Why such light infantry fighting vehicles?

209
Why such light infantry fighting vehicles?

Squat armored vehicles break into the water and swim towards the enemy ...

In practice, this ability has not yet come in handy anywhere. However, if you dig into stories as follows, there will be unique examples. The most famous episode that confirmed the value of floating armored vehicles, ironically, happened in the middle of the desert in the Middle East.



Only seven tanks The PT-76, supported by the BTR-50P, managed to turn the tide of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict. An Israeli unit unexpectedly crossed the Suez Canal at its widest point, where no one expected the appearance of armored vehicles. The capture of a bridgehead on the western bank of the Suez led to the disorganization and further defeat of the entire Egyptian group in the Sinai.

"Cardboard" armor


There is a misconception that the weak security of domestic infantry vehicles and combat vehicles is entirely related to their ability to swim. The allegedly unjustified desire of the military to get floating armored vehicles forced the designers to sacrifice other characteristics. The result is light bulletproof armor and high vulnerability.

However, the source of the problem should be sought elsewhere.

Buoyancy is, without a doubt, a useful quality for military equipment. And when we are talking about domestic infantry fighting vehicles, the presence of buoyancy there did not affect security in any way. At least enough so that it could cause the armor to be thinned to completely indecent values.

Water Sports


According to the law of Archimedes, the value of the buoyant force is determined by the volume of the displaced fluid. The body can have any mass. Theoretically, you can build a floating Abrams. That's just the size of the amphibious "dreadnought" on tracks is unlikely to allow it to be used as an MBT.

For lighter armored vehicles, this task has a solution for reasonable dimensions.

Therefore, we can observe the floating "Kurganets" with a combat weight of 25 tons.

There are many other examples in the list of floating armored vehicles. BMP K21, adopted by South Korea. Finnish "Patria", Taiwanese "Yunpao", Chinese BMP "Type 04".

And the main heavyweights of this list are combat vehicles created on the basis of the unified Boomerang wheeled platform.


The party said: "We must!". Korean designers have found a solution for the 26-ton floating K21


The moment in the illustration is self-explanatory. Here, the most modern and heavy modification of the Patria AMV28 is in the lead role, whose index directly indicates the value of the combat mass

What should I look for?

All of the listed samples of armored vehicles have a mass of 25 to 30 tons. At the same time, all of them are capable of crossing water barriers with minimal training (or without training), developing a speed of up to 10 km / h afloat.

The American Bradley infantry fighting vehicle stands apart. But even this example was no exception. "Bradley" of the first modifications (22+ tons) could participate in the races using special equipment.

The conclusion follows from what is observed. Every time the designers were faced with the task of combining buoyancy with high security indicators, the designers found a solution.

Domestic BMP-1/2 turned out to be so light (13-15 tons) not because they were forced to swim.

They were deliberately lightened to the minimum possible values.


BMP-1 was conceived as a Doomsday transport and combat vehicle. Easy, cheap, mass and therefore - ubiquitous.

After half a century armored vehicles created according to the same patterns continue to form the basis of the fleet of light armored vehicles in support of the infantry. BMP-1/2/3 are used in all forms in the combat zone. And this story has no end in sight.

The main cause and source of security problems is their extremely low mass. In the 60s, there was a justification for this - a bet on a large number of infantry fighting vehicles built with expected high losses in a nuclear conflict. With this calculation, some of the armored vehicles were obliged to survive and break through to the designated lines.

Despite the mass character and relative cheapness of these vehicles, the characteristics of the BMP-1 turned out to be well balanced. It was an advanced military development, containing the best technical solutions known at that time.

Everything that happened in the following decades has no worthy explanation.

The second and third generations of infantry fighting vehicles were created within the framework of the same calculations and ideas about a mass combat vehicle - originally from the early 60s. the last century. The second generation of the BMP-2 as a whole was a repetition of the BMP-1 with a modified armament. An even more modern BMP-3, which will also soon celebrate its half-century anniversary, has continued the traditions of its ancestors. 19 tons of combat weight - significantly less than any foreign BMP.

Extremely light armored vehicles are so well "registered" in their role that the rejection of it threatens with global changes in the appearance and organization of the Armed Forces. All these are very complex decisions and unjustified costs.

In the public space, when discussing light armored vehicles, there are constant calls to “abandon useless buoyancy” and increase the security of vehicles. Only in practice, this would mean replacing the BMP-1/2/3 with combat vehicles of the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang level. In other words, the conversation turns into a fantasy.

And buoyancy has nothing to do with it at all.

Numbers and objective indicators


At the height of the Cold War, the German military industry produced 2136 units of the Marder infantry fighting vehicle.

The United States, with the unlimited volume of its military budget, was able to purchase about 6000 Bradley combat vehicles of all modifications for the army.

As of 1994, the Russian ground forces were armed with 25 BMP-1 and BMP-2 units.
(silent scene)

About ten thousand more of these infantry fighting vehicles ended up in the countries of near and far abroad.


If Soviet infantry fighting vehicles had the weight of the Marder and had the same design as the Bradley, they would not have been able to appear in such unexpected numbers. We will talk about some obvious differences between domestic and foreign infantry fighting vehicles, and what impact this had on the cost of production / operation - we will talk a little lower.

Here it is worth paying attention to another point.

So many Soviet infantry fighting vehicles were produced that it was tempting to use them everywhere, for any task. Specialized and well-armed vehicles with a special set of qualities eventually turned into ordinary vehicles in the war zone. They can be found everywhere - when clearing settlements, as part of patrols and marching columns. Alone and in battle groups. Rushing along the roads, crowded everywhere on the roadsides, at crossings and roadblocks.


If on a certain day we wait for changes, and the long-awaited Kurganets-25 finally appears in combat units, I risk suggesting that the new infantry fighting vehicles will be used only for their intended purpose. For joint operations with heavy armored vehicles in the hottest sectors of the front.

The economy must be economical


Combat weight - 13,6 tons.

Under the same conditions on a dirt road, the BMP-1 consumed three times less fuel than the American Bradley BMP.

At first glance, the figure of 100 l / 100 km looks scary for modern motorists. But here we are talking about specialized armored vehicles of the second half of the twentieth century.

100 l / 100 km is a very unusual value, uncharacteristic for tracked armored vehicles.

For comparison: the "Bradley" of the first modifications according to the directory had a consumption of 0,75 miles per gallon, that is, over 300 liters per 100 km.


The presence of an automatic transmission in the Bradley cannot be the main and only explanation for its high "voracity" compared to the BMP-1. The main reason is more than 22 tons of combat weight of the American vehicle.

Lightweight and economical infantry fighting vehicles allowed the Soviet Armed Forces to get by with fewer tankers.

Simplified supply and repair.

The low weight gave significant advantages when using all types of transport and handling equipment. Any truck tractor could handle the transportation of the BMP along the highway. And for evacuation in combat conditions, the same light BREM-2, created on the basis of the BMP-1, was enough.

From the standpoint of army logistics, Soviet-style infantry fighting vehicles were simply ingenious creations of design thought. Therefore, they are still kept in service in large quantities. And they are not going to change anything.

How to fight on "cardboard" armored vehicles?


To the dismay of all those who have already prepared to lash out with criticism, the conversation will go in other tones.

First of all, it is worth noting that the BMP-1 was put into service 15 years earlier than the American Bradley. The world's first mass-produced infantry fighting vehicle. Created in accordance with the doctrine of total nuclear war.

In the frontal projection, the thickness of the BMP armor provided reasonable protection against the means that were in service with the NATO infantry in the first half of the 60s.

According to canonical ideas about the tactics of using infantry fighting vehicles, the landing should have been dismounted at a distance not closer than half a kilometer from enemy positions. At this distance, the vehicle was still invulnerable to machine-gun fire and was beyond the effective range of grenade launchers and recoilless rifles.

The main threat to the BMP was the enemy tanks. For this reason, the composition of weapons was chosen based on the fight against armored vehicles. Anti-tank missile system "Malyutka" - paired with a 73-mm gun "Thunder", which fired rocket-propelled grenades. "Thunder" served to cover the "dead zone" of the ATGM.

On the side of the BMP were its low mass and high mobility. Which, coupled with a squat silhouette, made such a car an even more difficult target and a dangerous adversary.

The BMP-1 was created for specific conditions and tactics of use, which revealed all the advantages of this machine. From the harmonious concept, only the layout with the active placement of the landing was knocked out.

In the previous article, this point did not find understanding among the public. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify what is at stake. Photos from NATO exercises, where the heads of panzergrenadiers with machine guns at the ready stick out of the hatches of the Marders, have little to do with what the designers of the BMP-1 conceived. Soviet motorized rifles were supposed to fire directly from their regular places through the loopholes in the sides.

It is difficult to say how this could be used in practice, taking into account all the above circumstances and the “cardboard” sides of the BMP.

As for buoyancy. With those values ​​​​of the combat weight and internal volume of the hull, designed to accommodate a crew and troops of 7 people, the ability to stay afloat for this machine was no longer a hard condition, but a given physical laws.

With the development of surveillance equipment, fire adjustments and the saturation of the battlefield with heavy infantry weapons, the concept of the BMP-1 ceased to meet the times. The troops could not be landed a kilometer away in an open field - they could be quickly destroyed. In turn, the car itself was not designed to deliver paratroopers to the "most inferno". On close approaches, it is vulnerable to all types of weapons, with the exception of hand-held rifles. weapons.

