BMP-1: a combat vehicle, the role of which is difficult to overestimate

The appearance in the Soviet Union of the world's first serial amphibious armored vehicle for infantry played a role that is difficult to overestimate. We are talking about the BMP-1 - the brainchild of the 2nd design bureau of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.

The designers were tasked with creating an armored vehicle that could not only deliver infantry directly to the theater of operations (theater of operations) - to the place of a specific military operation, but also act in conjunction with tanks, providing fire support.

In fact, the BMP-1 became an effective replacement for the armored personnel carriers available at that time in the USSR. First of all, the BTR-50P and BTR-60P.

The armored personnel carriers that were in service with the army of the Soviet Union at that time had many advantages, but also disadvantages. The most significant is that when "meeting" a tank, the armored personnel carrier simply did not have a chance due to the fact that it initially did not have any weapons with which the tanks could somehow resist. Then they tried to solve this problem in the following way: by arming armored personnel carriers with SPG-9 "Spear" grenade launchers.

The improvement of the weapons of armored vehicles used for the transportation of personnel continued, as the introduction of developments to improve security continued.

As a result, in 1966, the USSR began mass production of new armored vehicles, which eventually began to be produced outside our country - even in India.

The BMP-1 is described in the plot of the pravda_zhizni channel:

Comments

[Hunter 2]

Technique Iconic for its time. By the way, options for a deep modernization of the BMP-1 were published, I think the right thing to do, it will find its customers both abroad (how many of them work in the world) and in Russia (a huge amount in storage warehouses).

[Vladimir_2U]

In fact, the BMP-1 became an effective replacement for the armored personnel carriers available at that time in the USSR. First of all, BTR-50P and BTR-60P

What nonsense, why would an armored personnel carrier be changed to an infantry fighting vehicle, different classes! Already from the description it is clear that watching is only time to waste, the level is clear.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Indeed, nonsense from an unknown commentator. They have different tasks and opportunities.
By the way, I was very surprised to learn about the second "birth" of this car in the realities of Donbass. Often the high-explosive action of the "thunder" is more in demand than the rate of fire of 2A42.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Often the high-explosive action of "thunder" is more in demand

I remember that the accuracy of the Thunder hit was at the LNG level; not very much, especially in comparison with 2A42.

[The leader of the Redskins]

I wrote about the high-explosive impact. When suppressing field fortifications, light urban buildings, and so on.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

I wrote about the high-explosive impact.

Yes, I remember, just that this action would "work" had to be hit.

[The leader of the Redskins]

I do not argue. Just retelling what I read earlier on other resources.

[CTABEP]

I also read about this, but - it's more of a series "fish for fish without fish and cancer". Because when the BMP-2 cannon works normally, any firing point can be suppressed much more efficiently than the seemingly more powerful HE shell of the BMP-1, but which flies crookedly and takes a long time to reload.

[Ulysses]

"The low rate of fire (up to six rounds per minute), manual reloading and the lack of stabilization make the Thunder ineffective in the fight against infantry - in a short contact battle the crew does not have much time to aim. Due to the small elevation angle (only 15 degrees ) the gun is useless in urban areas and mountainous terrain - where you need to work “on top.” During the war in Afghanistan, Soviet fighters tried to strengthen the BMP-1 armament, handicraftly welding on top of the AGS-17 easel grenade launchers. This helped only partially, so the new The BMP-2 with a rapid-fire "thirty" and an elevation angle of 75 degrees was greeted by the troops with undisguised delight. "
https://ria.ru/20180416/1518496877.html

PS "Thunder" has long outlived its usefulness.

[sedoj]

Quote: Ulysses

manual recharge

Is the BMP-1 manual reloading? Have you ever been in a BMP? Manual reloading is when you push the "Baby" forward.

[nonsense]

Quote: Ulysses

PS "Thunder" has long outlived its usefulness.

EMNIP SPG-9 was created and put into service simultaneously with ATGM "Baby". Those. SPG-9 / 2A28 actually outlived itself before it was born ...
As for the BMP, as practice has shown, it was precisely in conjunction with the BMP tanks that the BMP could not act for the reason low booking level.

[Growlers]

Some kind of amateurish article. Confused different machines for the purpose and use of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Yes, and the postulate that the BMP with its cannon - the "Thunder" grenade launcher (by the way, very unsuccessful) could "resist" the tanks is a very bold statement. Shoot from an ambush, maybe, but no more.

[Reserve buildbat]

Is this article specifically for pshek? They are going to modernize the BMP-1, so this is a confirmation that it will serve for another 100 years and will not sneeze?
But what cannot be taken away is that the car is really wonderful and at one time became a symbol.

[Protos]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Often the high-explosive action of "thunder" is more in demand

I remember that the accuracy of the Thunder hit was at the LNG level; not very much, especially in comparison with 2A42.

In Syria, people on both sides use LNG instead of large-caliber snipers, especially in the realities of the urban area!

[faterdom]

As a vehicle for infantry near the leading edge - yes, floating in addition, plus, of course. Support fire against infantry / machine guns ... well, it has a certain chance. But advancing with tanks, breaking through defenses saturated with anti-tank weapons is now a suicide, even 23mm anti-aircraft guns, of which every barmaley has a bulk, is already a problem. But the chassis is well thought out and made with a margin, so as command-staff and other special, non-attacking vehicles are relevant now. You can make any drone carriers on the base, counter-battery or light electronic warfare systems. And to attack - for this we have a lot of T-72s, and on their basis a lot of interesting things can be done (and are doing). The same heavy flamethrower systems that the barmaley of the whole world love, and tell their naughty children.

[sedoj]

Quote: faterdom

But advancing with tanks, breaking through defenses saturated with anti-tank weapons is now suicide,

The BMP-1 was not supposed to advance with tanks. Her task is to deliver personnel to the front line and support them with fire. in the first wave there were tanks, followed by infantry, and then, about 100-150 meters away, already BMP-1.

[Diverter]

when "meeting" a tank, the armored personnel carrier simply had no chance

An armored personnel carrier should not meet a tank or anything else on the battlefield! It can only allow this to happen. APC is a TRANSPORTER. This is a bus and only because it is a military man with a machine gun and can be ambushed on the road or used by the infantry to clear the territory.