridgehead can be delivered to turntables up to tanks.

                Therefore, there was no longer any combat need for an armored infantry fighting vehicle of tank divisions. Turntables where more quickly deliver reinforcements to the bridgehead. At the end of the 80s, the airborne assault brigades handed over the airborne forces, so the floating equipment in them has combat meaning.
                1. +2
                  8 July 2019 10: 42
                  Quote: Stafford41
                  all the gains on the bridgehead can be delivered to the turntables up to the tanks.
                  Tanks? Twirls? laughing
                  Quote: Stafford41
                  Therefore, there was no longer any military need for the BMP tank divisions to sail.
                  Now there is no need for this, a global war is not expected. Protecting the BMP is more important than its ability to swim. But then, when the BMP-1 was created, the ability to swim was very important. If we evaluate the BMP-1 in the framework of the military doctrine and tactics of that era - then we can say that the BMP-1 is a brilliant machine.
            2. 0
              6 July 2019 11: 25
              === Well, such a tank division will come to a wide river ===
              SME on BMP independently ferried and captures a foothold until the pr-k did not organize a defense. The task of motorized infantry on the BMP is to seize the bridgehead, and not independently hold it for a long time.
              Rivers are not only wide, but also narrow. But the river, even 10-15 m wide, is already an obstacle! And those hundreds and hundreds. And they must be forced. And not only to capture the bridgehead, but also for maneuver.

              === Margelov Airborne Forces deal with this role an order of magnitude more effectively from airborne landing, but even better from helicopter .. ===
              Margelov Airborne Forces were not intended to capture river bridgeheads!
              Margelov categorically refused the participation of the Airborne Forces in helicopter landings, which was a major organizational mistake.
              The task of capturing and holding river bridgeheads is standard for helicopter landings. But this kind of landing is purely infantry, and therefore has an appropriate set of problems. And if you add the traditionally weak armament of the Soviet infantry heavy. infantry weapons and a small number of units ... i.e. armored vehicles are urgently needed, including weakly armored because it is a carrier of strong weapons, which are essential for holding.
              1. +1
                6 July 2019 17: 46
                To make the motorized rifle battalion of the Soviet tank regiment in the West European theater of operations come to the river crossing earlier than the enemy in 1970-80 - it is simply not realistic without the use of tactical nuclear weapons. As all Soviet maneuvers of the 70-80s showed. The battle for the crossing and on the bridgehead will take place and will have to deal with a more or less organized defense of the enemy, which is an impossible task for independently operating lightly armored floating Soviet equipment. Arriving before the enemy, or even earlier than he would have been prepared for battle, it was possible 1940-1960 (in the 60s, subject to the use of nuclear weapons). That actually a bunch of PT-76 - BTR-50 or BTR-60 in the 50-60s and provided. But in the 70s, the situation changed. The speed of information transfer in the enemy’s troops has greatly increased, and the general mobility of the troops has also increased greatly.

                The way out of this situation is to fly over (without enemy troops or without enemy troops made up for battle) to fly by helicopter and, accordingly, capture the crossing from the air. In this connection, the infantry fighting armored infantry division of a tank division is absolutely not necessary. It can be as heavy as a tank. And not a deep river barrier to cross the bottom like a tank. The air assault brigade will hold out until the BMP and tanks cross the river along the bottom. There is not even a big river if the tank regiment is well prepared. At the Dnieper-67 exercises, tanks crossed the Dnieper along the bottom in the middle course.

                Margelov Airborne Forces were originally imprisoned to capture crossings from helicopters. The 1st experimental air assault brigade was created just in the Airborne Forces and was first used for its intended purpose in the Dnieper exercises 67. We will not analyze the conflict between Margelov and the leadership of the USSR ground forces. The fact is that initially all air assault brigades were on the airborne assault forces, and turning into assault airborne brigades, they continued to be equipped with airborne officers and landing equipment for a long time.

                In general, light-armored amphibious armored vehicles from the 70s had a combat sense only in airmobile formations (airborne divisions and air assault brigades), which should have been bypassed by enemy troops that were made for battle, and primarily large enemy tank formations. For troops whose task in an open battle is to destroy an enemy who has made battle for battle and their armored units, and this is a task for Soviet tank and motorized rifle divisions, the floating light infantry fighting vehicle (like armored personnel carriers) is only a burden that reduces the combat strength of Soviet tank divisions. There should have been the same as the tanks heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
                1. 0
                  6 July 2019 20: 17
                  BMP-1 just created for the war with the abundant use of tactical nuclear weapons to suppress the enemy. Because the BMP-1 in a typical situation and was not supposed to have a prepared defense and large enemy forces with tanks.
                2. 0
                  6 July 2019 23: 39
                  Although you contradict me, but I liked that you are trying to think and analyze.
                  But you, for the time being, do not have the necessary baggage of knowledge and understanding.

                  Soviet military thought of the 1960s and 70s generally did not provide for conducting hostilities without the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons. And then you fell into your own trap: asserting that nuclear weapons will be used, you want to take away from our advancing motorized infantry: a) albeit light but armor (and therefore protection from artillery fragments and rifle bullets); b) a sealed ventilated FVU armored box protecting the soldier from the infected area; c) armament standing on an armored box, which is basis fire potential of motorized rifles. Feel it?
                  Alas, there was no PT76 - BTR50 combination in the SA. You just don't know our OShS. I know. ;))
                  When time goes on for minutes, it is very important who will be the first to jump out to an important area of ​​the terrain and have time to score the pegs of the prepared defense there. Wait watch until they arrive and organize a crossing through a 20-meter small river, sappers are irrational. But quickly and immediately to cross there on floating armored vehicles - just right. The time parameter is critical!
                  You did not pay attention to what I wrote - helicopter landing always on foot. So, automatically, he is deprived of what I wrote above.
                  What kind of air assault brigades are you talking about? Do you know their OSH? Do you know how many such brigades were? Their deployment?
                  What makes you think that officers who graduated from airborne schools are better than officers who graduated from combined-arms "infantry" schools?
                  In the odshbr, only the VDS specialists were "paratroopers", and the overwhelming majority of them were combined arms.

                  == The fact is that initially all air-assault brigades were on the airborne technique ==
                  Let me ask you, what do your words "on airborne vehicles" mean?
                  And another question: how was it supposed to use the "airborne technique" in odshbr (yes, you forgot about odshb) and indicate what period you mean.
                  Margelov had no conflict with the SV command. He had administrative and managerial ambitions.

                  In conclusion, I ask you to say - what kind of BTT do you offer to Soviet motorized riflemen? "Ahzarito" -shaped? But before you express your opinion, please take into account that you need to fill at least THREE HUNDRED regiments with it. And the sooner, the better, for the war may begin tomorrow.
                  1. -1
                    7 July 2019 01: 16
                    Why did you decide that I want to take away the BMP from the tank division? Just the concept of light infantry fighting vehicles as the main technology of motorized rifles in conditions of non-use of nuclear weapons does not justify itself. And even its floating format in the tank division does not save. From helicopters, riverheads are captured faster! You yourself talk about how important it is to seize the bridgehead on the beach first. And just by helicopter, you fly there much earlier than any BMP, I hope the speed difference between the helicopter and the BMP is clear? The air assault brigades, even of the first wave of formation, were by no means foot or toothless. Their staff includes combat and transport helicopter regiments, as well as artillery and anti-aircraft battalions, which are delivered to the Mi-6 bridgehead, as was the case at Dnepr 67 exercises. Well, in the 80s the power of the DSBBr steadily increased. At the beginning of the 80s, the airborne assault battalion of such a brigade was all on BMDekhahs and BTR-D, also in the presence of Nona.

                    As soon as the USSR abandoned the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the 70s, the concept of light infantry fighting vehicles was only suitable for airborne troops, where all the equipment was floating. For armored and motorized rifle divisions, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers with a mass and security comparable to tanks become more suitable. And just the first projects of such infantry fighting vehicles appeared in the late 70s before Afghanistan. Projects of remaking the T-54 and T-55 into such heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, all the same, after re-equipping the army with the T-72, T-64 and T-80, these tanks have nowhere to go. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier as a T-55 conversion is completely protected from a nuclear explosion and has the ability to overcome shallow water barriers along the bottom.
          2. +3
            5 July 2019 21: 05
            Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
            BMP was made for the war in the European direction, and in Europe it is full of rivers and lakes.
            There are plenty of them in Russia itself, which we must be ready to defend in any direction. Those who have not personally crossed water barriers in the army can at least assess the problem if they have waited for ferries on their cars at least once. Unfortunately, everyone who advocates only for heavy equipment cannot understand in any way that both the war in Afghanistan and the hostilities in Chechnya and Syria are military actions against militants, in fact, "anti-terrorist operations" for which a special anti-guerrilla war was needed , police equipment. Plus the features of the geographical environment, hot, low-water, mountainous. Here, the MRAP technology (mine resistant ambush protected - protected from undermining and ambush attacks, mine-resistant ambush) is really in demand, when attacking military columns from ambushes, by an adversary using guerrilla tactics. In a real war, all these police armored vehicles with MRAP technology are of little use against a full-fledged army, in a mobile, highly maneuverable war. By the way, in Afghanistan, they began to ride on armor not to a small extent because our infantry fighting vehicles were not intended to repel enemy attacks in a convoy, and even with the active use of mining roads. Undermining on the armor gave more chances to survive, both when undermining on a mine or land mine, and when quickly dismounting with a sudden attack on a column.

            I will also say to all fans of thick-skinned infantry fighting vehicles - there is no indestructible equipment, everything is on fire, and even the most toast-armored "Mouse" is not a bomb shelter. For direct support of tanks, BMPTs and heavy armored personnel carriers are needed on a single tank base. Moreover, if BMPTs can go alongside or even in front of their tanks, heavy armored personnel carriers are still not for the first line, and there should be a special landing in them - assault groups, of 5-6 people per such armored personnel carrier, and not ordinary infantry. This is a "trio" of heavy machines and can work great together. Otherwise, nothing can replace the maneuverability and versatility of classic BMPs, the best of which is the BMP-3 and its airborne brother BMD-4M. For raids, seizure of bridgeheads, mobile warfare, they are vital. In short, each technique is needed for its intended purpose, but foolishly it is known what can be broken, then there will be those who will pour mud on the BMP, not realizing that in such a mastodon as the T-15 there are no less chances, if not more, to die. use it next to tanks, with troops inside. So there will be a "mass grave" with the thickest armor.
        5. +1
          5 July 2019 22: 38
          Quote: Flamberg
          the lack of armor cost many people their lives, but the ability to swim saved someone ???