Even less such vehicles were prepared for assault operations in populated areas. The new armament of the BMP-2 and BMP-3 does not remove the issue of security from the agenda.

Attention to the protection of only one frontal projection does not contribute to protection against fragments of artillery shells arriving from any direction. Fragments of a 152-mm high-explosive scatter at a speed of over a kilometer per second. At short distances (tens of meters), they surpass the bullets of heavy machine guns in terms of penetrating power.

By the end of the last century, the combat zone began to be shot through by artillery and MLRS to a depth of tens of kilometers. Cars can be covered by fire at any time, at the crossing or on the march as part of a column. To avoid unjustified losses, armored vehicles require high-quality armor.

Technique for wars past and future


As examples of real-life BMP models testify, an increase in combat weight to a value of 25 tons or more does not lead to an immediate loss of buoyancy. But the most important thing appears. Such mass indicators for infantry fighting vehicles mean the presence of anti-ballistic armor in all projections. This provides protection against most threats in the combat zone - which, in the case of the BMP-1/2/3, would mean the loss of a combat vehicle.


The abandonment of buoyancy opens up further prospects for increased protection. The German BMP "Marder" half a century ago had a combat weight of about 30 tons. The latest modifications of the Bradley have grown fat to 34 tons. The Swedish "Stritsfordon-90" overcame the milestone of 35 tons.

Looking at others, one should not dismiss the idea of ​​floating armored vehicles with disdain. No one knows how and when it might come in handy in a war zone.

Still, one should be aware that any attempt to use floating technology has numerous limitations. Being lighter than water is only half the battle.

The ability of the machine to go into the water or enter the unprepared shore is determined by the slope of this shore, as well as the bearing properties of the soil (sand, silt, rocky bottom). The threat is the situation when the wheels / tracks have not yet properly engaged with the ground - and the jet has already stopped working. Research on this topic argues that the problem of choosing places suitable for safe entry / exit from the water makes the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbfloating armored vehicles unsuitable for real conditions.

The easiest way to do this task is with the light BMP-1/2. In addition, infantry fighting vehicles, unlike armored personnel carriers, do not have a water cannon - movement afloat is provided by rewinding the tracks. The caterpillar drive also provides better traction on slippery bottoms. However, these positive aspects do not atone for the negative impact of extremely light armor.

What qualities or their combination will be put at the forefront when creating a promising Russian infantry fighting vehicle? The answer to this question is already the floating 25-ton Kurganets and the 30-ton floating VPK-7829 Boomerang.
Our news channels

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

209 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +20
    February 20 2023
    the main problem is that the former leadership of the Ministry of Defense was fixated on the airborne landing of equipment ... because of this, we have a lot of equipment with very conditional armor, although the prospects for landing, as practice has shown, are slightly less than completely absent ... so it's all thanks to the general idiocy reigning in the Ministry of Defense ...
    1. +13
      February 20 2023
      Quote: Krilion
      the main problem is that the former leadership of the Ministry of Defense was fixated on the airborne landing of equipment ... because of this, we have a lot of equipment with very conditional armor, although the prospects for landing, as practice has shown, are slightly less than completely absent ... so everything is thanks to the reigning in the Ministry of Defense to general idiocy ...

      The landing concerned only aluminum infantry fighting vehicles and others. The BMP-1/2 was developed in the Soviet Union, they are made of cardboard due to the desire to save on weight and cost. Accordingly, their fragment of a 152 mm shell sews into the side. The troops inside the BMP-1/2 are afraid to ride, but on the armor is also not an option if the enemy has artillery.
      1. +34
        February 20 2023
        The landing concerned only aluminum infantry fighting vehicles and others. The BMP-1/2 was developed in the Soviet Union, they are made of cardboard due to the desire to save on weight and cost.

        Alas, most can't see this simple idea until it's in bold red text.

        In the 60st century, using equipment created for the conditions of the XNUMXs, because of its cheapness, is a crime. And it shows real priorities
        1. +11
          February 20 2023
          Quote: Santa Fe
          In the 60st century, using equipment created for the conditions of the XNUMXs, because of its cheapness, is a crime.

          It is a crime to use museum BMP-1/2 in assaults. The photo shows that the landing party remained on the armor of the BMP-1 after being hit by fragments of a 152 mm projectile. If they were inside a cardboard box, the result would be the same + the risk of being blown up by an anti-tank mine.
          1. +2
            February 20 2023
            Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
            Quote: Santa Fe
            In the 60st century, using equipment created for the conditions of the XNUMXs, because of its cheapness, is a crime.

            It is a crime to use museum BMP-1/2 in assaults. The photo shows that the landing party remained on the armor of the BMP-1 after being hit by fragments of a 152 mm projectile. If they were inside a cardboard box, the result would be the same + the risk of being blown up by an anti-tank mine.

            Well, if a 152mm projectile flies into the roof of the Tank's turret, the result will be the same
          2. +8
            February 20 2023
            Oh really? That is, when issuing TTZ for infantry fighting vehicles, no one bothered to think about fragments of 152-mm shells?
            I must disappoint you, during the preliminary and state tests of the BMP-1, it was confirmed that fragments of a 155-mm projectile can penetrate its side armor when broken no further than 4 meters from the vehicle. In all other cases, the fragments did not penetrate the armor.
            1. +11
              February 21 2023
              So the joke of a 152 mm HE shell from four meters disables the tank barrel if it is without a barrel casing. I’ll tell you a secret in training, we fired at an imitation of a column on the march; T-54s were targets. During air breaks, all tanks had penetrations in the radiators, attachments were broken. There were also BMP-1s in the same row, they had penetrations and breaches in the armor. Then the command told us that the BMP-1 holds confidently close bursts of 82mm mines, their fragments have low energy. In the USA and the USSR, there were studies on this topic, the conclusions in them are not comforting HE shells 152 -155 are dangerous even for tanks, their fragments can permanently disable equipment.
              1. +5
                February 21 2023
                An excellent article and thanks to the author for raising a topic that is painful for our army. The fact that BMP Boomerang and BMP Kurganets are still not in the army is a crime of the leadership of the Moscow Region, which cost the lives of a huge number of our guys. The Ministry of Defense has long been investigating and severely punishing the perpetrators, along with replacing them with competent people and starting to purchase new infantry fighting vehicles.
                1. 0
                  April 15 2023
                  The Ministry of Defense has long been investigating and severely punishing the perpetrators, along with replacing them with competent people and starting to purchase new infantry fighting vehicles.


                  Well, without this blah blah, someone will finally simply indicate all these requirements in the technical specification for the product, and then they will not refuse these requirements when it turns out that they did not meet the deadlines and the complexity of production increased. Those. MO will indicate its Wishlist in the TK (without changing them a hundred times) with the involvement of technologists (for manufacturability of production) and you will be happy, everything is not as difficult as it seems.
                  As for my Wishlist, the BMP should hold a 30-40 mm projectile in the forehead and turret, hold 12,7 mm in the side projection and have an UAV operator in the crew, weapons are a topic for a separate discussion, but the automatic gun must work on the UAV in semi-automatic mode (the goal is to find and accompany in automatic mode, the operator fires).
                  1. 0
                    10 May 2023
                    Quote: user
                    Those. MO will indicate its Wishlist in the TK (without changing them a hundred times) with the involvement of technologists (for manufacturability of production) and you will be happy, everything is not as difficult as it seems.

                    Have you ever seen high-tech production, and the creation of a modern infantry fighting vehicle requires a lot of resources and technology. How can the Russian Federation not having its own modern electronics, mechanical engineering, instrumentation, etc. (and modern metallurgy, composites, engine building leaves much to be desired in the Russian Federation) will be able to create a world level? Without this, there is no way to fulfill the wishes of the military, and it makes no sense to lower the requirements for performance characteristics, since these requirements establish reality on the battlefield.
                    Quote: user
                    As for my Wishlist, the BMP should hold a 30-40 mm projectile in the forehead and turret, hold 12,7 mm in the side projection

                    I note that the BOPS 30mm MK30 on the Puma BMP penetrates at least 110mm of armor at 1000m, the Bofors 40 is already 140mm. When in the Russian Federation they talk about protection against 30mm guns, they mean 2A42, or 2A72 with their AP projectile, which has less than 50mm. For serious protection, the hull should be made of armored steels over 550 Binels, packages of armored steels 550-650 Binels. For example, a package of 2mm 550Bl + 5mm 650Bl + ceramic + 5mm again, there is a 1mm gap between the boards, let's say such a 20mm board has a higher ballistic, especially cumulative resistance than 30mm homogeneous armor. But there are nuances. In order to be able to make hulls from superhard steels, you need to be able not only to create such steel, but which is orders of magnitude harder, to be able to process it, bend it, weld it, and this is very difficult and expensive. I see the only right way, now, for the Russian Federation, this is the construction of a T-armored personnel carrier from old tanks, I don’t see a chance to bring Kurganets to mind, or T15 I don’t see a chance yet.
                    1. 0
                      10 May 2023
                      Quote: karabas-barabas
                      but it is very difficult and expensive.

                      What are you driving? I can catch up with you a bunch of specialists, but they won’t go, because their work is not appreciated, or no one needs it.
                2. 0
                  10 May 2023
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  An excellent article and thanks to the author for raising a topic that is painful for our army.

