BMP-3: the heroine of a special military operation

140
BMP-3: the heroine of a special military operation


Under the code "Fable"


Next year marks 40 years since the construction of the first prototype of the BMP-3, which has been developed since 1979 under the ROC code "Fable". Despite its considerable age, the armored car showed itself in a special military operation from the best side.



The high combat effectiveness of the BMP-3 is confirmed both in the Russian army and in the camp of the enemy. Unfortunately, a number of armored vehicles fell into the hands of the nationalists during the retreat of troops from the north of the country. The most interesting thing is that for its intended purpose, that is, for transporting infantry inside an armored corps to the line of contact, the equipment is practically not used.

In the realities of the special operation, the BMP-3 quite expectedly turned into an analogue of a light tank. On archival footage from Mariupol, there are several evidences - how the machine works with the main 100-mm gun on the target, almost worse than the main battle tank. It is firepower that is the main advantage of the "troika" over all other military equipment. According to Alexander Khodakovsky, not a single armored vehicle is capable of creating a density of fire comparable to the BMP-3.

To realize this advantage, the machine has several arguments at once - a 100-mm gun and, in combination, a 2A70 launcher, a 30-mm 2A72 automatic cannon, a pair of 7,62-mm PKT machine guns on the sides of the driver and one coaxial with the main tool.

Let's start with the main caliber, which ensures the delivery of 1,65 kg of explosives to the enemy as part of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Of course, this cannot be compared with the 3,15 kg of explosives from the 125 mm 3-OF-19 projectile for a tank gun, but the BMP-3 can compensate for the lack of work on the target from a twin 30 mm gun.

By the way, do not confuse the automatic guns of the BMP-2 and the "troika": the first automatic gun works on the removal of powder gases, and the second - due to the recoil of the long stroke of the barrel, which significantly reduces the gas contamination of the fighting compartment. The high-explosive fragmentation incendiary projectiles of the 2A72 gun contain almost 50 grams of explosives, which, with a rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute, is more than enough to process targets that were not hit by the main caliber.

An important advantage of the BMP-3 artillery is the movable coupling connecting the two barrels. If the 100 mm gun is not particularly necessary, then the rapid-fire 2A72 provides high accuracy. For example, the BTR-82A lacks such a damper for whip-like vibrations of the barrel during firing, which negatively affects the accuracy of its guns.
By the way, the Ukrainian BTR-4 "Bucephalus" is equipped with a massive damper casing for a 30-mm cannon, which is essentially a copy of the 2A72. A significant contribution to the density of fire is made by the rate of fire of 100 mm weapons - at least 10 shots per minute. The tank - no more than eight per minute.

The "long arm" of the BMP-3 is the 9M117M-1 Arkan anti-tank missile with a range of up to 5,5 km and armor penetration of half a meter of homogeneous armor. The latest modification 9M117M1-3 penetrates armored steel already by 750 mm. As far as we know, direct duels between the BMP-3 and tanks in Ukraine were not recorded on photos and videos, so it is premature to talk about the effectiveness of this weapon.

In a book about domestic infantry fighting vehicles, the author Sergei Suvorov cites the following evidence of the operation of the outdated 100-mm Bastion ATGM:

“Once in the UAE, I had to observe the result of such a missile hitting a T-62 tank at the Makatra training ground. The missile hit the gun barrel. The resulting cumulative jet pierced the wall of the gun barrel, then the frontal armor of the tank turret, which was located half a meter from the gun barrel, demolished all the equipment in the tank and pierced the armor of the rear wall left.
In total, it turned out that the cumulative jet broke through three barriers with a thickness of more than 600 mm, spaced apart from each other at a distance of 0,5 to 1,5 meters, this is not counting the equipment in the tower, which ended up on the floor.






The interior of the BMP-3. Source: vk.com

The fire control system traditionally highlights the "troika" in the list of analogues. Automatic target tracking increases the accuracy of shooting by eight times in comparison with manual aiming. No wonder the analysts of the American research corporation RAND included the BMP-3 in the list of the four most powerful and widespread infantry fighting vehicles in the world.








Units and assemblies of the BMP-3 at the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant. Source: vk.com

An important advantage of the BMP-3 over all other equipment is the large elevation angle of the twin artillery mount - up to 60 degrees. For comparison: the 125-mm cannon of a tank is raised by a maximum of 13 degrees. How critical this is in urban battles, it seems unnecessary to explain. At one time in Chechnya, the BMP-3 served as an excellent anti-sniper weapon.

The BMP-3 also has shortcomings in small arms and cannon armament. First of all, it is the need to manually load an anti-tank missile, which somewhat reduces the rate of fire. When a tank commander sees a tank in the sight, the one who has time to charge faster survives here. Naturally, the tank is capable of destroying the infantry fighting vehicle with any shot, and the "troika" - only with guided weapons. During the time that the 2A70 gun-launcher is loaded with an ATGM and while it is moving towards the target, the tank can fire a couple of HEAT shells at the armored vehicle.

In general, the anti-tank capabilities of the BMP-3 are not at the highest level. The disadvantages include the low ballistics of 100-mm weapons - the projectile goes to the target at a speed of no more than 250 m / s, which imposes a number of restrictions. The target should not move, and the wind should stop for a few seconds. A plus is the hit of the projectile in the upper hemisphere of the target due to the steep flight path, which somewhat increases the chances of penetration.

fast and armored


A distinctive feature of Soviet and Russian armored vehicles has always been a special balance of all combat parameters - mobility, security and firepower. A special balance in this case is the sacrifice of armor in favor of weapons and mobility. To illustrate this thesis, it is enough to look at the survivability of the BMP-1 and BMP-2 - by the way, the most belligerent infantry fighting vehicles in the world.

With the machine of the third series, domestic designers, bound by the strict framework of the technical specifications, did not change themselves and created an armored vehicle with exceptional firepower, excellent mobility and relatively good armor.

Let's start with mobility.

First of all, you need to understand that in Ukraine, equipment most often dies, either motionless or slow. This is proved by the relatively low losses of the power-armed T-80 of various modifications. And how many times did the nationalists lose "Stugnas" in vain attempts to hit a tank or infantry fighting vehicle rushing at full speed?

The higher the acceleration capacity of the equipment, the longer the crew lives. For the 19-ton machine, a 500-horsepower UTD-29 was specially developed, which is distinguished by a low silhouette. Diesel provides high specific power - 25 hp / t. Such power-to-weight ratio is found only in the 43-ton Puma infantry fighting vehicle. The rest of the competitors - the American Bradley, the Swedish CV90 and the French VBCI, have a much lower power-to-weight ratio.

In addition, the BMP-3 was equipped with two reverse gears, which allows you to quickly leave the danger zone. The transmission of the armored vehicle is also considered the most advanced among the entire domestic line of tracked vehicles. Here and hydromechanical transmission, and the absence of a clutch pedal, which greatly simplifies piloting, and the presence of a torque converter provides an automatic change in traction on the tracks, depending on the road surface.

There are also fly in the ointment.

For example, the clearance change system, designed for landing the BMP-3 with a parachute, seems not the most important. In the context of the Ukrainian conflict, this looks like a perfect and costly throwback to a bygone era. As well as the ability to swim, which was considered vital for any Soviet infantry fighting vehicle.
















Photos from the shops of the Kurgan machine-building plant even before the start of the special operation. Source: vk.com

Let's move on to the most controversial unit of the armored vehicle - the UTD-29 diesel engine.

Last year, an interesting publication was published by employees of the Omsk Armored Engineering Institute S. Yu. Konstantinov, V. A. Tkachev and I. F. Ismailov, in which the engine of an armored vehicle is seriously criticized. In particular, the following lines can be found in the article:

“Despite its high power, the UTD-29 engine installed on the BMP-3 is rather unreliable, a large number of breakdowns in the “mechanical part” are associated with it. One of the most common breakdowns of the power plant is the destruction of the sealing rings on the nozzle caps, as a result, the oil is mixed with the fuel. Leakage of fuel from under the castle nuts of the plunger pairs and the seals of the discharge valve body is also a fairly common malfunction.

Often there is also an overflow of oil from the oil tank into the crankcase - the shut-off valves of the oil lines are destroyed. In addition, the authors point to

“cracks in the welds of the power block supports, which leads to increased vibration and shock loads of engine and transmission parts, as a result, to the failure of the latter.”

It is also unclear why the hydromechanical transmission has not yet been brought to mind and fully automatic gear shifting has not been introduced.