          Gorgeous phrase! And how do you, not knowing how to swim, intend to carry out the order "to force this river"? Walk along the bottom !? Or would you prefer a floating BMP?
    2. +2
      5 July 2019 07: 09
      Google the Israelites for their TBMP and TBTR. If it is necessary to destroy a steel box, it will be saved only by movement, a motionless target, regardless of the reservation, will be destroyed sooner or later, and the longer it costs, the more likely it is. The armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are primarily designed for transporting infantry, and for this purpose high mobility is needed, achieved by the correct balance of armor mass. Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are quite specific equipment, in fact a tank with weakened weapons, and why the heck is it needed?
      1. +2
        5 July 2019 07: 29
        for this purpose, high mobility is required, achieved by the correct balance of the mass of armor
        The mass of armor can be compensated by the engine.
        If it is necessary to destroy a steel box, it will be saved only by movement, a motionless target, regardless of the reservation, will be destroyed sooner or later, and the longer it costs, the more likely it is.

        The more armor, the smaller the amount of enemy weapons can harm it. Heavy BMP you with DShK will not do anything, unlike BMP-1/2.
        Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are quite specific equipment, in fact a tank with weakened weapons, and why the heck is it needed?
        Protection from all types of weapons, except for heavy ones.
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 10: 36
          Heavy BMP you with DShK will not do anything, unlike BMP-1/2.

          this is called the tactics of using military hardware. The commander simply must take into account the features of the technology during the operation. And the desire to build up armor, put a mega-gun, make an unkillable child prodigy, unfortunately, is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of some military men. In fact, heavy equipment has both its own specific tasks and no less specific shortcomings.
          Security against all types of weapons except heavy

          there is no such thing. Do not make up. Any combat vehicle (tank, infantry fighting vehicle, ship, plane) can be destroyed. A question of means, conditions and time.
          1. +1
            5 July 2019 10: 58
            this is called the tactics of using military hardware. The commander simply must take into account the features of the technology during the operation. And the desire to build up armor, put a mega-gun, make an unkillable child prodigy, unfortunately, is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of some military men. In fact, heavy equipment has both its own specific tasks and no less specific shortcomings.

            Well ... it was smooth on paper and forgot about the ravines. Do not forget that the potential enemy also has tactics and commanders.
            there is no such thing. Do not make up. Any combat vehicle (tank, infantry fighting vehicle, ship, plane) can be destroyed. A question of means, conditions and time.

            Am I somewhere writing about an indestructible bmp?
        2. +1
          7 July 2019 15: 01
          The mass of armor can be compensated by the engine.

          Google the dimensions of the German MTU, the dimensions of the power plant M1 and Merkava. Then compare with the T-72 and T-90 engines. I will surprise you: the powerful engine is large, and the larger the internal volume of the machine, the larger the area over which it is necessary to smear the armor. Won M1 60 tons, the armor is pulled to the forehead because barn, you either stretch all the armor over the car and do not get the necessary protection anywhere, or choose where to place most of the armor. It is also necessary to take into account that a powerful engine requires the appropriate units: transmission, suspension, tracks, rollers, if the engine is 2000 hp. will begin to move a 100-ton machine, everything that can be torn into the chassis will break. The mass of the machine can be compensated by the engine to certain values, and even then with restrictions.

          The more armor, the smaller the amount of enemy weapons can harm it. Heavy BMP you with DShK will not do anything, unlike BMP-1/2.

          Did I talk about a machine gun? I spoke about the time, the longer the car will stand, the more the car crew will wait for an RPG in the roof. Everything is of course due to circumstances, but the general concept is as follows. You don’t have to worry, each tank has its own ATGM.

          Protection from all types of weapons, except for heavy ones.

          And are units of armies in the world supposedly heavy weapons? I’m grieving: Jews changed the tactics of using tanks in 2006; the Jordanians are Cornetas for * b * li. + heavy equipment has problems with logistics, serious. For example: the Russian army will never massively use heavy equipment for the transport of infantry or anything else. It’s just that in no part of Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Far East, machinery weighing more than 40 tons will not be able to move freely, many rivers, many marshy areas, many mountains and hills, many forests. But the calculation of ATGMs on a light floating BMP will easily and unconstrained be dropped in the area of ​​heavy equipment, and will destroy it sooner or later.
      2. +4
        5 July 2019 09: 33
        Quote: English tarantass
        Google the Israelites for their TBMP and TBTR.

        Better to google how and what the IDF carried out the encirclement of the 3rd Egyptian army on the Sinai, in the area of ​​the "bitter lake"

        1. +1
          5 July 2019 22: 45
          By the way a great comment !! Is it even incomprehensible for these photos why military equipment is mobile and passable?
        2. 0
          7 July 2019 15: 06
          I’m talking about how these cars were usually destroyed. Anti-tank weapons, anti-tank mines, land mines. There are more of them than cars, and there is no escape from them.
    3. -2
      6 July 2019 12: 23
      Uh, what does it mean to go with the landing in the forefront? Perhaps you are talking about something specific, but the landing, as a rule, does not go in the forefront. And his goals are specific and any technique there is of great help.
  3. +5
    5 July 2019 06: 04
    Quote: Thrifty
    The idea itself may be flawed in essence of an easily-scanned BMP,

    at that time it was quite working, the heavy ones appeared much later, again thanks to mass deliveries to Israel, in the form of fraternal assistance from the grateful Arab people of the T 54 tanks. In the states, the M113 armored personnel carrier was the mass vehicle, the Bundeswehr HS 30.-http: // www .dogswar.ru / images / stories / bmpsay / HS-30-Spz.12-3- (1) .jpg
  4. +7
    5 July 2019 06: 59
    The author did not do just one thing. I didn’t offer to place any seats on the armor so as not to beat off the ass. And did not consider the second side of the issue, namely the Charter. Which demanded to unfold in a chain outside the zone of fire cover of the enemy. This zone should have been determined by reconnaissance patrols and head camp outposts. Go on the attack on the armor or in the airborne squad the top of idiocy. And it comes only from stupidity and Russian maybe. The troop compartment is needed to move on the march and more. But they climb up the armor, because it is so interesting there.
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 15: 01
      Seats are hardly needed - you can catch on with something.
      The tank landing ship was both a reconnaissance patrol and the head marching post of its mekhbrigad. Their task was to detect the enemy. But this led to the fact that they themselves most often fought almost without intelligence, just like that. Hence the specific tactics.
      1. -1
        5 July 2019 18: 22
        Now there is no particular sharpness in tank landing troops - since there are helicopters that deliver much faster and cover the infantry with more dense fire than BMPs and tanks.
        1. +1
          5 July 2019 18: 42
          Come on. The helicopters flew and flew away, and their own box - one by the way.
          And then, from Bessonov. In the battle of two infantry squads, the one who had an armored personnel carrier with a machine gun defeated.
          1. 0
            6 July 2019 00: 04
            Unfortunately, we are not in their 60s right now - in every unit of the NATO forces, even the militants have a bunch of ATGMs and large-caliber sniper rifles that will carry light armor into smithereens, heavy vehicles will partially protect, light ones will not.
            1. 0
              6 July 2019 12: 31
              To be honest, I do not understand what you are based on. Even a lightly armored vehicle is a cargo that it brought with it, it is a heavier weapon than a landing. This is a platform on which almost any equipment can stand. Including anti-sniper. It is clear that it can stand does not mean it will stand at that very moment. But how frequent are such moments that snipers act against an attack using even light equipment and stop this equipment? Yes, there are none at all. And if the checkpoint or something else has been given equipment, then it is closed with sandbags, concrete shelter or relief.
      2. +2
        5 July 2019 23: 23
        Since we are talking about war and hostilities, it will be necessary for someone to be "bad", but it will be "good" only relatively. Moreover, "good" and "bad" can change places depending on the situation.

        Making lightly armored amphibious armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is bad.
        Let's make tank armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles - again bad.

        Well...

        The world is not perfect.

        And it was not ideal for our grandfathers, who had overthrown the Nazi army nafig. In general, you have to fight in any case on what is and do not complain. As the oath says, to endure hardships steadily ... that is, hardships are promised and will be in any case.
        1. 0
          6 July 2019 12: 34
          And I am for the fact that if possible the burdens would be less. :) As soon as someone offers the perfect BMP for all occasions, I will vote for him with both hands. or armored personnel carrier.
          Although I personally don’t like one thing or another for one reason, I’m terribly sickled, but maybe this is a matter of training.
          1. 0
            6 July 2019 20: 07
            And I, too, in the winter for the stove, and in the hot summer for the air conditioning.
    2. +2
      5 July 2019 20: 39
      Quote: Jurkovs
      . And did not consider the second side of the issue, namely the Charter.


      That's for sure. Sam wanted to write about the same. According to the combat charter, only three types of attack are provided.

      and. On foot.

      b. On machines only for the case when the enemy does not have anti-tank equipment

      Verbatim:
      The attack on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) is used on the terrain accessible to them when attacking the enemy, hastily switched to defense, in the absence of organized resistance, and also when the enemy’s defense is reliably suppressed and most of its anti-tank weapons are destroyed. In this case, the tanks attack after the shells of their artillery, and the motorized rifle units on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) - in the battle line behind the tanks at a distance of 100-200 m, firing from all their fire weapons.


      Those. as many as three conditions. In January 1995, not one was completed in Grozny.

      at. and the landing on the armor is provided only for motorized riflemen on cars (there probably aren’t such now) with deep snow cover.

      Verbatim:
      A motorized rifle unit on cars attacks the enemy, usually on foot. In some cases (in the mud, in the presence of deep snow cover and in other conditions), approaching the enemy, and in some areas and attacking the personnel of a motorized rifle unit, can be carried out by landing on tanks.


      Probably after 1945 in the Soviet army it is a priori considered that the enemy is always disorganized, only hastely goes on defense by his own stupidity, ATGMs and anti-tank grenade launchers were somehow destroyed by themselves.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 22: 49
        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
        On machines only for the case when the enemy does not have anti-tank equipment

        Exactly! Well, at least someone remembered the charter. drinks
      2. -2
        6 July 2019 12: 37
        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
        Probably after 1945 in the Soviet army it is a priori considered that the enemy is always disorganized, only hastely goes on defense by his own stupidity, ATGMs and anti-tank grenade launchers were somehow destroyed by themselves.