                  Yeah, but remember how many years after the Boomerangi-Kurgans stalled, a chorus of real business executives appeared who explained that the army did not need expensive and complex infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, it was better to have a lot and cheap and angry. They completely ignored the trend of all the armies of the world towards heavy infantry fighting vehicles with powerful SLAs and weapons, and indeed the domestic negative experience and criticism from the military in general.
            2. -1
              10 May 2023
              Quote: Tank DestroyerSU-100
              I must disappoint you, during the preliminary and state tests of the BMP-1, it was confirmed that fragments of a 155-mm projectile can penetrate its side armor when broken no further than 4 meters from the vehicle. In all other cases, the fragments did not penetrate the armor.

              That is, you want to say that in the USSR in the 60s the BMP fulfilled the NATO STANAG 5 standard, where we are talking about 25 meters, less than 25 does not matter the distance from the explosion of a 155mm projectile ???!! This is approximately the level of the BMP Puma in the Kombat 46T version of the weight. Maybe you didn’t notice 2 zeros, it was 400m? I also note that modern NATO shells, or let's say the West, tank universal ones, or from 25-40mm guns, or artillery, in addition to the steel shell itself, have hundreds to thousands of tungsten balls, 3-9mm, depending on the projectile, or warheads that fly up to speeds of 9 km / s at 360 ° and have very high armor penetration. BMP 1,2,3 there is nothing to do in the database from the word at all! The author also forgot to mention any mine protection and the inability to significantly strengthen it. While all heavy infantry fighting vehicles and MBTs of the West are designed to protect against anti-tank bottom mines, up to heavy IEDs, the years of Afghanistan and Iraq forced us to seriously think and work on this, in the Russian army all MBTs and BMPs / BTRs are still based on Soviet platforms, even which, as modern ones, represent the T-90M, BMP3M, BTR82 types, especially the expensive BMD4M, remained defenseless against mines as they were.
          3. +8
            February 21 2023
            It is a crime to use museum BMP-1/2 in assaults.


            If you choose: a-drive an infantry fighting vehicle, b-drive a truck, c-drive a car and f-walk. I think the choice is obvious. With weak protection, there is still patency, speed and firepower. Well, it's just stupid to refuse now, or to call it a crime to use this technique. The effectiveness of using any tool depends not only on one of the parameters of this tool, but also on the skill of the people using it.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -8
          February 20 2023
          No. Even the developed industry of the USSR could not produce the required number of heavy infantry fighting vehicles. On the contrary, modern conflict shows the correctness of decisions. Of course, total modernization is needed (the same nonsense also comes from the 70s), but it is the huge volumes of simple machines that allow us to fight and win even despite the fact that the entire NATO economy works for Ukraine. And it is their hunger with technology, and not ours ... That is, the equipment should be simple, cheap mass, but modern. Any attempt to bet on the "wunderwaffle", given the power of modern weapons, is an immediate loss in any major war ...
          True, this does not in any way deny the fact that heavy infantry fighting vehicles in a reasonable amount may be needed, but they will not even be 10% of the number of armored vehicles that are needed ...
          Heavy vehicles can be well up to 1000 pieces ... 500-600 in combat units, 100-200 in training and the rest in reserve, to compensate for losses.
          A heavy vehicle is an excellent weapon in local conflicts, when the enemy does not have serious means, of course they will save many lives. Yes, in major conflicts they can and should go with tanks in the same ranks, and develop success until the enemy has a unified defense system, and his broken units act scattered and cannot effectively deal with a large number of armored vehicles.
          In general, armored vehicles need 50-60 thousand for the army ... Well, you figure it out yourself. Not even the whole army, but there are about 400 people in the NVO zone ... At least half of the BMP / BTR is needed ... Total 000 units ... Here the BMP-20000 and BTR 1 could be produced and 80 and 20000 and 40000, and even the powerful American Bradley economy produced only 60000 pieces ...
          1. +12
            February 20 2023
            So, tens of thousands of tanks could, but the T-BMP is already beyond the capabilities of Soviet industry, right?
            It can allow fighting, as it turned out, even a pickup truck with a machine gun, but who are you going to defeat with this and at what cost?
            How do you imagine modernization? We take a car whose survivability in combat tends to zero, "modernize" it, whatever that means, and on that, does it become more survivable or what? If you cannot ensure the survivability of the infantry, which conducts absolutely all offensives, then there can be no talk of victories by increasing the cost of cardboard vehicles, the only thing you will achieve is a more significant loss of each of them, for example, due to the installation of "expensive" (after all, it is important for you in order to spend less money) of the combat module, it will be more significant, moreover, each modification of this machine just requires its rise in price to increase the effectiveness of its weapons
            Regarding the article, which, according to the canons, extols the defense of Kurganets and Boomerang over all their predecessors (the difference in their masses, after all, is really different by orders of magnitude, by as much as 10 tons ("!!!"), nothing but "another pearl of ignorance", there is nothing to say
            1. +2
              February 20 2023
              Quote: Materialist
              Regarding the article, which, according to the canons, extols the defense of Kurganets and Boomerang over all their predecessors (the difference in their masses, after all, is really different by orders of magnitude, by as much as 10 tons ("!!!"), nothing but "another pearl of ignorance", there is nothing to say

              It's about 10 times the order of magnitude. Before you blame anyone for ignorance, you need to have brains.
              1. 0
                February 20 2023
                Here I tried with three exclamation marks, as if by chance, to hint at irony, the orders of mass difference between the early t-72 and t-90M are the same ("humiliation of the difference")
            2. +1
              February 20 2023
              I think 8-12 tons of added weight with an engine boosted to 400-430 l / s, YaMZ and Kamaz have such an engine, the infantry fighting vehicle will not lose much in mobility and will receive anti-fragmentation armor, the sea of ​​hanging screens to choose the right one is not a problem-problem-time and bourgeois economy .. As practice shows, everything is found immediately, but at horse prices it’s bad (put an obscene amplifier yourself) suitable for mass production
              1. +1
                February 20 2023
                On the yamza is the Bosch injection pump and the turbine Made in the Czech Republic ebu made rank On the KAMAZ is the internal combustion engine Kamens injection pump Bosch turbine Bosch ebu chinese! How not to master, but all of our production depends on the "enemy" manufacturer and commercial friend!
                1. +1
                  February 24 2023
                  Now, if we imagine such a situation at a meeting with Comrade Stalin, in September - October 1941, and the People's Commissar of Heavy Industry reports:
                  Quote: Sergey Dvornikov
                  On the yamza is the Bosch injection pump and the turbine Made in the Czech Republic ebu made rank On the KAMAZ is the internal combustion engine Kamens injection pump Bosch turbine Bosch ebu chinese!

                  How many hours after such a report will this people's commissar and several of his colleagues in related people's commissariats live?
              2. 0
                February 21 2023
                If we are already discussing promising armored vehicles, then out of touch with reality
                Anti-fragmentation armor is not enough for any front-line vehicle, you need anti-ballistic, large-sized protection for the forehead, sides and roof, most likely this will require overcooking the tank cart, moving the engine to the forehead, placing infantrymen practically in a lying position in the center, it will be necessary to do it at an angle of the side ( preferably passing into the roof, that is, a sloping roof, due to its large projection, you will have to thoroughly book it, completely exclude any fighting compartment for the sake of the voluminous airborne compartment, but do not get hung up on capacity, use the standard T-72 hull, without additional rollers
                1. 0
                  April 13 2023
                  Quote: Materialist
                  If we are already discussing promising armored vehicles, then out of touch with reality
                  Anti-fragmentation armor is not enough for any front-line vehicle, you need anti-ballistic, large-sized protection for the forehead, sides and roof, most likely this will require overcooking the tank cart, moving the engine to the forehead, placing infantrymen practically in a lying position in the center, it will be necessary to do it at an angle of the side ( preferably passing into the roof, that is, a sloping roof, due to its large projection, you will have to thoroughly book it, completely exclude any fighting compartment for the sake of the voluminous airborne compartment, but do not get hung up on capacity, use the standard T-72 hull, without additional rollers

                  Here are examples of converting tanks into infantry fighting vehicles:
                  1) Ukrainian version.

                  2) Jordanian version - BMP AB-14 TEMSAH, BMP HIFV.


                  3) Israeli version - BTR "Akhzarit", BMP "Namer".

            3. -2
              February 20 2023
              Is this news to you? Yes exactly. I could not. She produced about 1 thousand BMP-20s and still failed. BMP is a vehicle for one platoon.

              Quote: Materialist
              It can allow fighting, as it turned out, even a pickup truck with a machine gun, but who are you going to defeat with this and at what cost?