Examples of BMP-3 armor destruction in Ukraine and improvised protection. Source: Telegram

The level of security naturally results from the stringent requirements for the machine on the part of the customer. The infantry fighting vehicle must be able to parachute, swim and provide a high level of protection. I had to come up with aluminum armor ABT-102.

The design of the hull and turret protects against a 12,7 mm machine gun from all projections, and the forehead also holds 30 mm shells. Actually, this ensures the success of the confrontation between the Russian BMP-3 and all Ukrainian armored vehicles, except for the tank, of course. In duels with light armored vehicles, it is enough for the crew not to expose the side, and standard weapons guarantee defeat from the first shot.

A noteworthy example is the BMD-4, which, with a similar level of firepower and mobility, has bulletproof armor even in the frontal projection, and they perform completely similar tasks with the “troika” - the technique was not seen either in landing with parachutes, or in the massive overcoming of water obstacles by swimming . At the same time, the cost of the "landing infantry fighting vehicle" exceeds 100 million rubles, and the cost of the BMP-3 is about 86 million.

The infantry "troika" is, of course, the true heroine of the special operation, which saved many lives of soldiers and carried away a bunch of nationalists and material resources of the enemy to the next world.

But the machine requires modernization, and in some ways simplification. Completely superfluous skills to swim and “fly” will free up a considerable resource, both to increase security and to increase firepower even more. Analogies come to mind with the legendary T-34, which passed the natural selection of the war and became the gold standard of world tank building by 1945. How much the production workers and the main customer realize this, time will tell.
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    29 December 2022 05: 22
    Basically agree with the author. A troika compares favorably with both a penny and a dvushechka. True, often due to the fact that it is simply newer and it has more regularly operating components and assemblies. Well, I will also support global analysis. Although I didn’t hear that the BMP3 was planned somewhere for parachute landing. Maybe the author confused with the BMD-3? So they are completely different cars. As for buoyancy, it’s also an atavism. it is better to strengthen the armor with at least regular dynamic protection. But then it's worth dreaming about the "Kurgan". And yes, it's a good car. It is true that there is little of it.
    1. +13
      29 December 2022 05: 35
      Yes, variable clearance, why didn’t it bother the author!? ... in the database, what other necessary thing ... sit down in a hole ... or behind a tubercle ... hi
      1. +13
        29 December 2022 07: 03
        From the author's article, you can make an express modernization of the BMP-3, simplify and reduce the cost of the design and at the same time, oddly enough, improve the performance:
        1. Weld the body of steel. This will reduce the cost and speed up production, as well as provide better armor.
        2. Remove the abstruse suspension, which is difficult to maintain and expensive to assemble. Install a simple one on the torsion bars.

        Two simple solutions and we will get a cheaper BMP with dramatically improved performance.
        1. +5
          29 December 2022 10: 47
          So it’s true, but there are problems with the layout when switching to armored steel.
          All fasteners and junctions must be redone and calculations for a new one. Suspension seems to be easier though
          1. 0
            30 January 2023 11: 18
            fasteners, a priori stronger on a steel case, eat on aluminum, it’s not even worth counting.
        2. +11
          30 December 2022 00: 13
          Quote: Civil
          1. Weld the body of steel. This will reduce the cost and speed up production, as well as provide better armor.

          A perfectly fair request. This will really add weight to the car, but it will seriously simplify and reduce the cost of production and the entire technical process.
          Quote: Civil
          2. Remove the abstruse suspension, which is difficult to maintain and expensive to assemble. Install a simple one on the torsion bars.

          And this is also highly desirable, especially in conditions of mass production for a rapidly growing Army.
          What else would you like to add?
          Take as a basis for mass production not the BMP-3, but the BMP-3M "Dragoon" - with a front-mounted engine, an enlarged troop compartment and a convenient ramp due to this. BMP-3M (with side screens from "Kurganets" has a circular (forehead and sides) protection against 30 mm shells, a more powerful engine. Just a more powerful engine will allow you not to lose at all (and even add) in mobility and acceleration characteristics, with transition to a hull made of heavier steel armor... And in the course of simplifying the suspension to conventional torsion bars, you can immediately take into account the increased weight of the vehicle (I think up to 25 - 27 tons)... And you get just a wonderful infantry fighting vehicle with excellent protection, weapons and an acceptable price tag. what is needed for mass production... I think that such a machine will have more than enough foreign customers.
          And yes, it’s not at all necessary to sail such a car ... Although if you leave the aluminum armor, but simplify the suspension, then the Dragoon swims no worse than the previous troika ... which means that such a car will be more than useful for the MP Navy.
          And the BMD-4 should be abandoned altogether - too expensive and no protection. Parachute landing is unpromising today, and the BMP-3M can be transferred in the same way (Il-76MD90A will take both two BMD-4s and two BMP-3Ms), but the landing force with the Dragoon will be an order of magnitude more useful.
          1. +1
            30 December 2022 10: 54
            Quote: bayard
            Take as a basis for mass production not the BMP-3, but the BMP-3M "Dragoon" - with a front-mounted engine, an enlarged troop compartment and a convenient ramp due to this. BMP-3M (with side screens from "Kurganets" has a circular (forehead and sides) protection against 30 mm shells, a more powerful engine.

            Yes sir. Only for mass production, it is necessary to replace the current combat module with the Berezhok module. This will reduce the cost, simplify and lighten the design by dismantling the 100-mm gun from the AZ. Which will also increase the explosion safety of a lightly armored vehicle. In addition, the presence of the BM "Berezhok" ATGM "Kornet" will dramatically increase the anti-tank capabilities of such an infantry fighting vehicle. And the 30-mm AG allows you to fire at targets along a hinged trajectory.
            But if ideally, then for such an infantry fighting vehicle it is desirable to develop a 40-45 mm automatic cannon and install a 40-mm Balkan AG.
            1. 0
              30 December 2022 12: 11
              Berezhka would upgrade the autocannon to 35-40mm and it would be great.
              1. 0
                22 February 2023 23: 09
                For what? To reduce the combat effectiveness of the module?
                Let me explain. When working on lightly armored targets, the 30 mm caliber is even a little redundant (there is a high probability of flying through at the "blank" and deepening into the armor at the landmine). At the same time, the high-explosive charge in such a projectile is already sufficient to damage the optical instruments on the enemy tank by the fragmentation field formed during the detonation (and due to the high rate of fire, due to the scattering and movement of the target, cover the entire tower with fragmentation fields, i.e. deprive the enemy of visibility and sight before he reloads the gun). At the same time, to penetrate well-armored targets, even into the side armor, a larger caliber, at least 57 mm, is needed (and even he will take the same Leopard into the side armor only from an ambush, at a distance of several hundred meters).
                ***
                Maybe it's valuable as a splinter action? After all, it was not in vain that in WWI the caliber of 45 mm was considered sufficient for a battalion (read - trench) or mountain gun - i.e. carried and transported almost exclusively by the hands of soldiers. Alas, not really - except at close range and when there is no way to use a 76-mm projectile.
                Maybe the 37-45 mm caliber is good for its high-explosive action, and they can "zero out" the enemy hiding in buildings? It is already warmer - but only if you fight in the post-Soviet space, among the panels that have not yet been destroyed. Because he can’t break through or break through something stronger than light panels. To break through the brickwork of houses in European cities (yes, just monolithic remakes or "Stalin" in the expanses of the former USSR) - you need a shell of at least 57 mm caliber. And urban combat is one of the main ways to use light armored vehicles in the modern world.
                ***
                So it turns out that the cannon on the BMP should be either 30 mm (large transportable ammunition and high efficiency in "blinding" a heavy BTT), or immediately 57 mm (the ability to extinguish the enemy behind cover at the cost of limited ammunition). Because everything in between will be worse than these two options.
        3. +2
          30 December 2022 17: 33
          All the same, it is impossible to say something categorically. Will they land or not? Yes, who knows! Will they force the Dnieper or there, the Western Bug (just kidding) or will they not? But who knows! Knows military leadership. They have caps and stripes IN WHAT. And he should also know the General Staff with its strategists. It is probably optimal to produce several modifications: floating and non-floating, flying and non-flying.
          1. -1
            5 January 2023 21: 49
            Quote: Alexey Lantukh
            Will they land or not?