        But, in fact, this must be partially or completely. Or do you think the same BMP was created to break into a well-organized enemy defense? Rave. The above is very correctly described about the interaction of troops. After artillery preparation or similar events, it’s not always like petro and other things.
  5. +8
    5 July 2019 07: 03
    If a land mine is blown up under BTR wheels, the chances of survival for those who are on the armor are higher than those that are inside the BTR. Those who have a better view of the terrain on the armor and in case of an ambush, they can quickly leave the APC and, using the terrain for shelter, begin to return fire.
    When a cumulative projectile hits an armored personnel carrier, armor easily breaks through, as a result of increasing pressure in the confined space of an armored personnel carrier, all die.
    US soldiers removed the doors from HUMVEE in order to survive a grenade launcher attack.
    See the appendix to my article.
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren3/btr_ww.htm
    However, these arguments are not ideal. In Chechnya, land mines are often installed on the side of the road, on trees, specifically for those who are sitting on the armor. And just a small automatic fire from a short distance "sweeps away" all who are sitting on the armor - do not have time to leave the armored personnel carrier. The explosion on the armor of the cumulative charge also affects everyone who sits on the armor. In addition, in frost, rain, under the fragments, etc. sitting on the armor is problematic.
    1. +15
      5 July 2019 07: 52
      When a cumulative ammunition penetrates, there is no pressure surge that "smears" everything inside along the walls - this is a harmful delusion. A cumulative jet is essentially a few grams of molten metal accelerated to several km / sec. What is on its way - breaks through (as in waterjet cutting), but a couple of centimeters from it - no more harm than from a bullet whizzing at the temple. Some danger is posed by secondary fragments (pieces and drops from broken armor), but not more than when pierced by a conventional armor-piercing bullet. But on the outside of the armor - the detonation of the cumulative ammunition works in almost the same way as the destruction of the OFS on the armor. With the same consequences for unprotected manpower.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 08: 01
        For MBT, yes, but when a BTR with thin armor is damaged, a large hole is formed. We are armed with special grenades for breaking armor armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles.
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 10: 12
          About special grenades. They were shown on "Zvezda" in the documentary series "Grenade Launchers". Such a grenade has a thick washer in front, upon impact, it is pressed into the body of the grenade, forming a cumulative notch. Thanks to which there is a breakout of thin armor. Although it was said that ours took a patent, but since they show it openly, then the Americans have something similar.
          1. +5
            5 July 2019 10: 26
            Quote: riwas
            About special grenades. They were shown on "Zvezda" in the documentary series "Grenade Launchers". This grenade has a thick washer in front

            8))))

            This is a thermobaric grenade TBG-7V, and the washer does not crush anything. Just an analogue of a high-explosive ordnance. Breaks through armor due to brisant action
            1. +1
              5 July 2019 11: 18
              Do not consider it criticism, but the brisance of thermobaric shells seems to be limping on both legs. Although for lightly armored vehicles may be sufficient.
              1. +2
                5 July 2019 11: 55
                From one hit in the light armored vehicles of this shot and the entire crew will come Khan.
              2. +7
                5 July 2019 12: 12
                Quote: Flamberg
                Do not consider it criticism, but the brisance of thermobaric shells seems to be limping on both legs.

                Do not consider it criticism, but you do not distinguish volume-detonating ammunition from thermobaric. Both of them are volumetric explosion ammunition, but volume-detonating two-stroke (creating a cloud of a fuel-air mixture for the first cycle, its detonation for the second cycle), and thermobaric ones are one of the single-cycle explosive ordnance.

                And just at TB ammunition, brisance is not only present, it is very high.
                1. +1
                  5 July 2019 18: 00
                  You are certainly right) hi
                  1. +1
                    5 July 2019 18: 10
                    Google will greatly help on request "Selivanov ammunition"
                    Everything is well painted there.
            2. +2
              5 July 2019 12: 13
              No. All that he said is true. See for yourself somewhere 27 minutes:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwa-aSfeUik
              They only call it not a washer, but a tip.
              And the rest is all the same: crashes in, a cumulative notch forms.
              1. +1
                5 July 2019 12: 58
                Quote: riwas
                They only call it not a washer, but a tip.

                This is not called a "washer or a tip", it is a "cap" under which there are two discs, which have a completely opposite function: to prevent the body from crushing / collapsing before the bottom fuse is triggered.

                There is essentially nothing to "crumple into a funnel", there is no empty space.
                1. 0
                  5 July 2019 14: 55
                  You don’t want to watch or think that the Zvezda TV channel is chasing misinformation, or maybe you don’t understand something.
                  Literally from the documentary film of the TV channel "Zvezda" "Domestic grenade launchers. History and modernity" 3 hours:
                  "The warhead of the TBG-7V shot and the RShG-1 grenade launcher has an original design. It is protected by a patent. The essence of the invention is as follows. There is a very strong tip on the front of the grenade. When it hits a solid obstacle, it is crushed into the body of the grenade, thus forming a cumulative funnel ".
                  1. +2
                    5 July 2019 21: 37
                    Quote: riwas
                    or think that the Zvezda TV channel is driving misinformation

                    They do not "drive mischief." they very often do not understand, and therefore begin to fantasize, as in this case.

                    In fact, it was not like that. In the early 1990s, the TB shot appeared. Then, if you believe not "Star" and "Basalt" book, "analysis of the results of numerous tests on various types of lightly armored vehicles .... made it possible to establish that, in addition to a high-explosive action, such a warhead also has a definite cumulative effect.

                    10 years after the adoption of the TBG-7V, in 2000, after many experiments and testing the theory, patent RU 2174210

                    And "it became the basis for the creation of warheads for rocket assault grenades RShG 1, RShG 2, etc.."


                    Quote: riwas
                    On the front of the grenade there is a very durable tip. When hit in a solid barrier, it is pressed into the body of the grenade, forming a cumulative funnel

                    The patent describes everything exactly the opposite.
                    the "very hard tip" is actually damping elastic discs that protect the fuse (When an ammunition with a damper hits an obstacle, the possibility of deformation of the fuse due to compression of the elastic damper is excluded)
                    In reality, the formation of an ersatz-cumulative funnel occurs due to deformation of the conical part of the shell of the ammunition. Which arises thanks to its design.
                    1. +3
                      6 July 2019 08: 52
                      Thank you for finding a patent:
                      http://bd.patent.su/2174000-2174999/pat/servl/servlet268c.html

                      You said:
                      This is not called a "washer or a tip", it is a "cap" under which there are two discs, which have a completely opposite function: to prevent the body from crushing / collapsing before the bottom fuse is triggered.

                      There is essentially nothing to "crumple into a funnel", there is no empty space.


                      Now speak
                      In reality, the formation of an ersatz-cumulative funnel occurs due to deformation of the conical part of the shell of the ammunition. Which arises thanks to its design.


                      Those. the rigid front part of the grenade’s body (tip) is pressed into the conical part of the body, which is clearly seen in Fig. 3 - Fig. 4 of the patent, and as I have repeatedly said.
                      As for the damping elastic disks, they are located inside the rigid front of the housing and have no relation to the formation of a cumulative funnel.
                      1. +1
                        6 July 2019 09: 20
                        Clarification:
                        To improve the conditions for the formation of a cumulative jet by providing sufficient time for deformation of the case between the fuse and the case, an elastic damper made of a thermoplastic material, such as polyethylene foam, or an inertial initiator (contactor) can be installed.
                      2. +1
                        6 July 2019 10: 10
                        Quote: riwas
                        Those. the hard front part of the grenade body is pressed in (tip)

                        8)))))))
                        She's not "hard" Read the patent again
                        8)))))
                      3. +2
                        6 July 2019 11: 14
                        No. See pic. 3 and Fig. 4 - the front cylindrical part of the body (tip) of small diameter is not deformed, but is pressed into the front conical part. Another thing is the conical front of the case. It is specially weakened, see fig. 8 - fig. 17.
                      4. +1
                        6 July 2019 11: 24
                        Quote: riwas
                        the front cylindrical part of the body (tip) of small diameter is not deformed, but is pressed into the front conical part.

                        naturally.
                        but because of its shape, and not because of the "presence of a hard tip"
                      5. +2
                        6 July 2019 11: 30
                        That's right - the shape provides rigidity.
                      6. +1
                        6 July 2019 11: 38
                        Quote: riwas
                        shape provides rigidity.

                        Only on collision at zero degrees. Well, like a notebook falling to the floor, in which, too, "the form provides rigidity."
                        In reality, when colliding at an angle other than zero, the "front cylindrical body (tip)" will also deform.
                      7. +2
                        6 July 2019 11: 49
                        We are talking about the relative rigidity of the front cylindrical part of the body (tip) of small diameter and the front conical part to axial compression.
                      8. +1
                        6 July 2019 11: 59
                        Quote: riwas
                        axial compression.

                        It is possible only in ideal conditions. In reality, the thing is unlikely.
                      9. +2
                        6 July 2019 12: 14
                        As shown in the patent, this is provided.
              2. sen
                +1
                5 July 2019 13: 16
                I looked. Thank. Did not know. I apologize for the minus. And the patent about which they say is probably secret.
      2. +3
        5 July 2019 08: 36
        When a cumulative ammunition penetrates, there is no pressure surge that "smears" everything inside along the walls - this is a harmful delusion.
        I will add. Here it is disassembled in great detail:
        http://saper.isnet.ru/mines-4/kumul-effekt-2.html
      3. +2
        5 July 2019 08: 49
        Absolutely right! Myths about the action of cumulative ammunition will continue to live for centuries ... because of the laziness of authors who do not want to delve into the topic.
      4. -3
        5 July 2019 09: 37
        The cumulative stream is essentially a few grams of molten metal, dispersed to several km / s.

        There are also ammunition, but the main difference between a cumulative ammunition is a directional explosion.
        what’s on its way - it breaks through (as with waterjet cutting), but a couple of centimeters from it - there is no more harm than from a bullet whistled at the temple

        Here the statement is true only for thick armor, for example, tank.
        When it gets into an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, the explosion energy also penetrates under the armor, which creates a pressure jump.
        Therefore, hatches on the BTR and BMP are kept open.
        1. +4
          5 July 2019 10: 32
          Quote: glory1974
          There are also ammunition, but the main difference between a cumulative ammunition is a directional explosion.

          That is yes. But not all explosion energy is transformed into a cumulative stream. Therefore, the ammunition has a powerful fragmentation and high-explosive effect and is guaranteed to destroy the landing on the armor.

          Quote: glory1974
          When it gets into an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, the explosion energy also penetrates under the armor, which creates a pressure jump.