              And you need tank armor for the crew and troops. Have you tried to estimate how much such a car will weigh? 3-seater tanks of the USSR weigh about 15 tons per person. NATO tanks weigh about the same. The BMP has 3 crew members and 6 troops. 9 people. By "tank standards" such a machine should weigh 90 tons. Do you think the USSR was capable of producing 20 thousand 90-ton infantry fighting vehicles? Or maybe the United States is capable of mass-producing 90-ton machines? Now they are preparing to make a new BMP there. The project looms at least 50 tons. So let's see: mass TBMP is real in general in principle in this world. Or is it a product of the sick imagination of Internet Yksperts who believe that people who went through the Second World War did not know exactly how to bring infantry to the line of contact.
              1. -1
                February 21 2023
                Read all my comments, it explains what an infantry fighting vehicle is and why to produce a combat and transport vehicle in one bottle is archaism
              2. 0
                February 21 2023
                Yes bourgeois yes. They will now think and begin to modernize their abrams and there are 10k of them. Repeat the experience of the Israelis. The car is very large and secure.
              3. 0
                February 21 2023
                I need? How many BMP-1,2,3 USSR could produce 40,50 thousand in total? This is taking into account the fact that cars of several series were produced in parallel, but why? There could be no expediency of such wastefulness, the factories at that time already relied only on profit and were guided by capitalist principles of production, the country's leadership was not able to correct this, the military, who were guided by voluntaristic aspirations, set the tone for the improvement of armored vehicles
                No promising combat vehicle (although this is only an insignificant fraction of all those things that are inappropriate for discussion due to feasibility) in the present system, it will not bring profit, and military pressure can also be exerted with outdated equipment
                Do not compare the specific habitable volume of a tank and a potential BTR-T, the fighting compartment of the former takes up 3/4 of the internal volume, while the latter simply does not have it
                Are the United States capable of producing 90-ton BM? -Yes, they are, but they don’t need it, because they have the basis of the concept of armored vehicles, its sane transportability by aviation, although the main reason is much more pleasant investment goals for capitalists
                Without their transportable army, the United States will not be the central, "metropolitan" capitalist state that it is now, there is, was, and will be a very important lever of foreign policy for some time
                There will be no TBMP, those who want to build it will go bankrupt, but the BTR-T-will be on existing, not adapted machines, but on promising ones, unified in terms of nodes and elements
                People who went through the Second World War lived almost a hundred years ago, or do you deny economic progress, and even in that sector of it, which makes it possible to tame any state, unleash a war for the interests of the ruling class with any of the desired outcomes, even if all this is in such a spontaneous nature distribution of commodities, all previous formations were more reactionary, but succeeded in their own development?
              4. +4
                February 24 2023
                The main thing is not to produce 90-ton cars, but for them to go somewhere ...
                Can you imagine how much salary consumption is for 90 ton cars, even to hell with it for 50 ton ones ... Let's remove the turret from the T-90 m instead of it, we will plant troops ... And how many fuel trucks do you need to feed these vehicles based on tanks ... And how many drivers these fuel trucks? And what forces are needed to provide these fuel trucks with survivability from artillery and drone fire, ambushes? If the fuel consumption in the army doubles, then tankers should be increased at least 2 times, and the forces to cover them should be tripled ... As a result, the army will not fight, but will try to protect the tankers, which will stretch into huge columns and be an excellent target. ..
                Logistics is important for war, the technical difference between weapons, of course, while maintaining the same technical level with the enemy as a whole, plays little role ... But the destruction of logistics, the failure to supply troops with both food, fuel and ammunition leads to disaster ... The difference between AKM and ak-12 or German xk-416 in battle, figs and nifiga, just like between t-64 and t-90 ... Yes, one is more perfect than the other, but it does not go to any comparison, like the difference is fuel or not. A soldier is full or has not eaten anything for 3 days, is healthy or with frostbitten limbs, a tank is sparse and has or does not have shells.
                Does the fighter with AKM have ammo or not?
                No special forces will do anything to a soldier with AKM if he does not have BC, and the guy with AKM has BC ...
                Therefore, reducing the mass of vehicles, reducing the burden on logistics, and creating economical engines is very important precisely in major conflicts. In police operations, monsters of 100 tons in weight can also be used to protect lives and this will be justified.
                1. -3
                  February 24 2023
                  In general, do you want to wage war in small cars?
                  The war has always eaten up a lot of resources, either the appetite for a solarium will grow or you will drive on the "economical" BMP-1, with a one-way ticket
                  I suspect that it is more expensive to constantly compensate for the losses of combat vehicles with all devices, armored hulls, crews than to deliver fuel in sufficient quantities
                  I didn’t consider logistics at all, I already wrote that, with an eye to the current situation in the army, promising developments can only be considered as spherical in a vacuum, or everything at once, comprehensively, ash stump is either a gluttonous machine, or an economical one, but it’s very suddenly dying
              5. 0
                March 2 2023
                Didn't take into account how many tons of reservations are needed for an automatic loader? Or like this: how many tons should be attributed to the placed ammunition of tank 120/125 mm rounds? )
          2. +13
            February 20 2023
            You misunderstood, the entire NATO economy is not yet in the service of Ukraine. At the moment, weapons stored in warehouses and some weapons for field testing have been provided. Gun manufacturers are ready to go, they just want to know exactly who is paying. Then if it does, you will see what the production levels are.
            1. +4
              February 20 2023
              You are right, they simply and shamelessly liberated their sites from the Soviet legacy, to replace them with regular NATO ones, though they didn’t regret the guns, they slept in excess and put rear weapons piece by piece
            2. 0
              February 20 2023
              I'm afraid then no one will see anything, we will run with self-propelled guns in the radioactive desert.
          3. +3
            February 20 2023
            even despite the fact that the entire NATO economy works for Ukraine.

            I hasten to disappoint you. The NATO economy does not even notice these supplies
            For them, it's bullshit.
            even the powerful American Bradley economy produced only 7000 pieces ..

            They don't need more. LS is not enough for that.
            -required:
            In WW2, the construction of Liberty-type transports was guarded by ships faster than the Germans / Japanese could sink them. 3 units per day, 2770 ships throughout the war.
            One B-24 ~ in 1 hour, 63 minutes, a brand new B-24 rolled out of the gates of the assembly shop. Up to +/- 600 bombers per month.
            And these tins will (if necessary) be produced in volumes up to 50% of car production (even the USSR did not dream of such a circulation, I will not say anything about the Russian Federation)
            1. -1
              February 20 2023
              What are you ... Of course, tin cans with a gun can be riveted without a SDA and other crap with simple optics in such quantities, as I remember the production of civilian cars collapsed due to covid, so not everything is so simple.
              1. +1
                February 20 2023
                civilian auto production collapsed due to covid, so not everything is so simple.

                Collapsed only on Russian TV
                -In 2019, the production of German cars fell to the lowest levels in the last 22 years (which is 9% less cars than in 2018). So, this year, factories produced 4,7 million cars, which is explained by weak demand ...
                Even before covid started.
                Covid is still a pandemic (who will not let you lie)
                Machine manufacturing
                in 2022 (January - December)
                3 (~585K more than in 549).
                Only Germany. Compare with Russia.
                And the tripe that goes in Suon is made in Taiwan.
                150-300 nm there (TMS) is no longer there.

                Yes, and they did not have such goals and objectives
            2. +1
              February 24 2023
              That great industrial America that was capable of such feats is long gone and will not appear at the snap of its fingers. So there is no need to scare us - there is nothing.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          4. +3
            February 24 2023
            Reading expert commentators there is a strange feeling. If you fight to the fullest using all means of destruction other than nuclear weapons (many people stutter about many things, but they really can’t croak anything)
            When used against modern MBT and aircraft means of destroying electronics, everything will be turned into scrap metal, and very expensive. What efficiency will the same Kurgans and boomerangs have? And the BMP 1/2

            Armament should be high-tech, I agree ... but at the same time easy to handle like a Kalashnikov assault rifle.

            1. 0
              April 12 2023
              If you train soldiers for several years before being sent into battle, then you can also allow weapons that are difficult to handle.
          5. 0
            February 26 2023
            Georgy Sviridov_2 Your opinion is one of the rare - calm and reasonable!
          6. 0
            March 23 2023
            They do not have hunger, they methodically chose everything Soviet on their territory and began to supply their old weapons, and then they will begin to supply more modern ones. So our actions in using old stocks are quite understandable, new ones must also be used wisely avoiding senseless losses.
          7. 0
            April 12 2023
            Georgy Sviridov_2 No. Even the developed industry of the USSR could not produce the required number of heavy infantry fighting vehicles. On the contrary, modern conflict shows the correctness of decisions. Of course, total modernization is needed (the same nonsense also comes from the 70s), but it is the huge volumes of simple machines that allow us to fight and win even despite the fact that the entire NATO economy works for Ukraine. And it is their hunger with technology, and not ours ... That is, the equipment should be simple, cheap mass, but modern. Any attempt to bet on the "wunderwaffle", given the power of modern weapons, is an immediate loss in any major war ...
            True, this does not in any way deny the fact that heavy infantry fighting vehicles in a reasonable amount may be needed, but they will not even be 10% of the number of armored vehicles that are needed ...
            Heavy vehicles can be well up to 1000 pieces ... 500-600 in combat units, 100-200 in training and the rest in reserve, to compensate for losses.
            A heavy vehicle is an excellent weapon in local conflicts, when the enemy does not have serious means, of course they will save many lives. Yes, in major conflicts they can and should go with tanks in the same ranks, and develop success until the enemy has a unified defense system, and his broken units act scattered and cannot effectively deal with a large number of armored vehicles.
            In general, armored vehicles need 50-60 thousand for the army ... Well, you figure it out yourself. Not even the whole army, but there are about 400 people in the NVO zone ... At least half of the BMP / BTR is needed ... Total 000 units ... Here the BMP-20000 and BTR 1 could be produced and 80 and 20000 and 40000, and even the powerful American Bradley economy produced only 60000 pieces ... [/ quote]
        3. +4
          February 21 2023
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Alas, most can't see this simple idea until it's in bold red text.