            After WWII, there were no large airborne assaults with equipment. This means that the concept of the Airborne Forces is generally erroneous if they fight on a par with infantry in the field.
          2. 0
            6 January 2023 21: 47
            Absolutely right. I am not strong in the technical features of the BMP-3. But I can say the words of one smart person. Before the start of the R&D for any type of weapon, the ideology of the proposed weapons, the proposed theater of operations, and why the army needs it at all is being processed. After that, the TOR for the R&D is formed. Everything else is mechanical work. There may be breakthrough technologies and the devil knows what. But without an initial understanding of why this mandula is needed, everything is meaningless. What happened to t14, t15, etc. wanted the best, got xs knows what. Expensive, pointless, and most importantly, it is not clear why and who needs it.
            Any armament of collective defense l / s, defense and offensive should be of a modular type. With uniform installation standards, etc. we need a gun, we put a module with a gun, an ATGM, a mortar, some non-standard solutions must fit into the weight and size characteristics of the combat module. Then the notes of this type will stop appearing.
            Please note that all Russian weapons, famous all over the world, were easy to use, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle. This is what we should strive for. 30 minutes of instruction, and the person understands how to use it. A month of training and a person can be released into battle.
          3. 0
            22 February 2023 21: 48
            1. Landing.
            Obviously, for an infantry fighting vehicle, it is possible only by landing. That is, you can take a very simple approach: the mass of the machine must fit into 1/2 of the carrying capacity of the Il-76 (42t) or 1/3 of the carrying capacity of the Il-476 (60t). Approximately this weight will be given to us by the manufacture of infantry fighting vehicles made of steel instead of aluminum with additional screens to protect the sides (plus it will be possible to hang active protection - it is dangerous for infantry on the battlefield, but nonetheless). And we’ll leave the aluminum version for landing and reconnaissance - they will not be superfluous either, and higher mobility with the same engine power will come in handy ...
            2. Hydraulic suspension.
            But this is an interesting thing ... On the aluminum version of the machine (yeah, airborne reconnaissance). Moreover, you can act more cunningly by replacing the hydraulics with worm gears in the "dead" torsion bars. It is clear that the resource of such a gearbox will be none (well, or with a wedge lock to supplement it), but the main part of the suspension will have much in common with that of the "non-landing" version.
        4. +1
          4 February 2023 14: 49
          Aluminum is there for a reason, especially since in the main areas there are still steel sheets that destroy the cores, because when changing from steel to aluminum, refraction occurs, as a result, this increases the protective properties of the armor. Well, in fact, combined armor has been used for this for a long time.
          Pure homogeneous aluminum does not hold bullets well, therefore the same BMD or American M113 do not hold bullets well.
          If you put steel screens on top of the BMP-3, then the protection will grow even more.
          It is strange that all vehicles are not equipped with screens, because if the fighters need to force a reservoir, then as a rule such a task is known in advance and it’s difficult to remove the protection, and after completing the task, I don’t see any problems to put it back ...
          In theory, such screens can also be put on a bmd to cover 12,7 from fire, which is very important ... In theory, even if the landing force is dropped from aircraft, nothing prevents a set of screens from being dropped separately on the parachute system ... You just need to provide a simple mount so that the squad fighters can quickly install them in the field .. Regular seats and plugs on the bayonet connection, the main thing is that there is no thread, otherwise it will either rip off or rust, or clog the thread with dirt, in general, long and difficult. Well, or some other ways to come up with so that the department can quickly install them.
          Throw off immediately in platoon kits with a beacon, so that you can quickly find it.
    2. +9
      29 December 2022 06: 33
      I agree with you. Buoyancy is needed in a different way than protection. Where is the DZ specially designed for our light armored vehicles? Why is it not installed?
      1. -9
        29 December 2022 11: 02
        Buoyancy is not needed like protection

        I would leave buoyancy, come in handy.
        But I would change the weapons so that I could shoot from closed positions, and not get out on direct fire. It was possible to put a short-barreled low ballistics gun of 76mm caliber and another AGS-40.
        1. +9
          29 December 2022 15: 26
          but in general it’s interesting where over the past 70-odd years the buoyancy of a light armored vehicle has really come in handy, at least on a battalion scale?
          1. +5
            29 December 2022 16: 34
            Israel somehow very successfully used captured armored personnel carriers 50 and pt-76. I don’t remember the details, they crossed some kind of reservoir in 73 and made a rustle among the Arabs.
            1. +4
              29 December 2022 23: 05
              Quote: belost79
              Israel somehow very successfully used captured armored personnel carriers 50 and pt-76. I don’t remember the details, they crossed some kind of reservoir in 73 and made a rustle among the Arabs.

              You are absolutely right. During the war of 1973, Jews on captured BTR-50 and PT-76 crossed the Suez Canal and created a bridgehead on which normal tanks then crossed over the pontoon bridge and arranged Armageddon for the Arabs.
          2. +7
            29 December 2022 18: 18
            A series of wars between India and Pakistan.
            There are a lot of rivers and lakes, the soil is saturated with water and you can’t ride on an ordinary tank. India won with a crushing score thanks to the PT-76.
            1. 0
              13 March 2023 22: 58
              It feels like you are broadcasting from 83 years. Can you imagine what it is to cross a water barrier into the water? The choice of location (not every coast is suitable), very slow speed, the concentration of a large amount of equipment. All this will lead to the fact that the group will be detected and destroyed by UAVs, Hymars, Exaliburs, Switchblades, etc. It is much easier, faster and safer to build a pontoon crossing.
          3. 0
            30 December 2022 17: 38
            We, like for 70 years before that, did not fight in Europe. As Viktor Chernomyrdin said: "This has never happened before, and now, again."
          4. 0
            6 January 2023 21: 52
            We did not have a TVD for use. Now xs. There are many rivers in Europe.
        2. +7
          29 December 2022 16: 18
          There are technically no barriers to firing the 100mm 2A70 from a closed position. The vertical aiming angle of the gun allows you to do this without problems. But to aim a gun from a closed position, you need either an old-school artillery compass, or a household electronic tablet with an offline map and the "artillery notepad" program installed, or an upgrade of the BMP-3 fire control system. By the way, the BMD-4M has such an opportunity initially.
        3. +11
          29 December 2022 16: 31
          Why is a 100mm low ballistic gun worse than a 76mm low ballistic gun?
          From closed positions, the BMP-3 works great at a distance of up to 8 km ... It’s quite no worse than an 82 mm mortar, only long-range.
          1. -1
            29 December 2022 21: 59
            why is a 100mm low ballistic gun worse than a 76mm low ballistic gun?
            From closed positions, the BMP-3 works great at a distance of up to 8 km.

            The fact that it doesn’t hit less than 300 meters from a closed position, and situations, especially in urban battles, require a smaller distance of mounted fire, for example, to throw a projectile on a flat roof. Direct support of an infantry squad, not a division, with a firing range of 8 km, so a firing range of 2-3 km is sufficient.
        4. 0
          29 December 2022 21: 40
          Konnick what is buoyancy useful for? Did it come in handy in the NWO in Ukraine? But our infantry fighting vehicles need additional protection, given the huge amount of armor-piercing weapons the enemy has.
          As for the armament of the BMP-3 - let the 100-mm and 30-mm guns remain better than the 76-mm gun and the AGS-40. Moreover, we have already gone through the history with a similar gun on the BMP-1.
        5. +3
          30 December 2022 00: 22
          Quote: Konnick
          so that you can shoot from closed positions, and not get out for direct fire. It was possible to put a short-barreled low ballistics gun of 76mm caliber and another AGS-40.

          Put the Nona (or the new Vienna) turret on the BMP-3 \ 3M hull and get 120 mm. cannon-howitzer with the ability to fire mortar mines. By the way, she is already being tested.
          I’m generally silent about the AGS-40 - there are TWO guns 100 and 30 mm. + machine guns, behind the eyes for any type of target. And for other things, there is the "Terminator" and you should not produce entities.
          1. 0
            30 December 2022 09: 59
            I’m generally silent about the AGS-40 - there are TWO guns 100 and 30 mm. + machine guns, behind the eyes for any type of target. And for other things, there is the "Terminator" and you should not produce entities.