          Moreover, it penetrates primarily through open hatches.
          1. -2
            5 July 2019 15: 42
            Therefore, the ammunition has a powerful fragmentation and high-explosive effect and is guaranteed to destroy the landing on the armor.

            depends on what. The RPG grenade has practically no fragmentation effect; there is a small explosive. although, of course, if it’s shy near, it’ll not seem enough.
            If 125 mm arrives, then the faucets. But again, the tank shell forms a small number of large fragments, so there are more chances to escape than from the 122 mm explosion.
            Moreover, it penetrates primarily through open hatches.

            Penetrates, you can’t argue. But I have a video from the first war, in the brigade where I served, with the BMP hatches completely closed, I was inflated from hitting who were killed inside. And a bunch of examples of hits with open hatches when the crew survived.
            Therefore, I believe more in my experience than in theoretical calculations.
            1. +1
              5 July 2019 17: 04
              Quote: glory1974
              high explosive there is a small

              Well, if you think that the simultaneous detonation of about seven RGD-5s has a "small high-explosive effect" .... Even the "Fly" is 312 g of okfol, and RGD-5 is 110 g of TNT.

              Quote: glory1974
              But again, the tank shell forms a small number of large fragments

              Read at your leisure https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/403258.html
              85% of primary fragments less than a centimeter in size at break BK-14M

              Quote: glory1974
              with completely closed hatches BMP inflated from hit

              They carried something inside and it detonated. And the openness / closure of the hatches did not matter.
              1. -1
                9 July 2019 08: 54
                Well, if you think that the simultaneous detonation of about seven RGD-5s has a "small high-explosive effect."

                I think, depending on what to compare. The RGD grenade explodes in a car and people remain alive. 7 pieces will certainly explode little. But we are talking about an RPG shot. It is imprisoned precisely as a cumulative one and is not effective for defeating infantry. Therefore, they developed a special fragmentation.
                I looked at the link. Interesting. But the article is called "....... in an explosion on the armor of a tank."
                When firing at infantry on the ground, such small fragments are few. An example from my practice. The first company fell under the shelling of a Chechen tank, fortunately no one was killed. Many large fragments were found at the positions. Many were 30-40 cm in size. The senior comrades then said that if they came under art equipment, the result would be much more tragic. The difference in the formation of fragments is significant.
                For BMP, I don’t remember exactly anymore, maybe they drove something, but the fact is that the armor didn’t tear, but it was a bloat.
            2. +2
              5 July 2019 22: 54
              Quote: glory1974
              But I have a video from the first war, in the brigade where I served, with the BMP hatches completely closed, I was inflated from getting who were inside dead.

              Are you sure that this is from a godfather and not the result of undermining a BC or a fuel tank? He if that, right in the middle of DO.
              1. +3
                5 July 2019 23: 16
                Well this is folklore. Bulletproof vests do not save and they do not need to be worn, the godfather kills with a jump in pressure and you need to ride with open hatches, 7,62 penetrates everything at times better than 5,45. How many lives this folklore ruined :(.
                1. 0
                  5 July 2019 23: 19
                  Quote: CTABEP
                  7,62 breaks everything at times better than 5,45.

                  Yes Yes Yes! AKM punches the rail along !! laughing
              2. -1
                9 July 2019 08: 56
                and not the result of undermining the BC or fuel tank?

                It was the "inflation" of the vehicle body that took place, but the armor was never pierced or torn anywhere. If BK had jerked, it would have been blown to shreds.
      5. 0
        5 July 2019 10: 25
        cumulative ammunition gives a good shrapnel impact you're right
      6. 0
        6 July 2019 08: 44
        Quote: Pushkowed
        The cumulative stream is essentially a few grams of molten metal, dispersed to several km / s.
        Just not molten.
        Plastic deformation occurs.
        Because the funnel is made of ductile metals, usually. And for solid, additional measures are needed to heat up to temperatures above recrystallization ... something like that ...
    2. 0
      5 July 2019 15: 02
      If a bomb was placed under your caterpillar - then this is your tactical mistake. How do you ride the same way back and forth?
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 15: 10
        Quote: wehr
        How do you ride the same road back and forth?

        It is just that the "rolling" does not always have a multi-lane highway with parallel understudies.

        There are, you know, completely different situations)))

        So what about

        Quote: wehr
        this is your tactical mistake

        You, IMHO, got a little excited.
        1. 0
          5 July 2019 18: 46
          If you do not want to mislead the enemy, then be prepared for land mines under the tracks.
          1. +1
            6 July 2019 00: 11
            Be prepared for an attack on the armored vehicles of Kamikaze drones - which in future wars will be very widespread.
      2. +1
        5 July 2019 16: 38
        Quote: wehr
        If a bomb was placed under your caterpillar - then this is your tactical mistake.

        Well, not bad you think big. Salang Pass - a tactical mistake, yeah. With such and such abundance in the choice of roads.
        1. -1
          5 July 2019 18: 45
          The Salang pass was specially defended.
          And in Europe there is almost always a choice of a detour.
          1. +1
            5 July 2019 22: 57
            Quote: wehr
            And in Europe there is almost always the opportunity to choose a detour

            Read some insults from tankers about the assault on Berlin and the entire area. Strangely enough, he also stands in a swamp. And having scored on the freeway, driving around the lawns in April to put it mildly was difficult.
    3. 0
      5 July 2019 18: 25
      Now such ambushes with heavy machine guns are posed with the use of anti-tank systems, the survival of the guys on the armor and even under the armor is minimal.
  6. +12
    5 July 2019 07: 12
    In my opinion, the BMP-1 inherited precisely the tactics of the tank amphibian, and adapted to it. Therefore, the motorized infantry had to regularly ride from above, while the troop compartment was only a temporary shelter, when the enemy defense broke through with a nuclear strike, and the armor was under the nuclear fungus.

    In my humble opinion, I didn’t see seats for the landing on the BMP-1 armor, so there’s no need to smack nonsense
    Here is the author’s example for you how a tractor for transporting infantry on armor looks like
    1. -1
      6 July 2019 08: 52
      Quote: armata_armata
      Here is the author’s example for you how a tractor for transporting infantry on armor looks like
      Well, this is an artillery tractor. Replacing horse drawn traction.
      How many artillery tractors has at least some kind of armor? Now, maybe they do. And before?
      1. 0
        8 July 2019 15: 29
        How many artillery tractors has at least some kind of armor? Now, maybe they do. And before?


        T-20 artillery tractor 1937
        The machine had a riveted-welded body of armor plates with a thickness of 7-10 mm, protecting the crew (driver and commander-shooter) from rifle caliber bullets and small fragments. In addition, the commander received a rifle installation - a DT tank machine gun in a movable mask (subsequently increased in size) of the frontal plate of the armor, which allowed the crew to conduct active hostilities in the front edge area, where direct contact with the enemy was likely for the gunners. The crew cabin, armored from all sides, had two exit manholes on top, and hinged armor plates covering the slots for observation, later replaced by bulletproof glass and triplex blocks, on the sides and sides. Behind the cabin was the engine compartment (the engine, as on the Pioneer, was located at the rear and was deployed forward by the flywheel), closed from above by an armored hood with hinged covers. Above it, behind the armored partition, the cargo compartment was located with two blocks of longitudinal 3-seater seats
        1. 0
          8 July 2019 15: 39
          Quote: armata_armata
          T-20 artillery tractor 1937
          Well, so I saw Komsomolets in a post that I commented on (asked a question).
          Now I want to see where is the reserved volume for the landing (or rather, the combat calculation of the gun)?
          1. 0
            8 July 2019 15: 40
            Well, so I saw Komsomolets in a post that I commented on (asked a question).
            Now I want to see where is the reserved volume for the landing (or rather, the combat calculation of the gun)?

            Why does he need the reserved volume when the landing is located on the armor?
            And also why is the BMP-1 armored when the crew is under the armor?
  7. +16
    5 July 2019 07: 48
    As I pondered this article, I ran into the difficulty of explaining the difference between riding motorized infantry in tanks and armored personnel carriers.
    Everything is elementary. Having experienced at the beginning of the war all the charms of the "foot" infantry, constantly exhausted and unable to keep up with the tanks, the army began to solve the problem with the available means. Since there were no armored personnel carriers, and there were not enough trucks, they began to ride in tanks. And since the middle of the war, when high-speed throws with the conduct of a battle immediately became the norm - again, the only and forced means to ensure the interaction of tanks and infantry were tank landings.
    Then the armor protects from bullets, the machine gun suppresses the enemy, the infantry gets out, turns into a chain and completes the attack. Under such tactics of battle and such an enemy, he was created.
    Auto was mistaken in the main thing. The article is based, as is clearly seen from the text, on the belief that the armored personnel carrier is a weapon of the battlefield. No. This is an armored transporter. And why does the transporter need armor if it shouldn't go on the attack? It's simple, everything is on the surface! He needs armor because the main striking force in a war (already in the Second World War, and even more so today) is artillery and aviation. Which can mow more than half of the enemy's troops even before the battle. Especially in the concentration area before the attack. And the armor significantly increases the survivability of the infantry in the "rain". It was for this that the armored personnel carrier was made, the machine gun he has is a weapon of self-defense. And the Germans, too, not out of good life, began to use their armored personnel carriers in attacks, they did not have as many tanks as we did. Consider that their armored personnel carrier without infantry is an analogue of our T-60. Well, as any self-propelled anti-tank guns or flamethrowers, they were also not used because of a good life, if they had a base for something like our Su-76 - they would probably prefer it.
    But the BMP, in contrast to the armored personnel carrier, is designed specifically as a battlefield machine. True, the author correctly pointed out - the nuclear battlefield. Therefore, when they did it, they thought primarily about mobility and about reducing not nuclear fragmentation, but nuclear-radioactive damage. True, the nuclear war did not happen, but Afghanistan and Chechnya happened. Well, actually, again there was nothing to choose from. Therefore, they ride on armor.
    1. -2
      5 July 2019 15: 07
      You are mistaken in the belief that the BTR protects against aircraft or shelling.
      As for the enemy aircraft, Bessonov had a definite opinion: only flight escapes from it. If a raid began on the convoy, the soldiers fled as far from the road as possible from the shelter, and the tanks also left the road. Therefore, they drove at night, and during the day they camouflaged themselves. It got to the point that they were afraid to drive up to their kitchen, but they sent several people. This is so that the Luftwaffe does not use bombs on porridge.
      1. +7
        5 July 2019 16: 18
        Quote: wehr
        You are mistaken in the belief that the BTR protects against aircraft or shelling.