          It is not enough to understand this, a solution is needed in the current conditions that would allow to wage war (current and nearest) using what the industry has in production (with the necessary corrections) and modernizing what is at the storage bases and in combat units.
          Therefore conclusions:
          - existing BMP-1 \ 2 to be reinforced with overhead armor plates and screens, sacrificing buoyancy and partially mobility, but dramatically increasing survivability. The result will be resistance to 12,7 or even 14,5mm bullets. and splinters.
          - as an infantry fighting vehicle for production, select the BMP-3M "Dragoon" \ "Manul" with armor and security at the level of "Kurganets-25", front placement of MTO and a convenient ramp for dismounting. The forehead and sides (with screens from "Kurgan") hold 30 mm. projectile, and the price is 3+ times lower than the price of "Kurganets" ... the industry is READY to produce them in series and in large volumes.
          - immediately begin work on the TBTR based on the hulls of old tanks from storage bases. Take the work of Kharkov designers of the 90s on the TBTR-55 and TBTR-64 ​​as a basis. With MTO in the front and a capacious, elongated troop compartment with a bevel in the rear and a convenient ramp for dismounting. If you correctly learn the lessons of Kharkov engineers, how to think through and calculate the technical process, not trying to do "SOMETHING", but to make the most SIMPLE TBTR with a combat module from the BTR-82A, tank level protection, dynamic protection of the forehead and sides with screens and an engine from previous versions T-72s, which are full in warehouses ... then all this work can be organized at one / a pair of tank repair plants (with the necessary retrofitting) without diverting the main capacities.
          - TBMP is NOT NEEDED - we already have the BMPT "Terminator", it is in the series, and if we establish advanced production of combat modules for it (Terminator), then from the T-72 of early versions ... and even the T-55 (!) You can make BMPT-72 and BMPT-55. There is such experience - Algeria has long purchased BMPT-72 "Terminator-2" from us in the amount of several hundred.

          All this must be done immediately, practically - yesterday and not spread "with a mouse (squirrel) on a tree" about "What would we invent \ develop \ cut like that." It is necessary to do only what we CAN do, HAVE EXPERIENCE, CAPACITY, RESOURCES and in LARGE QUANTITIES FOR REASONABLE MONEY.
          hi
        4. 0
          February 21 2023
          Unfortunately these are the realities, in the book Skunk Works there is such a conversation between Tupolev, Cooley Johnson and Ben Richard:

          Like true Skunk Workers, the aerospace industry as a whole must start thinking in new directions. Why build each new airplane with the care and precision of a Rolls-Royce? In the early 1970s, Kelly Johnson and I had dinner in Los Angeles with the great Soviet aerodynamicist Alexander Tupolev, designer of their backfire Bear bomber. “You Americans build airplanes like a Rolex watch,” he told us. “Knock it off the night table and it stops ticking. We build airplanes like a cheap alarm clock. But knock it off the table and still it wakes you up.” He was absolutely right. The Soviets, he explained, built brute-force machines that could withstand awful weather and primitive landing fields. Everything was ruthlessly sacrificed to cut costs, including pilot safety.


          If such an approach was used in relation to such an expensive resource as pilots, then what can we say about infantry and such a strategy also has its advantages, if you do not ask questions about losses and the cost of human life.
          1. +2
            February 21 2023
            Life in the war, even a pilot, even a tanker, even an infantryman - STATISTICS and resource accounting. Alas, with large numbers of armies and losses, one has to be guided precisely by statistics and the rate of decline, and the rate of training of fresh crews and fighters.
            And today, combat pilots have become "piece goods", in war conditions ... irreplaceable ... And this is some kind of game. Military pilots should be trained with a margin, and the strength of the Air Force should be calculated on the conditions of the war, and not ... the parade.
          2. 0
            April 15 2023
            This strategy also has its advantages.


            Well, if you don’t feel sorry for the personnel, then calculate the cost of losses in rubles and the preparation of a new contingent is also in rubles. Maybe then it turns out that saving personnel is not - women give birth to new ones, but a krendy of the economy.
    2. +17
      February 20 2023
      The main problem is that the magic is still not clear: we need different armored vehicles, both heavy and light. Depending on tasks.
      Hopes to get a "thick-armored" vehicle and hide "from everything" in it, with its inevitable slowness compared to a light infantry fighting vehicle, are illusions. Only a set of measures: mobility, small dimensions, armor adequate to the tasks, the use of camouflage systems, coupled with the right tactics, give success in security.
      They also fight in pickup trucks without any armor, and, sometimes, this is justified, it does not even cause disputes among interested citizens.
      1. -4
        February 20 2023
        Of course. Heavy vehicles are needed, especially in small conflicts, as they will greatly protect personnel. But even with such an undeveloped enemy as Ukraine (and they don’t have modern aviation, they don’t have modern art from the very beginning, shell hunger) we lost, according to various estimates, from 600 to 1600 tanks ... Ukraine lost about 3000 tanks ... What pancake should be an infantry fighting vehicle so as not to die? Is that based on the fantastic tank "mammoth" and that's not a fact ...
        The fact that security must grow is a fact. In the 70s, the enemy mainly had machine gun armament for armored vehicles, 20 and 25 mm guns ... Now machine guns as the main weapon remained only on jeeps, well, the same obsolete m113, and guns became not only the main armament, but also and 30-35 mm became the main caliber, and talk about the introduction of 40mm guns ... This is where we should start.
        The main combat vehicles must be protected from promising 40 mm cannons in the forehead and from heading angles at all distances ...
        From the sides under 90% 30mm, our and Western guns ... And such a machine should be mass-produced.
        Lighter vehicles, with good buoyancy for landing, marines, reconnaissance, all kinds of mountain brigades, the National Guard. These are also mass machines, but in specialized units.
        And heavy vehicles, the most protected, equal or even superior to tanks in protection, to equip tank divisions and brigades, heavy brigades (where there are 2 tank battalions and 2 motorized rifle battalions), as well as in limited quantities in special forces and the National Guard for use in asymmetric conflicts and counter-terrorist operations where heavy equipment is certainly justified as much as possible, as it allows you to win either without losses or with minimal ones. Although, I believe that once in such conflicts, it is logical to rely on robotic systems, since the enemy clearly does not have serious electronic warfare equipment and will not be able to drown out or, God forbid, take control of such systems, as well as re-engaging radio signals to strike on control points, as a technologically advanced adversary can do. Therefore, it is logical to transfer the National Guard, border guards, and other police special forces to robotic means, where the use of such complexes is justified, even with the current level of these robots.
        It is still difficult to switch to robots in the army - there is a high risk of enemy opposition - first of all, defeating command posts, even those located in the operational rear ... So robots, at least for now, can be used, but cannot become the main force in the army, yet.
        1. +2
          February 20 2023
          If the economy of a state cannot provide (and the economy of any modern bourgeois state could not, cannot and will never be able to) the proper number of combat vehicles capable of withstanding weapons of destruction that are widespread in the troops of a potential enemy, then it is not possible to talk about the ability of this state to win account for
          I don’t know where you get such beautiful and at the same time colossal numbers and I’ll leave the manipulations with them to you (Ukraine never had 3000 tanks and couldn’t have),
          An infantry fighting vehicle is a conceptually archaic vehicle, I already wrote below that the BMP branch has diverged into BMPTs and TBTRs, dividing two opposed to each other functions (transport and combat) of the BMP, therefore, there can be no talk of any "promising" BMP, at least in confrontation with an opponent who accepted this progress (with an equal technical level)
          Not a single tank (!) in the NWO meets the level of security due to the conditions, including the T-14 with its "anti-fragmentation" tower, they all come from the tank concept of the second half of the 20th century
          Is there still hope that a car with armor capable of holding back 80-centimeter crowbars and tandem ammunition can fit at least (!) In a mass of 50 tons? The 70-ton barrier was literally crossed, it won’t be easier, I’ve already heard about bridges and railway platforms, it’s not necessary to raise the logistics problem to the absolute, making it a priority, they are only needed to carry the necessary masses of cargo
          Increasing the caliber of autocannons to a large extent negates the very concept of the latter, so there is a very specific limit of 45-55 mm, when the ammunition reaches the orders of a tank gun and the advantage of the rate of fire is no longer extracted, it is clear that these are not "jumping" indicators, but the main advantage of the autocannon is ammunition and rate of fire, everyone who brings them up to 60 mm will have mediocre weapons that do not provide the advantages of either rate of fire or the highest one-time damage
          1. +2
            February 20 2023
            It is not true. During the division of the USSR, Ukraine got more than 5000 tanks ... About 2000 they had on the move at the time of the start of the NWO, plus trophies, plus supplies from other countries, plus the removal from storage of what else could be revived, plus, again, the repair of damaged equipment, if of course, the BC didn’t detail there ... So up to 3000 tanks, this is just more than a real figure. I never wrote exactly what 3000 was, I wrote up to 3000... According to various sources, this is from 2200 to 3500... I think that 2700-2800 is approximately close to the truth... The affected technique does not mean that it is in pieces shattered so there's nothing left. She ran into a mine, lost her roller and caterpillars ... Is this a Damaged car? Undoubtedly. But it is quite repairable. And there are many such machines that are 2-3 times after repair, and from all sides. Therefore, the numbers differ by as much as a thousand pieces.
            1. 0
              February 20 2023
              A stunning spread in beautiful full numbers, I don’t know what they put on the tracks, but a total of about 350 tanks came to them, how likely is it that several tank repair plants were able to supply at least 100 decommissioned vehicles and if so, what value do they represent?
              You can’t even mention the combat readiness of the captured vehicles, for each operational one there will be several donor ones, and you still need to take into account the resource of the nodes, which they can also only repair in a recipient way, at best
              By the way, with regard to the resource of any vehicles in general, initially combat-ready and deconserved, most of them are the T-64 and its overloaded modifications, they do not produce components, which means they also have to be repaired in a donor way, can Kharkov "suitcases" be repaired in this way for a long time?
              1. +4
                February 20 2023
                Quote: Materialist
                how likely is it that several tank repair plants were able to deliver at least 100 decommissioned vehicles, and if so, what value do they represent?