            From cannons and machine guns, an ATGM crew, for example, can hide behind a hill or in a ravine, and the AGS covers such targets well.
          2. 0
            30 December 2022 20: 48
            Vienna is already based on the base of the BMP 3. In addition, it is not so new. But the development has not received.
    3. -6
      29 December 2022 19: 28
      If the difference is only one letter, then it's not scary. The letter can and should be corrected, there is no way for a lamb. You take a washing machine in your hands and gently erase it with a little pressure, and now it’s not 40%, but 40 °, your throat is already boiling and there are tears in the snot.
  2. +18
    29 December 2022 05: 28
    if an infantry fighting vehicle works as a light tank, then this is a big minus in the organization, that is, in fact, it turns out that the infantry does not interact with tank units to do this work, well, one more conclusion is that the tanks themselves are not enough, so that they can be given for processing targets needed by the infantry.
    1. +7
      29 December 2022 05: 54
      The use as a light tank is rather not a correct assessment of the performance of these vehicles.
      It's just that the MP commander always has a 100 mm argument at hand and to say that the BMP as a light tank is not used correctly. And in general, would you like to hear anything about the concept of a light tank? Yes, and if 100 mm is at hand, then somehow you can pull the tanks less.
    2. +7
      29 December 2022 11: 15
      Quote: Graz
      if the infantry fighting vehicle works as a light tank, then this is a big minus in the organization, that is, in fact, it turns out that the infantry does not interact with tank units to do this work

      So the BMP in this case does just its job - fire support for the motorized rifle squad. For this, she was given a "hundredth".
      In addition, EMNIP, in the defense of an infantry fighting vehicle without landing, can be used in isolation from its MSO - as a fire weapon at the platoon-company level.
    3. -3
      29 December 2022 11: 41
      The tank is not designed to handle the targets needed by the infantry. To do this, the infantry has a lot of other tools, from grenade launchers to infantry fighting vehicles and aircraft. The fact that tanks are not used for their intended purpose in the NWO is only the result of the generals’ complete inability to fight. You can look at the German army of the period 43-45, when they practically stopped introducing tanks into breakthroughs and went on the defensive. Spoiler alert - they lost.
  3. +5
    29 December 2022 05: 50
    They were captured not only after the retreat, but after the insane throws of columns near Kharkov at the very beginning, they were also recruited. The only moment is whether there are about 50 trophy ones or less.
    1. -1
      29 December 2022 07: 17
      Ours also captured Ukrainian BMP-3s and a bunch of other equipment.
      1. +5
        29 December 2022 10: 12
        Since the times of the USSR, there have been no more than 5 of them. And so basically the reverse capture of our own.
      2. +5
        29 December 2022 10: 39
        Quote: fiberboard
        Ours also captured Ukrainian BMP-3s and a bunch of other equipment.

        I never heard about the BMP-3 captured from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Ukraine got only a few pieces from the union, and there was really no information about them even in the 10s. Perhaps these were the trophies of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that returned to us, but I didn’t hear about this either (I only saw photos of those destroyed, like our former T-72s? BTR-80, Tigers, etc.). Unfortunately, we have few “living” trophies, like 2 BTR-4s were “pumped out” (captured about 20) and some T-64s ..
        In general, the BMP-3 is a decent car, but today it is outdated in concept ....
        1. 0
          11 March 2023 08: 52
          there have been a lot of t64s since 2014, there have been cases of t64s changing hands twice, and there are no other light vehicles with a shaft, only a repair base for these foreign cars. They go until the resource is depleted and for spare parts.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 0
        29 December 2022 16: 32
        Well, at the beginning of the campaign, the dill had 4 BMP-3s, they couldn’t capture many of them ... But other equipment, yes, a bunch of trophies.
  4. +1
    29 December 2022 06: 03
    Well, yes, buoyancy, according to the results of its own, turns out to be unnecessary - I wonder if buoyancy was decisive when the shape of the hull was designed (in the lower part)?
    1. +7
      29 December 2022 06: 38
      buoyancy according to the results of its turns out to be unnecessary

      Just such a sluggish NWO.
      1. +3
        29 December 2022 15: 09
        It is hardly worth forming the Dnieper on this BMP
  5. +7
    29 December 2022 06: 07
    how the machine works with the main 100-mm gun on the target is almost worse than the main battle tank.
    Maybe almost better?
    1. +5
      29 December 2022 07: 57
      Maybe almost better?

      I don't think, rather hardly worse...
    2. +2
      29 December 2022 16: 25
      It must be remembered that the 100-mm 2A70 gun is a cannon with low ballistics and a subsonic projectile. The BC 2A70 provides only OFS and ATGMs. There are no armor-piercing shells. Getting out of it into a moving target at a long distance OFS is very problematic, you need to use ATGMs.
      1. 0
        11 March 2023 08: 53
        they have barrel rockets, I don’t remember the brand.
    3. 0
      29 December 2022 16: 33
      Definitely not better. You are mistaken.........
  6. +23
    29 December 2022 06: 07
    Damn, and here is the legacy of the damned totalitarian regime of the godless communists. And where are the military novelties of the progressive democratic regime? Although stop, what new items have they been in power for 30 years, with God's help
    1. +10
      29 December 2022 06: 31
      The regime only made rubber galoshes, but now we don't know how to make rubber galoshes either.
  7. +10
    29 December 2022 06: 22
    I have a question, why are our infantry fighting vehicles without remote sensing? Even 20 years ago, a special remote sensing was developed for our light armored vehicles. The Arabs bought it along with our BMP-3s.

    1. +13
      29 December 2022 13: 34
      Because money is screwed up, that's the whole answer.
      1. +3
        29 December 2022 18: 35
        LastPS Well, we have it as usual. As Medvedev said
    2. -4
      29 December 2022 16: 35
      DZ is the death of the infantry that is walking nearby, so they practically don’t use dz on infantry fighting vehicles ... But they put additional screens.
      1. +2
        29 December 2022 18: 48
        "DZ is the death of the infantry that is walking nearby ..." Georgy Sviridov_2 and why do you think there are sound and light alarms?
        "... dz is practically not used on infantry fighting vehicles ..." What are you saying!
        American infantry fighting vehicle Bradley M2A3 with a set of DZ BUSK specially developed by BAE Systems in Iraq.
        1. 0
          19 January 2023 20: 18
          Well, here are special cars for Iraq, I believe, a narrow specialization ...
          If it is used as a tank, significant armor allows you to fight off Iraqi insurgents without leaving the car, this is one thing. And our infantry, which rides on armor, immediately dismounts ... And then, just at that moment, an RPG or anti-tank shot flies ...
          For the BMP-3, where there is at least some kind of armor and which often work from closed positions in isolation from the infantry or due to course machine guns, they can work effectively without dismounting the landing force, there is still dz justified.
      2. +3
        29 December 2022 19: 44
        Georgy Sviridov_2 The Germans are installing a DZ on their Puma infantry fighting vehicle. From above, on board the BMP, blocks of the CLARA lightweight composite DZ from Dynamit Nobel Defense are clearly visible.

      3. +4
        29 December 2022 20: 00
        Georgy Sviridov_2 The Chinese are putting DZ on their BMP VN 12. The Israelis are putting DZ on their BMP. Italy, Poland, Great Britain put DZ on their infantry fighting vehicles.
        But in our country, remote sensing on infantry fighting vehicles is practically not used.
    3. 0
      30 December 2022 02: 18
      Well, because the owners of the Russian mining industry have billions. Didn't you know that you should be proud of their billions? in fact, the union was not smashed for that, so that you could build something here.
  8. +9
    29 December 2022 06: 29
    And as for modernization, there is the BMP-3M "Dragoon".
    1. +10
      29 December 2022 06: 46
      And as for modernization, there is the BMP-3M "Dragoon".

      eat? even if they didn’t see it at parades, it means we won’t see it at all ... unfortunately, all our equipment must first pass tests in parades ...
    2. +7
      29 December 2022 07: 50
      I think that it is necessary to rework the production of the BMP-3 and launch a line of vehicles into a series. Light tank Dragoon-2, classic infantry fighting vehicle Manul-2 and armored personnel carrier.
      To do this, you need to armor the Dragoon / Manul, depriving it of buoyancy, equip it with remote sensing and screens, and strengthen the chassis. In the armored personnel carrier variant, to further strengthen the armor, due to weight reduction due to the replacement of the BM with a lighter one.