        BTR significantly reduces the radius of destruction of artillery shells and aerial bombs, compared with unprotected armor manpower and non-armored equipment. Armor, if anything, protects very well from fragments, and fragments tend to lose their stopping power as the radius of flight increases. The fragment is not a bullet, its shape is whatever, but definitely not optimal from the point of view of aerodynamics and conservation of kinetic energy. If during the explosion of any FAB-250 simple vehicles and infantry is effectively affected in a radius, roughly speaking, 60-70 meters from the explosion, then for infantry inside the BTR this radius decreases to 20-30 meters. In practice, this means that in order to achieve an equal destructive effect on infantry on BTR, the enemy must increase the density of fire in 2-3 times. And for its own, this means that with equal fire impact in the case of the use of armored vehicles, 2-3 will survive in times more people and equipment.
        It is strange that all this has to be told. This is all spelled out in the regulations for gunners and aviation.
        1. -3
          5 July 2019 18: 51
          Why armor when you can just run up?
          The theory is good in moderation. The practice of bombing columns on the road, where the road itself is a guide for pilots, always gave a high percentage of direct hits, and led to heavy losses in people and equipment of the bombed part.
          1. +2
            8 July 2019 10: 12
            Quote: wehr
            The theory is good in moderation.
            This is just practice. Only this is the practice of the commander of a division or regiment. Who knows the percentage of survivors "scattered" from their original number. Which even before the battle is melting reserves like ice cream in the sun. And you are operating on the memories of a private, moreover, 75 years ago, when you had to scatter because the armored personnel carrier simply did not exist, and the power of aviation and artillery ammunition still allowed someone to scatter somewhere. Then the typical ammunition was FAB-50 or 100, and in one run no more than 4 in a salvo. Now an ordinary fighter can unload about eight 500 pieces. In an explosion, 500 km of people lying 100 meters from the explosion are gently lifted into the air and placed a couple of meters further than they were. Come on, run away, good luck.
            1. +1
              8 July 2019 10: 35
              Or here's the simplest task. You are the regiment commander. Your task is to make a march on 50 km and immediately join the battle.
              First option. You have 200 vehicles for infantry. Before you reach the march, you are attacked by aircraft and destroy 150 vehicles. Your soldiers will be forced to throw belongings into the remaining 50 vehicles and stomp 50 km on foot. Stomp they will watch 12. During this time, the same enemy flyers can work on the marching soldiers a couple more times, destroying someone else. Few will get to the finish line, and those who will arrive will arrive with many hours late, and exhausted by the pedestrian crossing and continuous bombing along the route.
              Second option. You have 200 APCs. After the same raid, three times as many vehicles survive, that is, 150 vehicles remain. You, at the very least, "in cramped quarters, but not offended" put the infantry on the equipment and hit the road. They will ride for 2-3 hours, during which time the enemy aviators will hardly have time to carry out even one repeated raid on the convoy. Well, in the end, your fighters will arrive on the battlefield clearly less tired than in the first case, because they did not stomp 50 km on foot, but at the same time they will arrive much faster and without repeated attacks from the air, retaining their combat effectiveness to a much greater extent.
              In the first case, we can say that your regiment was defeated before the battle. In the second, he was a bit tattered, but it is still a combat-ready regiment.
            2. -1
              8 July 2019 21: 10
              You are deceiving yourself, or what? Or do you want to say that there will be no impact from the explosion of the 500 on the APC, that it will not be hit by the shock wave, it will not take any damage?
              In Bessonov's tanks, bombs were kissed, and here you are talking about the BTR, which is absolutely resistant to bombs.

              In a 500-kg bomb about 350 kg of explosives, a shock wave from such a quantity of explosives will cause fatal injuries at a distance of about 38 meters. At a distance of 100-130 meters - minor injuries. There is a high explosive formula allowing it to be roughly calculated.
              So let's not grind your tongue and bait about how the 500-kg bomb lifts someone in the air in 100 meters from the gap.
              1. 0
                11 July 2019 12: 49
                Quote: wehr
                You want to say that from the explosion of five hundred on the APC there will be no impact

                Syria, Deir ez-Zor, after the work of the videoconferencing, our time.

      2. +5
        5 July 2019 16: 39
        Bessonov described how, in one of the not very successful attacks, tankers came to their aid and their IS-2 pierced two German assault guns with one shell. "I have never seen such a miracle," Bessonov wrote. Already this phrase of Bessonov is complete nonsense !!! So the author you rely on such literature in vain
        1. -1
          6 July 2019 08: 56
          Quote: Nehist
          Already this phrase of Bessonov is complete rubbish !!!
          Which side? The IS-2 gun, when firing at the Panther, knocked the engine out of the hull. Not heavy assault could be pierced with armor-piercing, if successfully hit.
  8. +11
    5 July 2019 09: 13
    Considering that there are many in the army who did not serve on the site and who did not go on the armor, someone else will believe in this militaritrash.
    The author should be put on BMP in the uniform and equipment of a Soviet army soldier and a couple of hours in the winter to ride around the training ground so that he would not write more of such research.
  9. +5
    5 July 2019 09: 36
    Ask an experienced soldier what he prefers. Sitting in a heavily armored box and still not hear or see anything? Or have maximum information about what is happening? Most warriors will say that it is better to be aware of everything. Attach the landing compartment to Armata, but many will want to move on the armor. Especially in unfamiliar terrain.
    1. -1
      5 July 2019 09: 54
      Today, observation devices are many times greater than the human eye. From the armor, the infantryman will only see that he is being fired at "from somewhere out of nowhere."
      1. +4
        5 July 2019 10: 29
        The narrow field of view of these devices. The maturity. Everything has cons. Zelenka needs a good radar. Against a prepared ambush, even a thermal monitor saves. And an experienced soldier will calculate the firing point. There will be far from an ambush. They must also fall.
      2. +4
        5 July 2019 10: 45
        Quote: Aquilifer
        Today's surveillance devices are many times greater than the human eye.

        I wonder what they are "multiples superior" to the human eye? If we are talking about the approach or the ability to consider the terrain in the infrared range, then maybe. But when it comes to infantry in urban areas or a forest ... Until now, not a single optical device has even come close to the human eye in terms of the dynamic range (the ability to transmit picture details simultaneously in shadows and highlights). Human eyes have an exceptionally wide viewing angle - up to 180 degrees. And without the distortions characteristic of wide-angle fisheye lenses, which take time and effort to generally understand what is depicted there and what are the sizes of objects. A person has the so-called "peripheral" vision, even if it is not clear and transmits only blurry, unfocused information to the brain, but it does. And a person unconsciously controls what is on his sides. No other optical device allows you to shift the direction of view with instant focus as quickly and efficiently. Turning his neck on a sunny day, a person can scan the area almost 360 degrees in a matter of seconds, while simultaneously noticing details in the shade and in the bright sun. No device can detect a threat by a subtle movement or a passing shadow in a house window or between foliage. I'm not even talking about the reaction time, it is 0,2-0,3 seconds in humans.
        1. -1
          6 July 2019 09: 20
          Quote: Alex_59
          If we are talking about the approximation or the possibility of considering the terrain in the IR range, then maybe.
          This is not enough.

          Quote: Alex_59
          Until now, not a single optical device has even come close to the human eye in the dynamic range (the ability to transmit picture details simultaneously in shadows and in lights).
          In absolute terms, it can be (although one can argue), but in terms of adaptation speed, this is the level of low-cost smartphones.
          In addition, the speed of human analysis of a "picture" is already inferior to hardware and software.

          Quote: Alex_59
          And without the distortions characteristic of wide-angle fisheye lenses, which take time and effort to generally understand what is depicted there and what are the sizes of objects.
          Oh no! The eye has "dark" zones, a rather narrow angle of main attention, the quality of the picture is very different in the center and at the edges ...

          Quote: Alex_59
          A person has the so-called "peripheral" vision, even if it is not clear and transmits only blurry, unfocused information to the brain, but it does.
          You refute your previous statement.
          That's right: you need to turn your head and eyes so as not to scorch every movement.
          If it is necessary to exceed the capabilities of human peripheral vision, it is enough to stick around a circle of cheap cameras for a wide range (from IR to UV), high sensitivity, but with a small resolution (VGA or a little more). 10 cameras will watch better than 10 eyes. And they won’t get tired.

          Quote: Alex_59
          Turning his neck around a man on a sunny day can in a matter of seconds look around the area by almost 360 degrees, while noticing details in the shade and in the bright sun.
          Watching what a shadow. In the bright sun you can not see what is happening in the room. The most convenient position is shooting from the back of the room.
          The machine can control 360 degrees without scanning them "in seconds", but continuously.

          Quote: Alex_59
          No device can detect a threat by a barely noticeable movement or a flickering shadow in the window of a house or between foliage.
          Come on! Man cannot either.
          If the task is to shoot any strange movement, the machine will do better.

          Quote: Alex_59
          I'm not talking about the reaction time, it is 0,2-0,3 seconds in a person.
          The car has less. However, depending on what, depending on what ...
      3. +2
        5 July 2019 12: 28
        Quote: Aquilifer
        Today, surveillance devices are far superior to the human eye.

        One yes. And two are gone.
    2. +1
      5 July 2019 10: 20
      in a large-scale war, only non-smart ones ride on armor and not in t-14
    3. +4
      5 July 2019 10: 48
      Quote: garri-lin
      Ask an experienced soldier what he prefers. Sitting in a heavily armored box and still not hear or see anything? Or have maximum information about what is happening?

      At the slightest likelihood of suffering from bullets and shrapnel on the armor, he briskly climbs into the "landing". And no "I hear nothing" bother him. Proven practice 8)))
      It’s just that it’s not very comfortable there and on a long trip it’s quite a bit sick.
      1. +2
        5 July 2019 12: 28
        So that the "landing" did not notice. Usually they were scattered over shelters on the ground. And away from the armor. So that the shank from the cumulative does not accidentally arrive.
        1. +2
          5 July 2019 12: 33
          Quote: garri-lin
          So that the "landing" did not notice. Usually they were scattered over shelters on the ground.

          On the run?
          And in case of danger they climb, and in bad weather. No "must watch" interferes.
          I recall that in the 693th BMP-2 regiment with a bunch of people on the armor, the OZMki banner was removed, so after that they had been rolling exclusively inside for about a month.
          1. +4
            5 July 2019 13: 20
            And why did they switch back to the armor a month later? The threat to life gives rise to suspiciousness. The mass of accepts, customs, rituals, rituals and other mysticism would only have to survive. Tankers ride with open hatches against the increase in pressure from the boom, the jet. The infantry rides on armor. When in danger, antipersonnel mines do not lace up ankle boots. Etc. It's in the blood. This is in any army. In the "landing" is not just seasick. Claustrophobia is born in even the strong in spirit. Especially when something has changed outside and you don't see what. The ability to turn your head allows you to think that you are responsible for yourself. And do not rely on the eyes of another. If in T 15 (the most protected) you do not give a perfect observation device to each of the landing forces, then the same will eventually roll on the armor. Much less than skychas but will be.
            1. +2
              5 July 2019 13: 26
              Quote: garri-lin
              Why did they transfer it back to the armor a month later?

