Differences between BMP and BTR

Many mistakenly believe that an armored personnel carrier is a lightly armored vehicle on a wheeled chassis designed to transport infantry, and an infantry fighting vehicle is the same lightly armored vehicle, only tracked.

However, the division by type of chassis is actually far from always respected. In the USSR, models of armored personnel carriers with a tracked chassis were produced, for example, the BTR-50 and BMD-1. The most common armored personnel carrier model in the world is also the American tracked M113, the total circulation of which exceeded 80 copies. On the basis of the M113, an infantry fighting vehicle was produced, which is in service with a number of countries. There are also wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, for example, the South African Ratel infantry fighting vehicle. You can also note the MAV wheeled infantry fighting vehicle in service with the Canadian army, the Finnish Patria infantry fighting vehicle, as well as a number of models produced in other countries.

Despite the fact that infantry fighting vehicles were produced on both sides of the Iron Curtain, the formal division into armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles outside the former USSR and the countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact appeared only in the 90s. The legal criteria for distinguishing armored personnel carriers from infantry fighting vehicles were formed only in 1990 during the preparation of an agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe. On the day of its signing in November 1990, the total number of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the Warsaw Pact countries was 43 units, the European countries that were part of the NATO military bloc at that time had 378 units of this type of equipment. Thus, the Warsaw bloc was almost 33 thousand units superior to NATO forces in this indicator. However, the Soviet negotiators stated that the forces of the NATO bloc in Europe exceed the forces of the Warsaw Pact in terms of the number of infantry fighting vehicles they have in service. NATO replied that they did not separate armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, after which it was decided to introduce and legally fix a clear division into types of combat vehicles.

The only criterion separating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles was the presence of artillery weapons. Thus, if a vehicle is equipped only with machine guns, then according to the international classification it is considered an armored personnel carrier, regardless of the type of chassis. If the vehicle has a cannon, then it is considered an infantry fighting vehicle. However, this criterion is not always met, as, for example, in the case of the BTR-90 that did not go into the series or the Ukrainian BTR-3.

Comments

[voice of reason]

Sometimes, in order to move forward, you have to go back to the roots. Now, in the course of the SVO, there was an acute shortage of vehicles for transporting personnel to the LBS. We are talking about the delivery of reinforcements, BC, the removal of the wounded. often this function is performed by "Urals" and even "Kamaz". the fact is that most of the equipment has to be repaired in the field and "people with experience" performing the role of mechanics in the field are usually multifunctional. Who is versed in Kamaz, who is in the Urals. some in both, but there are fewer of them. For those who do not understand, Kamaz trucks are often in better condition and there are spare parts for them, but the design itself is not suitable - the awning is higher and the left front wheel is located directly under the cab, which in the event of a mine collision leads to guaranteed losses. Sometimes such a function is performed by UAZ "tablets" - they are roomy, passable, maintainable and functional. it remains to be regretted that they are not armored and the same curse of a flat cockpit. There are not enough armored vehicles. Like those Urals in factory armor that the National Guard has, or at least armored kungs for transporting personnel. one can only dream of mass saturation with "lenses" that the army still has, and this gives hope that over time the flywheel of the military-industrial complex will spin up ...

[atos_kin]

If the vehicle has a cannon, then it is considered an infantry fighting vehicle.

If the barrel is 20 mm and above, then this is already a gun. Armored personnel carriers are dying out as a class.

[Glory1974]

If the barrel is 20 mm and above, then this is already a gun.

and some believe that 15 mm and above the gun.

Armored personnel carriers are dying out as a class.

The armored personnel carrier is an armored transporter. It seems to be the other way around, it is reborn and developing. They are trying to make all the equipment armored, used for transport purposes.

[Arbeiternegast]

I heard that a cannon differs from a machine gun in the type of projectile fired - if with a leading belt, then a cannon, if a shell projectile (bullet), then a machine gun. It seems to be so. But I won't claim

[vovochkarzhevsky]

In general, BMP is a further development of the concept of armored personnel carriers. And the main difference is that in addition to the function of the armored personnel carrier, namely, the delivery of the unit to the battlefield, the infantry fighting vehicle is capable of supporting it in battle. Exactly so according to Soviet tactical science.

[Materialist]

The BMP concept stems from the BTR concept, but is not its development, but a function-separating addition

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Where is the division of functions in the BMP? Everything is the same as the armored personnel carrier, plus the possibility of support on the battlefield.

[AAC]

Who cares? As a "passenger" I like the BTR-80A more than the BMP-3. Leaving her is easier.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

The technique differs in purpose and often in the staff of the department.
Although now more and more the border is erased.

[Dgdenis]

BTR and BMP merge into one class. Since neither infantry fighting vehicles nor armored personnel carriers can really resist tanks. It is a fact . Either another tank or a terminator can help this

[Sergei N 58912062]

Now the border between infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is practically erased.

[Farewell]

The M113 seems to have been considered an armored personnel carrier all its life, and not an infantry fighting vehicle.