      1. +3
        29 December 2022 08: 13
        Yeah, plus add overhead protection, like the Koreans.
      2. +3
        29 December 2022 10: 21
        This is the most correct option (If we can not run Kurganets). Another would be to provide for the replacement of MTO for the future and a place for it.
        1. +4
          29 December 2022 14: 05
          What are the benefits of Kurgan? It's not at all clear that it's better.
      3. +2
        29 December 2022 20: 52
        ColdWind agrees with you. Dragoon and Manul, in my opinion, are not bad options for upgrading the BMP-3. Buoyancy is not that important compared to protection!
  9. +5
    29 December 2022 08: 12
    Many write that everyone comes from the USSR, I agree here. It is outdated, of course, now it is unlikely that anyone will put part of the crew on a "barrel" with ammunition. As for Khodakovsky's words, one has to read between the words. Application to the quality of improvised artillery - well, you can see the same "Large-caliber commotion", it's quite difficult to get there without a rangefinder and other things (they shot at the tables). Most likely, the same incomplete infantry fighting vehicles serve as ersatz artillery.
    1. +2
      29 December 2022 10: 23
      BM from BMP-3 can be estimated by export .... This is the main module of China (on its BMP), the UAE even put it on Patria.
    2. 0
      29 December 2022 16: 38
      BMP-3, there is already a BMP-3m, which makes it outdated, in fact the best BMP in the world in terms of its characteristics.
      1. +1
        29 December 2022 18: 29
        Georgy Sviridov_2 by the fact that it was created back in the 80s. Time does not stand still. BMP-3 has long been time to modernize.
  10. +20
    29 December 2022 10: 12
    The past, more developed civilization did not take into account the trends of the 2020s (or rather, did not take into account everything) and could not leave us with a more powerful diesel + AT for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles ..... and could not leave a serial autocannon with a caliber of more than 30mm. Sorry.
    1. +8
      29 December 2022 13: 01
      and could not leave a serial autocannon with a caliber of more than 30mm. Sorry.

      Well, why couldn’t they, they created the S-60, and the fact that now they can’t mass-produce anything is already a problem for the degraded descendants of civilization
      1. +4
        29 December 2022 13: 41
        This is a larger caliber. Maximum for LBT (and then? How will they deliver and will they deliver). World trends 35mm, 40mm, 50mm. They are compact and very powerful.
  11. +1
    29 December 2022 11: 15
    To realize this advantage, the machine has several arguments at once - a 100-mm gun and, in combination, a 2A70 launcher,

    Nice gun video
  12. 0
    29 December 2022 11: 39
    This is UNTIL she needed to swim. In 1942, they also thought that we no longer needed a floating tank. It is strange that they forgot to "scold" the location of the landing. For which it is usually customary to "kick" a three-ruble note.
    1. +1
      29 December 2022 16: 39
      The landing force is normally located there, the exit there is peculiar, but on the whole not bad.
      1. +1
        29 December 2022 19: 27
        Georgy Sviridov_2 here is the normal location of the landing force, with a normal exit. BMP-3 M "Dragoon" rear view.
      2. +1
        29 December 2022 21: 58
        Georgy Sviridov_2, but what you call "a kind of exit" and "The landing force is normally located there ..." has long been outdated. Compare the convenience of entering the BMP-3 and the BMP-3M "Dragun".
    2. 0
      4 January 2023 20: 31
      To capture bridgeheads of rivers, you can use the Airborne Forces and the MP.
  13. +5
    29 December 2022 12: 14
    By the way, about the modernization of the BMP-3 ... A few (!) Years ago I read a message about the modernization of the BMP ... A modification of the BMP-3M appeared ... Alas! I don’t remember now about all the parameters of the modernization (it’s “hidden” somewhere in the archive ...), but I remember that the engine power was increased by 20% ... Do not forget that there is a modernization project for the BMP-3 - "Manul"! Moreover, it will not just be another modification of the BMP-3; but a platform! Based on this platform, they are going to make several armored vehicles for various purposes! It seems that they decided to "give up" to "Kurganets" (and maybe even to "Boomerang" ...)!
    The author complains about the insufficient anti-tank capabilities of the BMP-3 ... Duc, this is an BMP; and not a tank destroyer, not a "tank destroyer"! By the way, you can strengthen the anti-tank capabilities of the BMP by installing the Epoch combat module! It is possible to provide for additional armament of the BMP-3 with Kornets; and later "Effect"!
  14. +4
    29 December 2022 13: 29
    ... for transporting infantry inside an armored hull to the line of contact, equipment is practically not used ...
    -------------------------------------------------- ----
    And for the transportation of infantry inside the armored corps in the Soviet / Russian army, not a single infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier is used.
    40 years riding armor...
    The reasons are known.
    But MO seems to be ok
  15. 0
    29 December 2022 14: 23
    We have problem areas correctly indicated by the author for improvement. The motor group (including the suspension and transmission) and protection. Fine-tuning the engine and strengthening protection through the existing backlogs for the frontal and side projections and the roof. You need to swim, this is a good bonus in tactics. Firepower can be represented by the "Baikal" trusted to the mind with remote ATGMs. And to the question of interaction with tanks? Well, maybe we will see a new platoon staff, where the 4th squad is a tank.
    1. +3
      29 December 2022 22: 03
      Sleeve, it is unlikely that it will be possible to combine buoyancy and good protection. Therefore, to the detriment of protection, buoyancy was once chosen. And now you have to pay for it! In my opinion, protection is much more important than buoyancy.
  16. +3
    29 December 2022 14: 58
    Next year marks 40 years since the construction of the first prototype of the BMP-3, which has been developed since 1979 under the ROC code "Fable". Despite its considerable age, the armored car showed itself in a special military operation from the best side.
    Considering that modernized BMP-2s and even BMP-1s are also fighting in our country, not to mention the rubbish that the Westerners send to the Armed Formations of Ukraine, then the BMP-3 is generally out of competition ...
  17. +2
    29 December 2022 16: 28
    Why the author took that the BMP-3 is intended for parachute landing is absolutely incomprehensible.
  18. +3
    29 December 2022 16: 41
    For example, the clearance change system, designed for landing the BMP-3 with a parachute, seems not the most important.
    Did the author of the article accidentally confuse the BMP-3 with the BMD-3/4? In any case, in terms of changing the clearance. As for airborne landings, the Airborne Forces indeed refused to adopt the BMP-3, since
    Work on the creation of a third-generation airborne combat vehicle was launched in parallel with the development of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle. However, the results of the development showed that the mass of the BMP-3 with landing equipment would significantly exceed 20 tons, so the Il-76M aircraft would be able to carry only one combat vehicle on board. Therefore, in the early 1980s, work was opened to create the appearance of an airborne combat vehicle.
    This is from Wikipedia. sad
    1. 0
      29 December 2022 17: 03
      The main problem of the BMD - 3 was its fighting compartment, the armament of the BMP -2, only the AGS 17 was added .... in parallel, work on the BMP 3 was being completed, therefore, we decided to switch to similar weapons.
    2. +4
      29 December 2022 17: 52
      The author did not confuse. From Suvorov's book "Infantry fighting vehicles BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 - a mass grave of infantry or a superweapon": "Since one of the requirements for the vehicle was the possibility of airborne landing of a new BMP, appropriate tests were carried out ... First they checked the strength of the hull and all units, their fastening - will they withstand it or not. To do this, the car was dropped from a 10-meter-high pile driver at the Universal enterprise ... Then they carried out real drops of the "object 688" from the aircraft. During these tests, two cars "lost" "One of them burned down after landing due to the fact that the brake engines set fire to the feather grass. The other, after being dropped from the aircraft, the parachutes did not open." But, of course, no one in real life would think of dropping the BMP-3 with a parachute. Nevertheless, this is structurally possible and many solutions are designed specifically for this - from aluminum in armor to variable ground clearance.
  19. +1
    29 December 2022 17: 07
    Nobody planned to parachute the BMP 3. We can talk about variable clearance, for landing by landing method (that is, in fact, transportation by air). Now, no one plans to move to the battlefield with infantry inside the airborne squad, it can be done on the march, when advancing to the line of transition to the attack, in pre-battle order.
    1. +3
      29 December 2022 17: 51
      Landed. On preliminary tests. From Suvorov's book "Infantry fighting vehicles BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 - a mass grave of infantry or a superweapon": "Since one of the requirements for the vehicle was the possibility of airborne landing of a new BMP, appropriate tests were carried out ... First they checked the strength of the hull and all units, their fastening - will they withstand it or not. To do this, the car was dropped from a 10-meter-high pile driver at the Universal enterprise ... Then they carried out real drops of the "object 688" from the aircraft. During these tests, two cars "lost" "One of them burned down after landing due to the fact that the brake engines set fire to the feather grass. The other, after being dropped from the aircraft, the parachutes did not open." But, of course, no one in real life would think of dropping the BMP-3 with a parachute. Nevertheless, this is structurally possible and many solutions are designed specifically for this - from aluminum in armor to variable ground clearance.
  20. 0
    29 December 2022 19: 28
    Buoyancy - an atavism? Well, well ... this "concept" will last until the first big puddle. Approach a water barrier and wait until the pontoon crossing appears, and at the same time the enemy comes to his senses? No really ... the infantry "iron", and even with such armament, is obliged to "float". Yes, this is not a frequent occurrence, but ... let it be and not needed ... much worse when it is extremely necessary, but it is not. Something like this.
    1. +5
      29 December 2022 21: 08
      In most cases, you will still need to wait for engineering equipment to arrange the possibility of entering the water and / or going ashore. Our rivers, as a rule, have one bank steep and the other flooded.
      1. 0
        30 December 2022 16: 50
        Here I’ll ask purely personally ... did you overcome water barriers yourself or nearby when the order breathed into the back of your head? I - yes. Six of my BRDMs and the look of the Commander at the GSVG at the crossing ... We completed the task ... somewhere over 80 percent. One car sank. On the Elbe. Infantry iron is obliged to swim. Especially if it bears the proud name of "intelligence".
        1. -2
          1 January 2023 11: 20
          If conditions are ideal. Requirements for the soil of the shore - rocky or clayey is best ... Gentle slope at the exit. There are few such ideal places, and as a rule, all of them are already closed. At the training grounds, at the exercises - it is, of course, beautiful. but in fact - this box approaches the shore and gets stuck on the edge
          1. +1
            1 January 2023 11: 53
            Requirements for the soil of the shore - rocky or clay is best.