              And why does the narot prefer to flop in a taxi to the front seat next to the driver, although the right rear passenger seat is much safer?
              Boring inside ...
            2. +3
              5 July 2019 14: 39
              "Tankers ride with open hatches against the increase in pressure from the godfather, the jet. Infantry rides on armor. In danger of antipersonnel mines do not lace ankle boots.
              ----
              This is from hack-armored vehicles. Save on crew and landing defense
              and there are survival skills to overcome the effects of this economy.
              1. -1
                5 July 2019 15: 11
                You have this arrogance because your country is at war with good Arabs who do not have the habit of firing at one armor and several RPGs at once.
                They pity you, relatives. laughing
                1. +6
                  5 July 2019 21: 15
                  Even as they fire. Even from several ATGMs from different sides.
                  The problem of insufficient armored personnel carrier reservation is widespread, and not just
                  the Russian army. And only recently in different countries began the transition to TBTR.
                  And heavy infantry fighting vehicles. And in Russia too.
                  And the last line of your comment ... I would be ashamed to write such
                  teenage pearls. negative
                  1. -2
                    6 July 2019 09: 23
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    And the last line of your comment ... I would be ashamed to write such
                    teenage pearls.
                    Yes, but you and they are Semites, anyway ...
              2. -1
                5 July 2019 17: 52
                That mattress airmobile troops flew for decades sitting on helmets as if on pots, so as not to lose masculinity. Any army suffers from imperfection.
              3. +1
                5 July 2019 21: 53
                Quote: voyaka uh
                Tankers ride with open hatches against increasing pressure from the cum, jet.
                Pressure increase from cum. the jets in the tank are an urban legend, and an open hatch can cause a shock wave to flow under the armor. It is fraught, in short.
                1. +2
                  5 July 2019 22: 32
                  Open hatches were kept on 34, as otherwise they died from gunpowder
                  gases. Therefore, the Germans called the T-34/76 - Mickey Mouse: two round open hatches.
                  Until recently, the IDF had a tradition for tank commanders to sit
                  overlook the battlefield. The mass of good tank officers from accidental bullets and fragments died during this braking.
                  Now banned at last.
  10. +2
    5 July 2019 09: 42
    Thanks to the author for the article, but I am sure that comparing the experience of the Second World War and modern conflicts and wars is not entirely correct. What was done during the Second World War not from a good life is repeated now also not from a good life, however, the reasons are different. As colleagues have already mentioned, the WWII tank landing force is a forced measure due to the absence of armored personnel carriers in the troops for most of the war. As for modern "pokatushek" riding on armor, this is largely caused by a similar problem, but in a different vein, the lack of reconnaissance means to prevent a surprise attack (high-quality night sights, thermal imagers, UAVs, etc.), engineering reconnaissance means ( induction trawls, mine search radars), as well as electronic warfare equipment (radio frequency scanners, jammers, etc.), and just in the end the inferiority of most of the airborne squads of our armored vehicles (I apologize for the irony, but sleep on the march in the BMP landing or an armored personnel carrier is not so easy). Modern armored vehicles are vulnerable to many means of destruction, however, for objective reasons, shelling armor with a landing force above and inflicting losses is many times easier than installing a land mine or firing from RPGs, ATGMs. But with the provision of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles (moreover, not necessarily the full range of the above means of each vehicle) with modern means of detection and counteraction, we get a tandem of passive protection in the form of armor from small arms and "active" protection. In addition, due to the realities of the time, the transition to equipping KAZ equipment automatically puts an end to the location of the landing force on the armor.
    1. +5
      5 July 2019 10: 44
      In 99, sappers of the 693rd regiment rode a tank, the mechanic splashed a turn due to darkness and the lack of working lighting devices, and flew into Bamut. There he realized where he climbed, turned and hit the road. Accordingly, in the process of turning the sappers flew from the armor. As a result, the killed, the captive and the Hero of Russia, who through the whole Bamut made their way to the positions of the 503th regiment. He was later imprisoned, and the title was nearly taken away for organizing a casino.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 11: 03
        Quote: Spade
        Accordingly, in the process of turning the sappers with armor poletali.

        Tank drift at full speed apparently performed?
        1. +2
          5 July 2019 12: 19
          Unknown Mechan at all could not explain how he managed to dump and where he lost the sappers.
  11. +2
    5 July 2019 10: 18
    An interesting article, especially memoirs - with one shell, two assault force break through this from the realm of fiction, and when a tank comes under cannon fire, landing parties are suicide bombers. At the expense of BMP in the magazine Equipment and Weapons there was an article saying that the teacher of the military academy could not clearly say the tactics of using BMPs in battle (not against dushmans, not against Czechs in Grozny but in the field against the same army), BMP-1 does not save AK-47 bullets from 50 meters there is probably armor like shilka, to go on the attack in a tank formation inside is suicide, dismount then why the BMP with a gun and a baby, armored personnel carrier is much cheaper, that's why two countries with combat experience have created heavy Israel BMP and Russia, but unfortunately we have some kind of Gali mother with increased armaments and not BMP protection should be like a tank (terminator example) without a big gun but with motorized gunners. you probably noticed that both we and them disappeared on the sides of the embrasure for firing it is the result of RPG-7 and other similar delicious
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +1
    5 July 2019 11: 26





    This rubbish copes with only one of its missions "Mass grave of infantry"
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 11: 59
      BMP 1 and BMP 2 is already yesterday's rubbish, as long as I do not upgrade them.
  14. +3
    5 July 2019 11: 54
    Quote: Spade
    Accordingly, in the process of reversal sappers from armor flew

    Yes, colleague, that's it. After all, no one counted how many people flew off the armor under the goose or the wheel during braking and other things, then, during the Second World War, which in our time. A lot of boys left in zinc because of this or having received, for example, a grenade from Clouds in the back. But this is an ordinary thing.
    1. +5
      5 July 2019 12: 26
      In fact, everything is much simpler here.
      That is why, when transporting in the back of a truck, the most "trump cards" are places as close to the board as possible? Why do people prefer to sit on some kind of stands at the side, when there are empty seats on the benches in the depths? And after all, here you can not brush yourself off with mines or observing the enemy - where are they, for example, when traveling to household jobs
      Why do the kids so want to sit on the bus "at the window"?
      1. +4
        5 July 2019 12: 41
        If we consider in this context, then this is banal boredom and curiosity, probably. Well, maybe there is a difference where to sit in a tilt truck and open. In the open it is better to sit by the cab, because it shakes less and does not catch up with dust when braking the car, but in the tilt at the tailgate it is more fun and the dust is dispelled faster than in the depth under the awning.
        1. +1
          5 July 2019 13: 12
          Quote: Blue Fox
          If we consider in this context, then this is banal boredom and curiosity, probably.

          Oh!
          And everything else is justification in order to hide the real reason.
  15. 0
    5 July 2019 12: 56
    What makes this "onaliteg" so convenient is that it immediately flares up its ego. "I .. me .. me ..". Del.
  16. +4
    5 July 2019 14: 33
    And how many armored paratroopers mowed
    one "successful" (in quotes) automatic or machine-gun burst of the enemy?
    Those who were mowed down did not leave memoirs about tank paratroopers ... sad
    There was no armored personnel carrier with sufficient armor - due to the high cost of such
    heavy armored personnel carrier. That is the whole simple answer.
  17. +2
    5 July 2019 15: 41
    I absolutely can’t be considered an expert in armored vehicles in general and in the 1 infantry fighting vehicle in particular. Therefore, I invite those who are interested in this machine to read a very detailed article about it and its modifications written by Sergey Malyshev http://nation.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BMP-1.pdf.
    In particular, the article says that the infantry began to "ride" the BMP - 1 in Afghanistan, when a mine explosion turned this vehicle into a "mass grave for the infantry", and given the fact that the fuel tanks were located in the hollow rear doors of the BMP and the longitudinal the hollow bulkhead dividing the desat compartment into two parts, the BMP - 1 "successfully" also performed the functions of a crematorium.
    Those. no "tank landing" option for using this vehicle was taken into account in its development, and this option appeared much later, when life itself suggested what to do to increase the chance of survival.
    I will add that the BMP - 1, like other lightly armored and not at all armored vehicles, were used to install the Maneuver automated control system equipment on them. So I had to climb them and more than once achieving a rational arrangement of the equipment in the troop compartment and stuffing this equipment wherever possible, including under the operator's seats.
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 23: 08
      Quote: gregor6549
      BMP - 1 in Afghanistan, when a mine explosion turned this vehicle into a "mass grave for the infantry", and given that the fuel tanks were located in the hollow rear doors of the BMP and the longitudinal hollow bulkhead dividing the troop compartment into two parts, the BMP - 1 "successfully" also performed the functions of a crematorium.

      As for the tanks in the doors, you are not quite right, but the tank in the middle of BEFORE this is a rough jamb of developers who are still embarrassed to recognize .. That's what it is worth presenting for.
  18. +4
    5 July 2019 17: 22
    Auto RU. Riding on top of armor is a measure for the Soviet army of the Second World War era, dictated by the absence of armored personnel carriers. And in a later era, this is due to the weakness of the opponents with whom the Soviet army fought. One explosion in the air of a fragmentation projectile with a remote fuse above a column of infantry riding on an armor will be enough to enlighten the survivors, to ride under the protection of armor. That is how the Americans weaned the Germans on the Western Front to ride in tank landings, which the Germans were no less popular than the Russians. The same applies to air raid. Your memoirist did not write how many of his soldiers died under the tracks of their own tanks during emergency mixing during an enemy air raid and the beginning of maneuvering tanks evading bombs? I read the battle logs of several motorized rifle brigades reporting the death of up to half of the rifle company in this case.
  19. -1
    5 July 2019 17: 37
    Quote: Undecim
    Considering that there are many in the army who did not serve on the site and who did not go on the armor, someone else will believe in this militaritrash.
    The author should be put on BMP in the uniform and equipment of a Soviet army soldier and a couple of hours in the winter to ride around the training ground so that he would not write more of such research.