                There was a photo on the net of some factory in Ukraine, where wastelands were filled with tanks in storage. And then they all disappeared...
                So they could, no need to downplay the enemy, tea was not a Papuan country.
                1. 0
                  February 20 2023
                  I don’t deny that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have tanks, but in a number comparable to the capable number of tanks of the RF Armed Forces, it’s an exaggeration, you yourself understand the state of observation and fire control systems
                  There was recently news about a case of a rupture of the Pion barrel of the APU, presumably from wear
                  In any case, the only thing the Ukrainian military-industrial complex is capable of at the moment is the repair of "heavy" military equipment and the riveting of light armored cars, the production of trunks, carts, welded towers (large-scale) has never existed
                  They didn’t wonder why the Oplots hadn’t taken part in the battles so far, maybe, of course, I don’t know him, but if there was an application, would they definitely cover it? I will assume that due to issues of its maintenance in a combat-ready state, the remaining resource of the barrels, the condition of the engine
            2. +2
              February 20 2023
              During the division of the USSR, Ukraine got more than 5000 tanks ...


              Formally, much more. In 1991, 8700 tanks of the USSR departed to Ukraine according to the papers. Two Soviet tank armies (6 and 8).
              But in reality, they never had more than 3 thousand tanks.

              About 2000 of them were on the move at the time of the start of the NWO

              At the beginning of 2022, there were only 858 tanks in service and another 1132 were in storage.
              And "in storage" does not mean that "on the go."
          2. +3
            February 20 2023
            Quote: Materialist
            I don’t know where you get such beautiful and at the same time colossal numbers and I’ll leave the manipulations with them to you (Ukraine never had 3000 tanks and couldn’t have),

            In Ukraine, under the USSR, there were 3 military districts. These are three fronts. 9 combined arms armies. 27 divisions. 81 regiment. The infantry regiment of the USSR had a tank battalion in the state. 40 tanks. 3200 tanks is just the minimum. At the bare minimum. Provided that all the divisions there were motorized rifle divisions, there was not a single guards division. And this is not so.
            Plus. In Ukraine, there was a system of material support for the Western Group of Forces and warehouses for long-term storage of the strategic reserve. In addition to several tank repair plants and a tank plant in Kharkov. So not only could there be 3000 tanks there, there SHOULD be 3000 tanks and even more. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine, according to Western estimates, had perhaps the most powerful army in Europe.
            1. -1
              February 21 2023
              Everyone already understands that you like the number 3000, 32 years have passed since the collapse, but you are still in the era of "decomposition"
      2. +6
        February 20 2023
        The strategy has a big moment ... BMP 1-2 were created for a "throw" to LaMasha ... using extensive tactical nuclear weapons .... and forcing numerous water barriers in the EU.
      3. +4
        February 20 2023
        I fully support, it is necessary to calculate the appropriate proportions, how many light and heavy infantry fighting vehicles are needed in the army and adhere to this golden mean!
      4. -1
        February 20 2023
        Since the time of the Royal Tiger, no one assumes a deliberate infringement of mobility for the sake of booking, 70-ton vehicles show significant speeds of 50-60 km / h, which is absolutely enough, given that armored vehicles do not need maximum speed but acceleration in the first place, the first one reached its limit back in the 20th century
        You can shoot and destroy anything at all, but only a progressive army of a progressive system can provide a balance in the qualities of combat vehicles, it is logical that direct fire collision vehicles (front-line echelon combat vehicles) need ultimate protection on a unified cart with both camouflage and complementary means of destruction , BMPs no longer have a place here, the branch of military equipment branched into BMPTs and TBTRs back in the USSR (no specific executions of the listed BMs are implied)
      5. +2
        February 20 2023
        We need an economy and industry that can pull all these Wishlist.
        Neither is observed.
    3. +3
      February 20 2023
      Quote: Krilion
      landing prospects, as practice has shown, are slightly less than completely absent ...

      Razvedos released a video on YouTube
      The death of the Airborne Forces
      . there, his co-host competently decomposed that the Airborne Forces, in the understanding of Margelov, are a corpse and that a reform of the Airborne Forces and the return of the concept of the Airborne Forces on Gostomel turntables are needed. There, the option was voiced that the creation of airborne equipment is not needed, since modern air defense and the Air Force will not allow heavy transport workers to break into the landing zone.
      I completely agree that the future of the Airborne Forces is brigades on turntables, essentially light infantry and elite units for reconnaissance and sabotage activities and anti-terror, capable of quickly being in any theater of operations.

      I remember that, unfortunately, in a duel situation, the BMD-4 tank was the last to lose to the tank in all cases of collisions.
      Unfortunately, this also applies to BMP - 3 crying with all my love for the BMP-3 and SPRUT. Opposite the BMD - 2, the BMP-2 with a berezhk and a bassoon showed the viability of this bunch of automatic guns with ATGMs.
      1. +9
        February 20 2023
        IMHO - the situation with light infantry fighting vehicles is very similar to the one from the SU-76 of the Second World War .. Which half mercilessly hates, and the other half considers very successful .. Or with battlecruisers from the times of WWI ..

        Because any commander who has received at least something armored is tempted to use it stupidly like a tank. Or if it is a cruiser - put it in line with battleships .. Despite the other characteristics that do not allow this. And then indignation - oh what kind of shit you slipped us ..
        1. +2
          February 20 2023
          Doesn't recall. The BMP family is already 60 years old, over the years they have gone through dozens of conflicts of various sizes and their problems are known, the problem is that we have nothing else in service with us, that’s why they are used, and in modern conditions these vehicles do not show themselves well, because were built for completely different realities. The SU-76 was indeed often used illiterately, because the level of infantry commanders was mediocre.
        2. +4
          February 20 2023
          IMHO - the situation with light infantry fighting vehicles is very similar to the one with the SU-76 of the Second World War ..

          No, it doesn't look like

          SU-76 was an ersatz and a necessity

          We have not made a 50-25 ton infantry fighting vehicle in 30 years
          Because extra costs. Women give birth to new ones, and a 25t car is too expensive and consumes more fuel
          1. +4
            February 20 2023
            And how will a 30-ton infantry fighting vehicle help you ?? It is unlikely to protect against ATGMs, all the more so from a tank shell .. If we change the concept, then to one that provides armor for infantry vehicles at the level of tanks. Accordingly, the weight.
            1. +2
              February 20 2023
              Quote: paul3390
              And how will a 30-ton infantry fighting vehicle help you ?? It is unlikely to protect against ATGMs, all the more so from a tank shell .. If we change the concept, then to one that provides armor for infantry vehicles at the level of tanks. Accordingly, the weight.

              I’ll tell you a secret from the side, even a tank is not very protected; there is no equipment with all-round protection of the ground forces; everything depends on mass and patency. modern takn has protection of only 40mm-50mm on the side and all hope for spacing and remote sensing. Scrap, if it pierces only the frontal armor in the forehead, then it often flashes from the side to take off. To increase the survivability of an infantry fighting vehicle, armor is needed that can withstand the standard remote sensing of the tank and spacing with ceramic inserts. Where the MTO will serve in front as an additional obstacle for BOPS and Cumulative. Also, a cumulative jet, if it breaks through and there is no ammo in the fighting compartment, increases the chances of landing an infantry fighting vehicle will not be subjected to high-explosive effects and only the jet itself and armor fragments will become a damaging factor. So the BMP turns out to get up in a mass of 30-35 tons. In our T-62 tanks, militants thrashed from a bumblebee in one crew sat with open hatches in the second, only those with closed hatches survived.
      2. +1
        February 20 2023
        Airborne units are needed. If only because of the theoretical possibility of conducting hostilities in remote areas of Russian territory that were attacked.
        1. +2
          February 21 2023
          Quote: Plover
          Airborne units are needed. If only because of the theoretical possibility of conducting hostilities in remote areas of Russian territory that were attacked.

          If a remote part of Russia does not have an air or ground connection with the country, then paratroopers will no longer help him. Because war is primarily supply.
          No one proposes to abandon air mobility - from the transfer of equipment by the "airfield-airfield" landing method, followed by advancement to the front line under its own power. This is exactly how, in fact, the Airborne Forces have been used for more than half a century.
          The question is different - why do the Airborne Forces need massive parachute-landing equipment? Refusal of parachute landing is 1,5-2 tons to the mass of the vehicle (due to the abandonment of the platform) and less stringent requirements for dimensions (again, due to the fact that we do not need to first squeeze the product onto the platform, and then the product along with the platform - in the cargo compartment).

          The main question is - how will we parachute the airborne troops? Why do we need three parachute divisions with military aviation for one regiment with standard equipment and supplies? I'm not talking about ensuring the landing ...
      3. 0
        February 20 2023
        Quote: insafufa
        the return of the DShB concept on the gostomel turntables. ...
        I completely agree that the future of the Airborne Forces is brigades on turntables


        Yes, sure. Now it's the 50s of the 20th century. Hand-held air defense systems are limited to heavy machine guns ...
        Oh, No! It is now the 20s of the 21st century. This means that the troops of our potential enemies are saturated with MANPADS above the roof. Optical-locating stations are easily placed in a jeep along with a launcher for several missiles. And the development of ATGMs has reached such a level that it is more than possible to shoot down a helicopter with its help.
        Even sighting systems of tanks are capable of hitting a helicopter with their main caliber.