            in fact - this box approaches the shore and gets stuck on the edge

            This is who taught you so, some pests, the opposite is true.
            The best shore for crossing a sandy beach, and with a trip downstream to another sandy beach. No preparation of the shore is even required. Stony pebble coast death technique.
    2. 0
      30 December 2022 19: 51
      Moreover, on the European theater of operations, on average, every 20 km there is a river.
    3. -1
      1 January 2023 11: 24
      We approached the Seversky Donets - we got stuck. Approached Oskol - stuck
  21. -4
    29 December 2022 19: 43
    MRAPs are both cheaper and better protected. The bottom is flat, the crew becomes a consumable. In the photo, the production of the level of the last war.
    1. +7
      29 December 2022 21: 05
      Different tactics for using MRAP and BMP.
      MRAP is a patrol vehicle for operations in its rear and is not intended to go on the attack along with tanks.
      The use of infantry fighting vehicles implies that passages have been made in minefields. For example, using the UR-77
    2. +3
      29 December 2022 21: 34
      Quote from dunkan
      MRAPs are both cheaper and better protected. The bottom is flat, the crew becomes a consumable. In the photo, the production of the level of the last war.

      No need for fantasies
      1. Not a single serial MCI has armor protection equal to the BMP-3.
      2. There were cases of undermining the BMP-3 in the NWO zone. A few were caught on video - a surprise, but the landing force is alive.
      3.
      Quote from dunkan
      production level of the last war

      Google the shops of the factories where the "Swede" or "Chinese" is assembled. The same.
  22. -5
    29 December 2022 20: 12
    Do these BMP-3s need another question? In my opinion, there are not enough well-armored vehicles at the front so that they are no worse than tanks in terms of protection. There is really nothing to attack with than these infantry fighting vehicles from heavy machine guns will be sewn, and how many times our soldiers have been seen sitting on the armor all the time, few people want to climb inside such infantry fighting vehicles. At the Kurgan plant, instead of new armored vehicles, these old ones are being made. Well, in vain I think. The front needs new armored vehicles. Remember the beginning of the T-34 movie, when the BT tanks are on fire, and the military says the front needs real tanks, but here we need real BMPs
    1. +3
      29 December 2022 21: 30
      Quote from Alexwar
      There is essentially nothing to attack with than these infantry fighting vehicles from heavy machine guns will be sewn, and how many times our soldiers have been seen sitting on the armor all the time, few people want to climb inside such infantry fighting vehicles.

      Yeah. Only nobody who tried to break through the BMP-3 from a machine gun is alive. The forehead from a 30 mm autocannon and the sides from heavy machine guns are actually protected.
  23. +4
    29 December 2022 20: 24
    There are also fly in the ointment.
    For example, the clearance change system, designed for landing the BMP-3 with a parachute, seems not the most important. In the context of the Ukrainian conflict, this looks like a perfect and costly throwback to a bygone era. As well as the ability to swim, which was considered vital for any Soviet infantry fighting vehicle.

    I will not comment on the words of the author of the article on the presence of a clearance change system in the BMP-3, but I must say a few words about the ability of the BMP-3 to swim.
    While, at present, Russian troops are practically in positional defense, this skill is not in much demand. But, when, after the winter campaign, the troops switch to offensive tactics, this skill will be in great demand.
    I had a chance to serve in Ukraine for more than 7 years. Having traveled along and across it, I should note that the presence of a large number of rivers, lakes and reservoirs will create serious obstacles to the advance of troops. It is clear that bridges will be blown up, and pontoon crossings are an excellent target for artillery. So supporting infantry with tanks and other heavy equipment will be problematic.
    This is where all those qualities inherent in the design of the BMP-3 should appear. Both in terms of mobility and firepower. The presence of BMP-3 in motorized rifle units will allow them to operate autonomously and solve a wide range of tactical tasks over a vast territory.
    So let this car stay floating.
    1. +6
      29 December 2022 21: 00
      And why, in the spring-summer-autumn of 2022, were somehow mass floating crossings across the Seversky Donets, Oskol, Ingulets, Dnieper and other rivers not noticed?
      Why did both sides try so many times to build crossings despite artillery fire, having floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers available?
      Why are fighters everywhere trying to strengthen the protection of armored vehicles (often artisanal), preferring enhanced protection to maintaining the ability to overcome water obstacles by swimming?
      But how much can motorized rifles on infantry fighting vehicles, crossing a water barrier, achieve without the support of tanks and artillery left on the other side?
      And why did NATO countries abandon floating infantry fighting vehicles, although there are enough water barriers in Europe?
      1. +1
        29 December 2022 22: 00
        Everyone else forgets about the special amphibious branch of the army, which they call the marines. If you really need to immediately force a water barrier, you can transfer them, and not cripple all land equipment.
      2. 0
        30 December 2022 17: 09
        Quote: Cympak
        Why NATO countries


        And they still don't get toilet paper on time!
        Fuck the argument!!! Yes, pooooo!!! What do they have and how!
        1. +2
          3 January 2023 15: 27
          NATO troops have been at war continuously since its inception. Maybe it's better to study their experience, and not thoughtlessly repeat M. Zadornov's quotes about "stupid" Americans?
      3. 0
        30 December 2022 19: 54
        BMPs must cross the river to ensure the capture of the bridgehead. Arta, with its range, may well support a bridgehead from across the river.
        Then a pontoon bridge arrives for the crossing of trucks with ammo, artillery, tanks ...
    2. +10
      29 December 2022 21: 24
      Well, look what is happening in reality. In the photo, almost all the equipment is floating, but there is a nuance. I think you know the joke about the "nuance".


    3. The comment was deleted.
  24. +3
    29 December 2022 21: 40
    Last year, an interesting publication was published by employees of the Omsk Armored Engineering Institute S. Yu. Konstantinov, V. A. Tkachev and I. F. Ismailov, in which the engine of an armored vehicle is seriously criticized.
    Often there is also an overflow of oil from the oil tank into the crankcase - the shut-off valves of the oil lines are destroyed.
    In addition, the authors point to "cracks in the welds of the power block supports, which leads to increased vibration and shock loads of engine and transmission parts, as a result, to the failure of the latter."

    As the classics of Marxism-Leninism wrote, “practice is the criterion of truth.”
    Due to the fact that the Omsk Armored Engineering Institute, where I had the honor to study, is not an operator of the BMP-3, the publication of its employees on the reliability of this vehicle cannot be taken for granted.
    Reliability issues must be submitted in comparison with other types of armored vehicles.
    Being engaged in GABTU on the supply of our armored vehicles to a "foreign customer", I had access to the statistics of its failures, in comparison with foreign equipment.
    When in 1992 the first serial BMP-3s arrived in the United Arab Emirates, the Arabs often complained to our technical specialists about the frequent breakdowns of the BMP-3. Everything changed after France delivered ultra-modern Leclerc tanks in 1996.
    The operation of these tanks in the UAE reveals at least 3,5 breakdowns per 100 kilometers, while on the BMP-3 no more than 0,23.
    There are currently over 1000 BMP-3s in the UAE.
    I would advise the Omsk "docents with candidates" to look deeper into the problems of the reliability of armored vehicles, and not to draw quick and not very well-founded conclusions about the reliability of our equipment. Otherwise, this may lead to discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and in modern times this is an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
    Yes, and the author of this article needs to more carefully select materials to substantiate his views on the BMP-3.
    1. 0
      30 December 2022 16: 55
      Quote: veteran tanker
      There are currently over 1000 BMP-3s in the UAE.