    I would like to see such a development of events when all these theorists sitting in the landing of this coffin will receive an RPG shot on board, after which such thoughts will disappear, until the next time how much muscle memory is enough! am
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 23: 10
      Quote: Vasily199
      when all these theorists sitting in the landing of this coffin will receive an RPG shot on board, after which such thoughts will disappear

      It seems that "all these theorists" know much better than you on which side of the armor the RPG's high-explosive effect will be maximal. laughing
  20. +1
    5 July 2019 18: 22
    The Soviet military doctrine in the nuclear conflict at the European theater of operations involved the use of tactical nuclear weapons using the square-nesting method from the border with the Federal Republic of Germany to the English Channel, so motorized infantrymen were doomed to remain in BMP all the two weeks of fighting.

    Another thing is that the conventional local conflicts in Afghanistan, for example, demonstrated the complete inability of Soviet infantry fighting vehicles to provide habitability for at least a day of march with short stops due to the illiterate weight distribution of infantry fighting vehicles, which provides seasickness to motorized riflemen in an hour's drive in the "over seas, waves" mode, and even in the position of herring in a barrel without cooling the air, the temperature of which in Afghanistan in summer went off scale for 50 degrees.

    For comparison, the American infantrymen, in the framework of the war with Iraq in 2003, and in a nightmare, could not imagine a situation when they had to ride on the roof in raids, and not under the armor of their "Bradleys". Plus, the situational awareness of the Bradley crews fully provided them with information without involving the eyes of the landing party.

    The Soviet concept of "cardboard" infantry fighting vehicles, allegedly for the purpose of ensuring buoyancy, was an attempt to betray the need (lack of funds for the mass construction of large infantry fighting vehicles with decent armor, air conditioning and effective observation devices) for virtue, since according to the same Soviet military doctrine, BMPs were obliged to fight exclusively together with main battle tanks that were non-floating - suddenly.

    Moral - see t-xnumx.
  21. +8
    5 July 2019 18: 54
    The article smiled. The author is simply a master “pulling an owl on a globe” like Kaptsov mentioned by him. He, too, could explain on his fingers why, for example, the battleship Missouri is cooler than Arly Burke.
    Quote: article
    Reviewing the descriptions of fights in Bessonov’s memoirs, I came to the conclusion that the tank had three important advantages for the motorized infantry over any armored personnel carrier, even over Sd Kfz 251.

    Well, you can’t even argue. Now, if you ask the commander of a motorized rifle unit directly: what would you give: a tank or an armored personnel carrier? (Feel the question itself?) Then he, of course, would choose a tank. And if you ask now, for example, Shoigu, what is preferable for our army to get: +1 tank or BMP (BTR)? And he, too, is likely to answer that the tank (if only because of the cost of the latter). And then what do we bother with? We are developing all sorts of "Kurgan" ... Let them ride tanks. Let's weld handles, seats to the tower ... Well, seriously, there will be some advantages! And save more!
    And if in fact, then the “advantages” of the tanks are very “relative”: to jump off when it is too late (the tank was covered with a burst from the machine gun); those who survived, of course, noticed this (second advantage) dismounted and immediately heroically ... lay down, wait until the tank suppresses the firing point; Well, one could, of course, not do this and realize the third “advantage”: while continuing to sit backwards on the tank, despite the bullets rattling on the armor, try to shoot on the go in response (however, for this you would have to turn on the cheat in advance codes “immortality” and “endless ammo”, I suspect that Bessonov’s fighters are unlikely to have such). But the fact that moving in / on open transport means swallowing dust / rain / snow / poisonous air / foreign objects (such as branches in the eye) / blocking the view for viewing devices / danger of falling out, etc. - that was what then , what now.
    Quote: article
    As I pondered this article, I ran into the difficulty of explaining the difference between riding motorized infantry in tanks and armored personnel carriers. She was clearly and clearly felt in Bessonov’s memoirs, but he does not give her a definition because of the self-evidentness of this moment for himself.

    And indeed she (the difference) is. The only evidence is that they had tanks, but armored personnel carriers, most likely, were not.

    If we ignore the article a bit and try to understand why we are armed with just such BMPs that are scary to drive, then it’s worth starting, like the author, with history. Blitzkrieg tactics were developed: powerful strikes by groups of tanks in narrow sections, breakthrough, encirclement, etc. well, everyone knows. In the course of its application, it turned out: it works, but: I would like tanks several times more and better: so that everyone would discover / hit / not break / not end. The industry could not give birth to this (and even now it cannot), so I had to get out: give the tanks something easier for reconnaissance, something with large calibers to destroy fortifications, infantry to clean up “hard-to-reach places”, somewhere the tanks themselves “Tighten up” ... In a word, they constantly tried to solve the problem in a complex way, but within the framework of the available means, constantly “pulling up” the mobility, power and protection of “not tanks” parameters to those of the tanks themselves. But, since it’s stupid to put all the artifacts / for / transports, etc. Because even Germany couldn’t afford the tank corps (and quickly), the search for compromises began.
    One of them is the very “separation” of the reservation: tanks that go in front of the front take maximum damage and need maximum protection, but also have sufficiently strong artillery to defeat most (and preferably just all possible) targets. That is, after themselves (this is important) the tanks leave a minimum of targets for other units of the troops (and we remember that airplanes and guns have already worked in front of the tanks). It seems to be logical that the second echelon of motorized infantry does not need the same reservation until it finishes up small foci of resistance and goes strictly behind the tanks. But at the same time it was necessary to steer with all this parade very masterly, not allowing the tanks to leave too many unsuppressed points, stopping the tanks from counterattacking enemy tanks, and after all there are also shelling and attack aircraft ... In general, at that time they were rather "not very mobile" by modern standards of the armies, it was not possible to reliably secure the mass movement of infantry using equipment. And if the attack was choked, the tanks were knocked out and the front began to move in the opposite direction ... “Non-tanks” have chances on the ground only against other “non-tanks”.
    When the war ended, conclusions were drawn. Tanks, as the most protected objects, were rightly assigned the role of the “main ground attack force” ™. But since the PT-means since then it has become much richer, and therefore tanks for the guaranteed capture of everything and everything and building communism did not require a lot, but VERY much. To reserve. And the task was solved. The tanks left the assembly lines in even rows, they tried to provide them with everything necessary to keep them moving forward (reconnaissance, supply, air defense, repair). Infantry transporters still had only to accompany them and occupy already largely cleared (now in theory and even with the help of nuclear weapons) areas. That's exactly why they do not have a powerful reservation (everything that would threaten to be destroyed by tanks), powerful reconnaissance equipment (tanks had already scouted all the targets and they had destroyed everything), anti-mine reservation (tanks had already passed here if there were mines b) etc. As long as the whole military machine in the plans of the generals, lining up to the west, moved in a single impulse and in one direction, there should not have been any misfires. An excess of tanks was supposed to close any possible problems.
    However, in preparation for a new war (which stubbornly did not start in any way), the generals, as is usually the case, actually still “replayed” the past. The “Devil”, as then, was in the need to always clearly maintain the orientation of tank attacks strictly on the centers of resistance. However, the speed has since increased, complicating coordination, by any means of combat (some are comparable and even exceed the range of the tank) literally every infantryman has acquired, and battles from wide fields were increasingly carried over to cities and suburbs. And most importantly, the concept of the front was leveled more and more, and the tank still could not learn how to turn its forehead and cannon in all directions at the same time. More and more he began to need additional "eyes" outside the armor, which could indicate the purpose. And the goals, in turn, began to move very dynamically in the urban environment, being on the flanks or in the rear. The progressive “sweeping” was replaced by cyclical patrols (I drove twice, but on the 3rd - a boom! - catch the tower!).
    In such an environment, defense separation has ceased to work perfectly. Each individual unit has become necessary protection from everything. Tank defense. Evolution made a circle. We again stand on the fields of the First World War and look at how clumsy the first tanks slowly but inevitably iron trenches - capable of destroying everything, but themselves practically invulnerable. Moving more and more towards tanks (of which there are now far past thousands), different infantry vehicles must also take over all their key properties. This has already reached someone fully, someone else hopes to "dodge" the rocket on an aluminum box.
    Two approaches can be distinguished here: the continuation of the line of the mass universal infantry vehicle (it transports, it is seriously supported by fire, but it defends obviously weaker than the tank, trying to somehow compensate for this drawback) and the creation of new specialized vehicles with functions, such as TBTR (transport, protects like a tank, but weakly supports fire), BMPT (tank protection + BMP fire, but the infantry no longer fits inside), TBMP (trying to match the tank in everything, transporting a few people, some pluses, but also the price ...). What will turn out in the end will be shown by time, but now it’s clear that all the “Wishlist” of the military cannot be combined in one model and that it’s necessary to sacrifice something (and again to compromise). So what to do? Crisis Platform-s.
  22. -1
    5 July 2019 19: 05
    Well this must be composed! laughing
  23. +1
    5 July 2019 20: 21
    By correct, in many ways, arguments about the flawed concept of the BMP itself, the author is trying to justify the frankly unsuccessful BMP-1.
    It's just as much as justifying the creation of a bad, expensive and inaccurate shooting gun, because it is as good as a club.
    If you need a club, then make a club, but do not make a gun. In order to use it as a club.
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 20: 26
      Quote: Lontus
      If you need a club, then make a club, but do not make a gun. In order to use it as a club.