        And here they are all so formidable and terribly smart, flying on heavy Mi-26 "teams on turntables." Helicopters in crowds, and in them are scary attack aircraft with light weapons. Nothing bigger than a grenade launcher and a mortar. And from the ground, enemies look at them with delight and admiration and feel their insignificance, throw MANPADS, ATGMs and scatter in a panic ...

        Seriously, can you imagine the losses that the landing "on turntables" will suffer when trying to land in the rear of any army of NATO countries? Just from infantry air defense systems. And what do you think, this landing will storm something without armored vehicles?
    4. -3
      February 20 2023
      Whoa whoa is easier couch analyst, and you don’t take into account the calculation of transportation and landing by air or through a field of dirt. The Ministry of Defense has nothing to do with this, the task is such a quick transfer of equipment, fighters to the front line or behind enemy lines. And to provide fire support, just as quickly drive up to pick up and stop the wounded. All of you will now write about thin sides and ride on armor. Ahem ahem, but which car is safe in combat conditions? Even a tank can be one-shotted or disabled from one turret, set on fire. You are confusing the tasks. This is to compare why at the checkpoint they stand in capital aprons, and special groups go in lightweight armor.
    5. -4
      February 20 2023
      Airborne forestry is very necessary at hour H, including on its territory, since the runways will most likely have already been destroyed, and in fact survival at this moment is the most important factor, much more important than the results of any smaller conflicts. And today once again confirms that as soon as the enemy sees the opportunity to win, the H-hour will certainly happen.
      1. +2
        February 20 2023
        If the runways are destroyed, how will the landing force take off? And how do you assemble BTA aircraft for at least one division?
        1. +1
          February 21 2023
          Quote: Tlauicol
          And how do you assemble BTA aircraft for at least one division?


          At the VIF, they somehow calculated that for the parachute landing of one airborne division with standard equipment and supplies, the entire VTA of the USSR was needed, plus part of the mobilized sides of the GA.
      2. +1
        February 21 2023
        If the runways are destroyed, then you can forget about the landing. Because this means that the flight to the landing zone and the landing itself will not be able to cover the IA.

        And most importantly - who would explain to me what kind of enemy we are going to fight with, that in this war a regiment on light equipment, scattered within a radius of ten kilometers, can solve everything?
    6. 0
      February 22 2023
      The generals remained in the last century. Even the Afghan showed that the armor is weak, the soldiers ride armor. No, for another 40 years we have been riveting cardboard infantry fighting vehicles. Kurganets and Boomerang are only for parades and exhibitions. We urgently need to strengthen the armor of the BMP1,2,3 - there are developments. Additional armor kits with dynamic protection, screens need to be installed yesterday.
  2. +8
    February 20 2023
    While I was reading the article, I had a strange feeling that I had already read about it, only a very long time ago ... And then it suddenly clicked in my memory - SKIBR tests, Strugatsky, 1960 - the concept of a modern infantry fighting vehicle - centaur robots run ahead, reconnaissance, clearing, and behind them the "body" is already shaking. Who cares - read - like it.
    1. +4
      February 20 2023
      While reading the article, I had a strange feeling that I had already read about this, only a very long time ago ...

      The Strugatskys predicted a lot of things

      Alas, this article was about something else. Not only and not so much about the concept of modern infantry fighting vehicles
    2. 0
      February 20 2023
      Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
      And then it suddenly clicked in my memory - Tests of SKIBR

      These Strugatskys can be read, and then they slowly went into trash and frenzy.
      1. +1
        February 20 2023
        These Strugatskys can be read, and then they slowly went into trash and frenzy.
        Strugatsky 60s are quite readable, but by the end of the 70s they began to deteriorate, and by the beginning of the 90s they were completely rotten.
    3. +3
      February 20 2023
      I will support your comment, I also stand up for "centaur robots that scout and clear." This concept of combat robots should be worked out in the project of the Marker universal platform. Let me give you an example: I have already seen a lot of tank battles, and in most cases, Russian tanks either fired point-blank or were knocked out at point-blank range. There is only one reason: poor awareness on the battlefield. This applies to both advancing as part of an armored group and ambush operations. A conditional "Marker" in front of the column or at a dominant height can help the crews of infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and tanks not to fall under dagger fire from an ambush.

      I also liked the concept of an armored personnel carrier, which has an installation for launching a drone-UAV on the roof in the stern, like a balloon on a wire. I raised this to a conditional 100 meters and here's a picture of “what's around the corner”, and you can also use it to provide a stable connection, or as a repeater.
  3. -6
    February 20 2023
    In any case, we need well-armored vehicles, and I would even say that with a module from a vehicle terminator, namely with two twin guns.
    The old infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have outlived their lives. They can now be flashed even with heavy machine guns. Infantry just won't go into battle. Our infantry sits in the trenches and does not twitch anywhere, because they are afraid to advance. there is nothing to defend yourself except for tanks, and tankers are also afraid to attack because they can also get
    I thought at the expense of floating armored personnel carriers, but actually enough pontoons, a car drove up, an armored personnel carrier drove into it and swam.
    You need to install modules from the terminator on the armored personnel carrier, any enemy will be scared if the car still drives fast, if you still make 30 mm bullets with tungsten cores there, the tank will not seem a little
    Two cannons, one for attacking tanks with tungsten cores, and the second with explosive ones. The same tungsten cores can also break through the wall where the enemy took refuge
    Terminators tank support vehicles have shown themselves well, here we are waiting for more infantry vehicles. Why didn’t they even send samples of the Kurgans to the NWO?
    The Kurgan plant makes BMP 3, but they will have to be written off after the first battle.
    If the plant had made these machines, the MO would not have refused to take them. There are PMCs and Akhmat, they need it.
    1. -1
      February 21 2023
      It all comes down to the fact that the tactics of the Second World War continue to be used, when tigers were stupidly bombarded with cheap T-34s. Now the thoughts are the same, just fill up these 6000 Bradleys with our 25000 BMP-1/2, but in fact, who else will win request and I'm not even saying how many people such a concept takes.
      But there is another side, what will happen if the BMP-1/2/3 is now recognized as obsolete? Where to put them? And what to replace? There are no Kurgans and Boomerangs and there are doubts that they will soon appear in the troops No. .
      NATO countries initially adhered to the strategy: less is better but better, and Russia (USSR) has always pressed with quantity negative
      1. 0
        February 21 2023
        Targeted means against armored vehicles - tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, anti-tank crews and, ideally, aviation, but by no means an analogue, all targets have little chance of not hitting
  4. -6
    February 20 2023
    Tigers take armored vehicles, they were not made for our army. It's time for our factories to understand what you guys are doing at first, and then everything of yours will be brought to life when it is needed and will prove itself well in battles. Here, take it and ask that your samples be sent to the front
    Mo was reducing the army, which made it completely incompetent.
    When the war started in the adjacent territory, why didn't we train the army? Since 2014, they could order equipment, but in 2010 we had the collapse of the army under Serdyukov.
    We have cut so that we are forced to mobilize people. In the USSR, the army was 5 million people for a reason, but apparently those generals ended who had combat experience
    Why doesn't Mo put out his tenders every year that they need heavily armored vehicles? It is necessary that the cars be on paper, as they do in the USA, they are developing, someone wins the tender
    In order for the machines to be necessary to hold tenders for orders of the Moscow Region
    Study history, wars have been and will be. They have always been. Russia became big because the peoples of this country fought off enemies.
  5. +3
    February 20 2023
    Interesting article. short and to the point, explains a lot
    1. 0
      February 21 2023
      The article upsets that once again you understand how outdated the requirements for equipment are in the war of the 21st century. Nobody needs 25 thousand tin cans that are thrown at enemies, 6 thousand Bradleys only seem defenseless in front of such a fleet of BMP-1/2/3, but in reality they are obsolete vehicles that have no place in modern warfare.
  6. +2
    February 20 2023
    First of all, thanks for the great article!
    It would be very interesting to know the statistics of the defeat of personnel in terms of:
    Of the 100 ℅ irretrievable losses, how many during transportation to the front line and the reasons (land mine on the road, artillery covered, DRG in an ambush) and directly during the actual battle.
    Comparison of losses on infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers / Urals
    If for various reasons there are no data for ours, is there such statistics for the Armed Forces of Ukraine / USA?
  7. +10
    February 20 2023
    Yes, do not touch the BMP, armored personnel carrier, how much has already been written! You touch, by last name, and not like that, the Ministry of Defense, generals and other those who send infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers to places where even MAUS would not be sent. Lieutenant Pupkin sent an infantry fighting vehicle in the city to storm without cover, against the wall (conditionally) of Pupkin, sent a regiment commander, a company, a battalion to attack positions with a chain on an infantry fighting vehicle, without artillery preparation, without suppressing the OP, on minefields, regiment commander at night, one with a machine gun PK and RPG -7 with a full backpack of shots, behind the tongue, crawling to the trenches.
    Let's already flow the GRU special forces, they fight badly. Are they intended for assault operations? Their task is different from the word in general. We don’t say, let’s stuff tanks, suns, armored trains, cruisers)))))) into the special forces detachments.
    I don’t know how it is in the Airborne Forces, clean divisions, but in the DShBr the 1st paratrooper battalion, they don’t have equipment at all (heavy), let’s let them go into the trenches without equipment. Then we will discuss what we lacked in the PDB? Let's give them armor, 40 mm thick plates, it won't pierce a soldier))
    Technique, any, is strong in tactics of application. If this technique is riveted 30 pieces, use it where it is useful. It’s better to drive up to your positions in an infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier than in the Urals.
    For assault operations, create MOUSES with cannons in all directions, with a crew battalion, so that they can fire calibers, Iskanders, and add ONYX.
    The brigade in Afghanistan is marching in a column, half are sitting in the back of the Urals, I generally keep quiet about Chechnya. Would there have been fewer losses if each unit had an armored personnel carrier of Beha for transporting l / s? And the dispersion and armor are suitable bulletproof.
    In the end, cut the chock with the edge of your palm, as in window dressing)))))) No? What? Will you take an ax? No, take a knife from your wife in the kitchen, handy.
    1. +3
      February 20 2023
      Shark lover, emotional commentary. And MAUS, and GRU special forces, and an ax
      If this technique is riveted 30 pieces, use it where it is useful.