      Official sadness. There and here. And no one will answer?
  25. +1
    29 December 2022 21: 53
    How can the military give up the ability to swim and fly? Only a kick from the commander-in-chief can force them.

    If such a set of weapons justifies itself, while the main task - transporting the squad of shooters fades into the background, then it would make sense to create a light tank on any existing platform T-55/62, PT-76, etc.
    1. 0
      30 December 2022 17: 18
      PT-76??? Exactly? belay BTR-50 was on the platform and? The most interesting ... When will it be so? Here I am ... such a military man, a fucking cloud of times ... I swam and fought and I have an opinion ... Not ???
  26. +3
    29 December 2022 22: 25
    I disagree about the ability to swim. This option is needed - in the same Ukraine there are many rivers and streams. It is impossible to advance without floating armored vehicles. Yes, while such an option is not in demand, because while there are no offensive operations there, the February-March offensives do not count - the enemy did not have time to disable the crossings there
    1. +3
      29 December 2022 23: 13
      There is no need to deny the need for floating equipment in the troops. But the question is, in which units it should be and in what quantities.
      For operations on soft soils, reconnaissance, the development of tactical success and raids behind enemy lines, highly mobile floating equipment is needed. But for actions together with tanks, well-protected infantry fighting vehicles are needed.
      It turns out that floating infantry fighting vehicles are needed for forest / polar brigades, for reconnaissance units, for airborne assault and airmobile units.
    2. +3
      30 December 2022 01: 11
      It was just the crossings that were made, I don’t particularly remember that the infantry fighting vehicles themselves crossed into the water. Remember these pictures where there is a bunch of equipment near the crossing, I don’t know whose it is, then there are a lot of infantry fighting vehicles, for some reason they didn’t swim, but crowded at the crossing. Yes, the fact is that rivers are not an exit to the beach, but steep banks can be and an infantry fighting vehicle climbing a steep bank can be a difficult task, and even more so under enemy fire.
  27. +2
    29 December 2022 23: 58
    The main drawback of the BMP-3 is the stupid design of hatches for paratroopers.
    For a long time there have been modifications of the BMP-3 with the classic scheme for landing through the stern doors (BMP-3M Dragun) and an uninhabited BM with a 57 mm machine gun, but the Ministry of Defense does not seem to see these developments stubbornly ordering a forty-year-old BMP-3 with opening hatches of the troop compartment.
    The low efficiency of the 100 mm gun has also been confirmed in practice.
    To support infantry units, the NONA 120mm universal howitzer-mortar cannon with a 12,7 mm coaxial machine gun is much better.
    The elevation angle of the gun barrel is up to 80 degrees, which will ensure firing on the upper floors of buildings without any restrictions.
    In cannon mode, the firing range of NONA rockets reaches 13 km, and the effectiveness of firing mines, including guided "Fringe" and high-explosive fragmentation shells at enemy positions, is several times higher than that of 100mm 2A70.
    The ability to swim for infantry fighting vehicles is very necessary and should not be abandoned.
    Mounted DZ blocks at the same time should play the role of "floats" that increase the buoyancy of the BMP when installing additional protection.
    1. 0
      30 December 2022 17: 21
      Quote: assault
      but MO does not seem to see