      Therefore, it may make sense to think of a class of armored combat vehicles originally adapted for transporting fighters on the outside.
      Then the mass will greatly decrease and it will be possible to strengthen the armament and / or reservation of such a machine compared to the one where there is an internal armored zone for fighters.
      This is all subject to the creation and development of tactics for the use of "external" landing.
    2. 0
      6 July 2019 01: 04
      In my opinion, the BMP-1 is excellent, especially for its time and its tactics.
  24. +2
    5 July 2019 20: 47
    I have not written here since 2012 ... for a long time already another number, account. But could not restrain myself. I read to the lines "The armored personnel carrier must stop for the landing.
    The author probably has little to do with the topic, because the landing on the battlefield consists of people and they don’t want to die! The landing takes place in motion at a speed of about 10 km / h. 20 years ago, I earned a knee injury when I was dropped with bmp.author, what kind of infantry will be stacked with armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles? everyone is dispersed right away and no one is in the equipment.
    Everyone wants to live. The article is nonsense. Opinion of a man who traveled for two years under armor and on armored armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles
    1. -2
      5 July 2019 22: 00
      With the BTR-80 you can so jump. And now try to make the same thing from the German armored personnel carrier.
      1. +1
        6 July 2019 00: 26
        From this armored personnel carrier
        you don’t have to jump - the guys will go inside because the climate control is air-conditioning a lot of space and decent combined armor protection.
        1. -2
          6 July 2019 00: 59
          Will set fire - it is necessary.
          Those that sits in the tank and does not protrude, can win Red Army Sereda with an ax.
          1. -1
            6 July 2019 09: 35
            There was a tank - a little more than Oka.
  25. +1
    5 July 2019 21: 59
    If the author was right, then on the BMP case there would be chairs with belts, slopes so that the jumpers would not fall under the tracks, there would be a place for temporary placement of weapons and equipment, etc. And by the way, you don’t need to go to the armored personnel carrier, you need to dismount in advance.
    1. -2
      6 July 2019 01: 02
      Armchairs with straps are a notorious mistake, as it makes it impossible for a paratrooper to jump immediately. While you are unfastened - these seconds can cost life. And you can cling to this chair.
      And about the mount arms the same. Not necessary. The weapon must be in hand and ready for immediate combat, otherwise it is useless. What you need later can be folded inside.
      Obvious things.
  26. +2
    5 July 2019 23: 44
    The author was so carried away by his own poetic comparison of the BMP-1 with the "atomic chariot" of the apocalypse that he completely lost touch with reality :)

    I do not consider myself a field marshal, but several funny comments in favor of the author involuntarily beg ..

    The first thing that hurts the eye is that the author writes specifically about BMP-1, but most of the article is devoted to armored personnel carriers. Does the author see no difference?

    At first glance, it seems that the armored personnel carrier is better than the tank, but the soldiers of the tank landing of the 49th mechanized brigade did not think so, and preferred the T-34.

    The conclusion sounds like every fighter of the Red Army, early in the morning, thoughtfully chose what he should go into battle today! Involuntarily, I want to remind the author that the Red Army had no armored personnel carriers before the end of the Second World War. And almost all imported ones were automatically sent to artillery transporters for the most part.

    Firstly, the ability to instantly jump off the tank. .. They drove along the road, here they were fired with machine gun fire, infantry jumped from tanks and turned into a chain

    Jump off to where? On the lawn before the bunker? Are you sure that this is exactly what the infantry dreams of?

    You won’t jump out of the APC. .. An armored personnel carrier for landing a soldier must stop, that is, become a target.

    Amazingly, the armored personnel carrier was originally adapted to protect its troops from "rifle-machine-gun" fire! And generally speaking, the armored personnel carrier should stop where this fire is not dangerous for the landing. Well, or as a last resort, the armored personnel carrier itself should become a shelter if there are no others.

    The view from the tank (and any other armored vehicle) was poor, and tank paratroopers saw farther and better than tank crews, why they noticed an ambush or faustniks before.

    A brilliant phrase! Are you sure that for a good view, you definitely need to hang around naked for shelling from all sides?

    Since it is difficult to find a good photo of the BMP-1 with armored motorized rifles ready for battle, a photo from the APU exercises will go. Note the resemblance to a tank landing. Fighters look around, are ready to open fire, and at any moment they can jump

    Well, the author is just a beast! I noticed everything !! It's really hard to find a photo of idiots ready to fight while sitting naked on armor! But if you look closely at the photo inserted by the author, you can see as many as four embrasures, right under the feet of these "eagles" from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, intended for shooting from the inside. And even the periscopes under the rear points of these "eagles" are perfectly visible!

    Sorry, but the author of this strange article, generally speaking, knows that the landing in the BMP-1 is sitting facing the armor !? And I’m ready to shoot through these very embrasures .. And the periscopes are designed specifically for the survey of the terrain by landing!

    One gets the feeling that the author does not own the topic at all. Does the author know that modern defense is focal? About 100 years is already like .. This means that the enemy is stopped not by a wall of bayonets but by crossfire! And the line of defense is not 12 lines of trenches, but a chain of defensive units supporting neighboring fires. Hence the main task of the BMP and armored personnel carrier. Carry your infantry through this chain of partially suppressed defense units. To crush heavy weapons is the task of tanks and artillery. The task of the armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles is to quickly drive through and throw assault forces behind enemy lines.

    Learn Charters!
    1. 0
      6 July 2019 00: 56
      And you read the article before you criticize. If you do not understand, then re-read again. It dealt with a very specific BTR. Even indicated his name. I will tell you - it is written with incomprehensible foreign letters. laughing
      1. +1
        6 July 2019 20: 09
        Quote: wehr
        And you read the article before you criticize. If you do not understand, then re-read again.

        Sorry, of course, but your entire article cannot be called a bad joke. You didn’t even bother to look at your published photos. In addition to the really beautiful image of the "atomic chariot", no other advantages were noticed. By all indications, you are not familiar with either the design or the purpose of the BMP and armored personnel carriers.

        The minus is not mine, but you honestly cared for such an article.
        1. -1
          6 July 2019 21: 05
          In this case, you signed for your lack of understanding of operational-tactical art. And in general, and this particular planned war.
          NATO forces in theaters - about a million people. Their main part is destroyed and suppressed by nuclear strikes. But not all. In the area from the inter-German border to the coast, to a depth of about 400 km, there are still quite a few units and units. Yes, they are disorganized and demoralized. But they need to find and finish. And quickly, so that they do not unite and do not fight back.
          Of all the Soviet technology, there was nothing better for this task of search and destruction than the BMP-1. Its design is definitely influenced by the experience of a tank landing force - quick raids to search for and destroy the enemy. Tank Marine is the best offensive tactic that was in the Soviet army, which proved its effectiveness in a number of large offensive operations. Yes, it was unsafe and costly, but extremely effective. Losing a company and avoiding fights in which whole divisions could be ground is a very good result.

          The tasks were set specific, and you are here talking to me about "sphero-conical" situations, such as whether or not it is necessary to attack the BMP.
          And in general, I am struck by ignorance and even more stubbornness.
          1. +1
            6 July 2019 21: 14
            Quote: wehr
            The tasks were set specific, and you are here talking to me about "sphero-conical" situations, such as whether or not it is necessary to attack the BMP.

            You are not aware that in the BMP-1 the gunners are sitting facing the embrasure, but with taste and scope you talk about the "operational-tactical" art. laughing

            Quote: wehr
            And in general, I am struck by ignorance and even more stubbornness.

            I support your thesis with both hands! wassat
            1. -1
              6 July 2019 21: 33
              That is, do you think that the motorized infantrymen had to constantly sit under the armor and shoot from embrasures? Then are they drawn? A pair of turrets driven from the car with machine guns on the sides would solve this problem much better.

              An embrasure was needed for specific cases when the BMP passes through the zone of a nuclear explosion and a cloud of radioactive dust. At the edge of this zone, it was quite possible to meet an under-heated opponent, and embrasures were needed to fire and drive away (the main task of the BMP as soon as possible to pass the zone of a nuclear explosion).
              The second case, when embrasures were needed, is if the enemy uses chemical weapons.

              Are these obvious things you do not understand?
  27. 0
    6 July 2019 08: 42
    This is a debate about nothing ............. The procedure for using a tank landing force varies from task and conditions. As my commander used to say about tactics, this is a creative matter and do not stick to the charter like a wall.
  28. 0
    6 July 2019 13: 11
    The history of the creation of the BMP-1 (with all its pluses and minuses) has long been described in detail, no need to come up with more than that.
    The point, in my opinion, is different - in the combined use of heavy and light armored vehicles. The armored forces, by analogy, can be compared with medieval cavalry - heavy cavalry was intended for frontal ram attacks, light (auxiliary) for reconnaissance, evading flanks, pursuing a retreating enemy, actions at its rear, etc. To use for breaking through the enemy system, together heavy and light cavalry, it was possible only from a small mind. The same applies to the combined use of MBT with lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The conclusion about the need to create heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers could and should have been made following the WWII results, and not now after more than 70 years. The very purpose of creating an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle is to deliver, without loss, your infantry as close as possible to the enemy. Military experience and logic suggests that armored vehicles should be divided into - shock heavy (MBT, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, etc.) and auxiliary water-floating light-medium armored vehicles. And the army of such a state as Russia (and at one time the USSR) should be ready to conduct both large-scale and local military operations, using the entire spectrum of weapons, and not be sharpened by narrow specialization.
    1. -1
      11 July 2019 08: 06
      Quote: Cats
      The conclusion about the need to create heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers could and should have been made following the WWII results, and not now after more than 70 years.

      But you don’t think that those who went through this war saw its results better than you did 70 years later. They didn’t suppose, like you, they definitely KNOW how the infantry should go into battle with tanks. And what is really needed on the battlefield to move the landing. And most importantly, what industry can really produce in the quantity needed for the troops.

      Quote: Cats
      The very purpose of creating an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle is to deliver, without loss, your infantry as close as possible to the enemy.

      Not only. Also, as quickly as possible to overcome the space in front of the trenches, which is being shot from behind the horizon by artillery, and enter the "dead zone" of large-caliber artillery. And then there was also WW1, it also had "results".
      And also provide the infantry with the necessary operational mobility to follow along with the tanks on the offensive, so that they would not lag behind on the march.

      And the author’s reasoning is not about why. They are about how.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. +2
    9 July 2019 21: 41
    Reviewing the descriptions of fights in Bessonov’s memoirs, I came to the conclusion that the tank had three important advantages for the motorized infantry over any armored personnel carrier, even over Sd Kfz 251.

    I have a cognitive dissonance - the Soviet infantry preferred to ride the T-34, and even better on the IS-2 than the Sd Kfz 251 ???
    1. -1
      11 July 2019 08: 10
      From Lviv to Berlin, have you read the memoirist’s route? What do you think, could parts of a tank landing receive German equipment as trophies? The question is rhetorical, I hope you understand. That is, the author of the memoirs had, albeit episodic, but quite real opportunity to use a German armored personnel carrier to follow with the tank. But did not use.
  31. 0
    9 July 2019 21: 50
    Comrade, Dmitry Verkhoturov, I will not analyze in detail all the nonsense that you have written, just one "self-suppression of fire" is enough ... One question: which troops did you serve and in what rank ???
    1. -1
      9 July 2019 22: 22
      You did not talk about self-suppression of fire? laughing
  32. -1
    9 July 2019 22: 34
    Very good article, I fully support the author
  33. -1
    11 July 2019 07: 54
    In my opinion, it’s logical.
  34. 0
    11 July 2019 18: 47
    The Germans in the middle of the war understood this, and therefore used the Sd Kfz 251 as a passable truck .. it’s strange that the Germans used it to deliver motorized infantry to the line of attack and needed armor to protect against fragments

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"