      In this case, the Defense Ministry should be pushed into the boundaries of the Serdyukovshchina heritage with its women's battalion. I guess so.
    2. 0
      4 February 2023 15: 42
      So no one says that Nona (or better Vienna) is not needed. Why would this 100mm gun not become effective?
      Towed rapiers are not written off, although they have long been useless as anti-tank guns.
      Moreover, a special landmine was developed for the 100mm low-ballistic gun, with a large amount of explosives. But the most important thing is that there is not one gun, but 2 guns. At the same time, the capabilities of a 100mm gun are enough to suppress mortars at least 81/82 mm accurately. That is, a motorized rifle company does not need any other means at all ... In the city, in general, no weapon system can ever be compared with a 100mm cannon, they showed high efficiency back in Chechnya. But the most important bonus is a large ammo for a 100mm gun, and not 4 ptura, as in the Berezhka / era ...
  28. +3
    30 December 2022 00: 55
    I won't comment on anything. Because there are still not enough censorship words. The conclusion is simple without the heritage of the Union Russia is really just a gas station country.
  29. +2
    30 December 2022 01: 05
    All these descents of equipment from parachutes are essentially not necessary, it has been proven, a modern conflict is when the enemy has a bunch of MANPADS and somewhere there a transporter flying over the front line is an easy target. In short, you need to make equipment with maximum security, and not sacrifice weight for the sake of lowering equipment from the sky during exercises.
  30. 0
    30 December 2022 10: 28
    In many respects I agree with the author, however, the decision to abandon the buoyancy of the machine is not correct and purely detrimental. Which comes under the influence of the Western, or rather the American school, where for some reason they don’t take seriously all the seriousness in floating technology due to the lack of so much experience in overcoming water obstacles. Which we accumulated during the Great Patriotic War stuffing bumps. 80 different water barriers, including such large rivers as the Don, Desna, Sozh, Dnieper, Western Bug, Narew, Vistula, Oder. And all this was given to us not just how much effort and effort it cost not even a dream of the living today. You can, of course, rely on the American experience of battles, but it’s better not to rely on it in this matter from such experience themselves, a car and a whole train. Considering that by reinforcing the "bare" armor protection of the BMP, we will not be able to protect it even from 25-30-40 mm obps autocannons of NATO countries and the rest of the cumulative grebe in the form of the same LAW-72 and AT-4, not to mention all sorts of PzF-3 Carl Gustav and more. Without the use of hinged armor elements, we will not be able to provide them with decent protection, and from this there is not much point in strengthening the bare armor of the 3rd, but it is better to work out hinged protection modules that can be quickly hung on the BMP and also quickly changed in case of overcoming water barriers.
  31. +4
    30 December 2022 13: 29
    4 years engaged in the repair of bmp3 in the UAE. The car is good overall. 1. Suggestions to make a steel case are just ridiculous in my opinion. Weight will increase catastrophically. A complete reworking of the suspension will be required, the engine is already rather weak. Can't swim. So it's a completely different car.
    2. Denial of the opportunity to swim ... Why? There are 2 powerful water cannons on the car. They don't take up much space. The machine can land from the ship. The car runs great. Handling and speed afloat is excellent. Drowning is virtually impossible. Water cannons can take water from the MTO! There were cases that a car floated with a missing technical hatch in the MTO. Noticed by accident after we arrived. The Arabs love to swim during exercises like this: they line up a company on the shore and swim beyond the horizon into the sea, and turn back there. Watched this repeatedly.
    The 2A70 gun (100 mm) is about nothing at all. The only plus is reliability and the ability to shoot from closed firing positions, although this is not normally provided for, but it is possible. The angle is high because 100mm has no ballistics and it is theoretically possible to shoot at helicopters from 2A72 (30mm). The author’s proposal to charge a rocket at a hypothetical meeting with a tank made me laugh ... In the event of a meeting, a line for a hundred HE shells from 30 and you can forget about the tank, sweep away everything attached to the armor, including sights and jam everything that is possible. The 2A72 gun is very capricious. Sometimes there is not enough energy to pull up the tape and squeeze the projectile out of the tape. 2A42 (on BMP2) is much more reliable, but it weighs more, and here they fought for every kilogram. In general, the car is good. Due to the lightness frisky and passable. The density of fire is high. Floats. A very successful example.
    1. 0
      4 January 2023 20: 14
      Warrior_Z on account of the fact that the BMP-3 is a very successful sample, you went too far!
  32. 0
    30 December 2022 17: 02
    Clearance ... back and forth ... The car sat on its belly not only when landing, but also when threatened ... remember ... when threatened with the use of WMD ... nuclear. Well, it's purely in space. It is easier to break what is already there than to repair what has been lost.
  33. 0
    30 December 2022 18: 01
    As it turned out, they talked a lot, but they didn’t give money for the military-industrial complex or they stole it.
  34. 0
    30 December 2022 19: 48
    And this heroine, can't she accidentally pick up something and get into a position? How can you save her, how to find out who she is?
  35. 0
    30 December 2022 21: 51
    And then it’s needed as a firing point, it’s cheaper to drive the T-62M in large quantities instead of the BMP-1,2,3,4, and the infantry delivery functions can be done on the BTR-80 by removing the combat module with the tower, up to 20 fighters can be transferred there, and a machine gun can be put on a 12.7mm turret.
  36. 0
    31 December 2022 03: 27
    It is necessary to change the concept of armament of the main tanks. It is necessary to put weapons on the tank, similar to the BMP-3 concept. Those. there should be a 125mm main weapon + an autocannon paired with them. The tank also needs 2 remote-controlled machine gun turrets. It is desirable that they were 12.7 mm.
    BMP-3 as a transport is dangerous for the crew and troops. When a grenade hits the ammo rack with 100mm shells, it is guaranteed to be full with all the people inside. She needs a remote-controlled module with an autocannon, an automatic grenade launcher and a pturs. Then more space will be freed up for the landing and there will be no explosive ammunition in the cabin.
  37. 0
    1 January 2023 11: 11
    BMP-3 is not used to transport infantry? Should an infantry fighting vehicle fall with a parachute? uyyyy
  38. 0
    3 January 2023 13: 21
    Swimming is not a superfluous skill. This showed SVO. No one will calmly cross over.
    1. -1
      4 January 2023 20: 19
      Where and when did Expert2017 show that swimming is not an extra skill?
      But the fact that our BMP lacks armor protection has been repeatedly shown by the SVO!
    2. 0
      4 February 2023 15: 58
      Until you cross, you will not be able to build pontoons.
      Once in a narrow "neck" before entering the pontoons, you can easily cover everything with artillery (there have already been such shots), and the equipment can swim in a wide front, so it's much safer.
      The issue here is easily solved, on all machines protective screens should always be installed regularly, which are removed only when forcing an obstacle.
      But an increase in mass is not only a problem of "floating", the first problem is transportation, the second is fuel logistics ... That is, if the consumption increases by 2 times, then 3 times more fuel and vegetables are needed, and, accordingly, drivers ... Plus, the difficulties of evacuation are tank tractors are already needed, because the motorcycle league will not pull out a heavy vehicle already ...
      And the most important thing is that no armor of reasonable thickness will save you anyway from modern artillery and modern ATGMs ... The maximum that can be done is circular armor (well, at least from 3 sides) from 30-40 mm cannons, everything else is already stupid .. From the birds, both armats and leopards a7 and AbramsX will burn ...
      It is more promising to switch to unmanned systems ...
      Both DZ and KAZ can be effectively used on them, without fear that their elements will kill nearby infantry, because this infantry will not be easy.
  39. +3
    4 January 2023 20: 59
    About the ability to swim for the BMP.
    In a full-scale war, the rapid overcoming of water barriers is a critical element. Let's take the country 404. Dnipro. How to overcome it? Hoping that the Nazis are coming out delicately leave us bridges? Absurd. Hence the forcing of the river. On what? On self-propelled ferries and floating transporters? They will stay afloat exactly until not even a tank hits the sight, but an infantry fighting vehicle with its 30-mm cannon or even an armored personnel carrier with a 14,5-mm machine gun. Or some kind of ZU-23-2 ambushed.
    Throw out a helicopter landing? Yes ... that's just how many "turntables" will go to the ground with fireballs after not 2-3, but 20-30 MANPADS are fired at each of them? How many paratroopers will turn to dust along with their helicopters?
    Landing units of the Airborne Forces from aircraft? This is suicide for the Airborne Forces. If the supersonic planes of our aviation are the remnants of the Ukro-Bandera air defense "driven beyond Mozhay", then the clumsy Il-76 will simply be exterminated.
    So, who has any suggestions? Will we let the infantry along the bottom in diving suits?
    They may object: they say, NATO did not have infantry fighting vehicles, why do they swim with us?
    The answer is very simple. NATO imagined that the crossing of the river would be provided by helicopter landings, which would be supported by a massive air offensive. After that, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers will calmly cross the ferry crossing to the bridgehead, captured by a helicopter assault.
    However, after 1991, many NATO military leaders, having familiarized themselves closely with our military air defense equipment (with Tunguskas and Strela-10, with Tors and Buks), changed their faces very much, because they understood that our design thought did not stand still, and besides, the characteristics of the same "Osa-AKM" were very different for the better from the export versions of the complex. Like the homing heads "Strela-1M" and "Strela-10M" in our army were much more effective than those of export samples.
    After that, new computer simulations were made and, with relief, they realized that they had not climbed correctly with drafts naked. Because any operation to land a helicopter landing on a coast occupied by Soviet troops would lead to the extermination of at least half of this landing still in the air. Just because the American fire support helicopters, whose armor was calculated under protection from the 23x115 mm ZSU-23-4 Shilka projectile, were easily cut in half by a 30-mm ZSU 2S6 Tunguska projectile. Like transport helicopters, they simply turned into a sieve of missiles fired by the Tunguska.
    As a result, NATO then, in the early 90s, recognized that any large water obstacle in the way of their troops would become insurmountable due to the small number of floating armored vehicles, and the air-ground operation was doomed to failure if the military air defense of the Soviet the army would not have been suppressed until the last ZSU or launcher of the air defense system.
    That is why all infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers of the Soviet army were required to be able to overcome water obstacles by swimming.
    Naturally, in conditions when they imagined that the enemy would be exclusively the notorious "international terrorism", when they imagined that there would be no front line by definition, that the enemy would not have any defense along the banks of water barriers, songs started up, but fuck the BMP / BTR the ability to swim.
    Now let's think about how we can cross the Dnieper without floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, if anything. On rafts, like in 1943?
  40. +2
    5 January 2023 20: 57
    I think many here finally don’t know, and the author, apparently, has knowledge of the BMP 3 read on the Internet, and earlier in military schools where they trained commanders for a platoon of marines, motorized rifle and airborne assault units, they knew what the buoyancy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers was for, why on the BMP 3 and on all types of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers 80 they installed course machine guns, for which variable ground clearance is needed on the infantry fighting vehicle 3 and infantry fighting vehicles.
    Course machine guns are needed to create dense fire during the landing, in front of enemy trenches.
    Buoyancy is needed to overcome water obstacles, as well as to disembark from a ship during amphibious naval operations. By the way, about overcoming water obstacles there, just the BMP 3 and BMD 4 swam over the flooded areas and went to the rear during the fighting near Kyiv.
    Regarding the change in clearance, this function is very useful when the car is in a trench and then the shelling of the car sat on its belly and all the fragments passed by, or when to shoot and hide behind a hillock or while in a trench.
    Regarding the launch of ATGMs from the barrel, the author, have you ever wondered how things are going with firing from ATGMs on BMP 2, but what about BMP 2 on the same BMP Marder or BMP Bradley? And here I will answer you, it’s very sad, because in order to reload the installation of ATGMs and ATGMs on BMP 2, BMP Marder, BMP Bradley, gunners, operators are forced to climb out of the hatch to reload ATGMs, but on BMP 3, the gunner operator does not go anywhere and is protected by armor.
  41. 0
    7 January 2023 15: 02
    Good article. Yab added on his own behalf - that when modernizing equipment, there are usually rarely good decisions. They write that it’s bad that there is no DZ on the BMP3, but there are 2 guns. And what we see - on the American Bradley - there is a remote sensing gun, but mobility is reduced and only a small caliber cannon. Which leads to the thought - that with Armata, all the same, for the 5th generation army, we initially need a new infantry fighting vehicle - the same Kurgan. In my understanding, there should already be a clear division - for all ground units - tanks and armored personnel carriers with remote sensing and other types of protection, for landing troops - yes, there are ordinary light infantry fighting vehicles and tanks without it.
  42. 0
    28 January 2023 13: 50
    And how many times have the nationalists lost Stugnas in vain attempts to hit a tank or infantry fighting vehicle rushing at full speed?

    __________<

    that's for sure? where is the wood from?
  43. 0
    1 February 2023 10: 16
    The author is right that the ability to fly and swim is not so obvious. Perhaps it makes sense to leave a certain percentage of cars that float and fly, for example, 25-30%, and do the rest in the “light” version. We definitely need to raise awareness of the situation.
  44. 0
    9 February 2023 19: 01
    The ability to swim has never stopped anyone. but to fly - here for an amateur)