      Just do not forget to sit inside yourself and plant your loved ones, technique must be used
      Would there have been fewer losses if each unit had an armored personnel carrier of Beha for transporting l / s?

      Technique of the 60s in modern conditions, these are extra coffins and unjustified victims. It is ineffective neither for joint operations with tanks, nor for assault, nor for the delivery of l / s and equipment. For the last task, the armored Ural-Typhoon is safer
      1. +3
        February 20 2023
        So to speak. It provides a certain anti-fragmentation protection (at least against 82 mm mines, AGS, to some extent even against 105 mm guns). Bulletproof from the most commonly used infantry calibers at reasonable distances - gives. From a heavy machine gun in the forehead - gives. It has a stabilized automatic cannon (we will not touch the original BMP-1). Has ATGM. Patency is much better than most wheeled armored vehicles, except for our own armored personnel carriers. who all scold exactly the same thing. Even swims if the driver knows how.
        This is noticeable, orders of magnitude better than pickup trucks with a turret. And at least as good as the Strikers. If you don’t remember about the heat. But there was also a BMP-2D, a set of additional protection Berezhok.
    2. +1
      February 21 2023
      Quote: Shark Lover
      If this technique is riveted 30 pieces, use it where it is useful.

      Ahem ... are you proposing to start a big war in Europe with limited use of nuclear weapons? wink
  8. +1
    February 20 2023
    in practice, this would mean replacing the BMP-1/2/3 with combat vehicles of the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang level. In other words, the conversation turns into a fantasy.

    Then there is nothing to talk about. Until all the rest burn out on the battlefield in the offices, they don’t itch - they don’t fly on board there.
  9. +2
    February 20 2023
    An increase in the mass of an infantry fighting vehicle does not mean anti-projectile armor if the volume of the infantry fighting vehicle itself has increased.
    Here, by the way, a question arose in connection with this in Armata: the new tank reached, and in some places exceeded the dimensions of the Merkava, Abrams, but the mass was 15-20 tons less. Is it possible to save so much only at the expense of the tower, or is the armor thinner?
    1. 0
      February 20 2023
      And this is with a "deserted" tower, which, in fact, should have reduced the amount of reserved space.
      PS: Perhaps the developers of Almaty were more concerned about protection against cumulative ammunition, and the mass limitation still did not make it possible to "get carried away" with uranium in armor, etc. Those. the tank can be more "overall", but at the same time less "metal" (and heavy) due to the combined armor, in which far from everything is metal.
      1. 0
        February 20 2023
        There, the shells in the AZ stand vertically, the engine is a new X-shaped, plus an armored capsule with a crew in front, so the Armata was inflated ...
        1. +1
          February 22 2023
          From which it remains to be concluded that, in addition to the "armored capsule", in other places it is "cardboard".
    2. +1
      February 20 2023
      An increase in the mass of an infantry fighting vehicle does not mean anti-projectile armor if the volume of the infantry fighting vehicle itself has increased.

      Anti-shell booking - put it wrong. It is unlikely that there is an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier with all-round protection even against modern 25-40 mm caliber assault rifles

      The main and most frequent threat to light armored vehicles is shrapnel and DShK/KPV bullets. Here from them the car must have protection, from all directions

      Ivan, what do you think, such a level of protection in the lateral projection is capable of providing 30-ton Marders and Bradley M2A2

      Marder and BMP-1 at a comparative inspection at the military-technical center in Trier

      Marder is larger, but twice as heavy
      1. +1
        February 20 2023
        14,5mm - they write it themselves. Forehead up to 30mm.
        The question is different: if we built Bradleys and Marders, would we still have infantry fighting vehicles after a year of war?
        1. 0
          February 20 2023
          if we built Bradleys and Marders, would we still have BMPs after a year of war?

          According to ORyx, the loss of 2083 infantry fighting vehicles

          How much would losses among infantry fighting vehicles decrease:

          - if they were not used everywhere, for other purposes - like trucks and buses. And instead of them, in these cases, MRAPs would be used

          - BMPs, albeit built in smaller numbers, would be protected at the Marder level

          PS what was the size of the military budget of Germany in the 1970s. compared to the Soviet one. The construction of 2000 first-class infantry fighting vehicles was mastered and put into service
          1. +1
            February 20 2023
            - well, they would have lost Mrapa along with the infantry during transportation
            - how much smaller would the scale of the offensive be, or how many infantry would have no armor at all?
            - if armored personnel carriers and MT-LBs are already thrown on the offensive - can you imagine how many infantry fighting vehicles are needed?
            1. -1
              February 20 2023
              - well, they would have lost Mrapa along with the infantry during transportation

              Mraps have better protection, l / s losses would be less
              or how many infantry would have no armor at all?

              Not at all. Mraps are relatively cheap, and they do an excellent job with the tasks of an armored bus.

              [Kamaz-Shot with 30 mm cannon Spoke module
              And as the facts have shown, they are capable of performing even more serious tasks. More effective than armored personnel carriers and Soviet-style infantry fighting vehicles, due to its better protection

              For the offensive support of tanks - infantry fighting vehicles weighing 25-30 tons, If in the 80s they started working on this topic, and in the last 20 years they rearmed the army, and did not engage in PR and bragging, now they would have at least several thousand instead of BMP-2/3
              if armored personnel carriers and MT-LB are thrown on the offensive - can you imagine how many infantry fighting vehicles are needed?

              In this situation, nothing would have helped them, due to the inadequacy of the tasks set. and the result of the CBO would be the same as now
              1. +1
                February 20 2023
                So this KamAZ with a gun is not carrying troops, and without a gun there are only 4 people. Police operations are his maximum.
                They will burn them in battle, and in the field, and in the city
              2. 0
                February 20 2023
                Quote: Santa Fe
                [Kamaz-Shot with 30 mm cannon Spoke module
                And as the facts have shown, they are capable of performing even more serious tasks. More effective than armored personnel carriers and Soviet-style infantry fighting vehicles, due to its better protection

                So why is the BTR 82A better? answer: bulletproof armor is nothing.
                And there are shots of what it looks like after shelling with 152mm shells, fragmentation penetration throughout the hull.
          2. +1
            February 20 2023
            Those. how do you imagine that? MRAP delivers infantry somewhere, after which it transfers to infantry fighting vehicles? There is no way to have so many highly specialized machines. In the USSR, during mobilization, there would be so many motorized riflemen that 2000 infantry fighting vehicles would be nothing at all. Russia is another story. But we don't have that much money.
            1. 0
              February 20 2023
              machines. In the USSR, during mobilization, there would be so many motorized riflemen

              The USSR remained three decades ago
              Those. how do you imagine that? MRAP delivers infantry somewhere, after which it transfers to infantry fighting vehicles?

              All army personnel do not need to transfer to infantry fighting vehicles. This should be special equipment with special fighting qualities, for the hottest areas.

              The same heavily protected and armed MCIs can go to the second echelon
              1. +5
                February 20 2023
                Then, excuse me, why would this MCI be cheaper than this BMP if it is also "strongly protected and heavily armed." Just because it's on wheels? So with strong armor, he will not keep up with the tanks even on 4 axles. And in general they will get stuck where the BTR-70 or "mess" would pass.
                1. +1
                  February 20 2023
                  Then, excuse me, why would this MCI be cheaper than this BMP if it is also "strongly protected and heavily armed." Just because it's on wheels?

                  Fewer design requirements, buoyancy water jets, 4 axles, 600-1000 hp engine, cost of continuous R&D - all this is past

                  Simplified requirements for the design and silhouette of the vehicle, a square armored box without any special shapes

                  Using chassis and components from conventional trucks
                  So with strong armor, he will not keep up with the tanks even on 4 axles.

                  The facts refute this opinion. There are many videos where they operate in conjunction with armored vehicles, during the assault on the settlement. and what is more unexpected - they go off-road

                  The advancement of tanks and armored vehicles of the Typhoon family (Kamaz-53949) to the border in the Kursk region, a few days before the start of the NWO. This is a frame from the video, there is more than one Typhoon, they turn along with the tanks somewhere on the primer (if something remains after the tracks of the tanks) or even in the field
                  1. +1
                    February 21 2023
                    There are also facts that there are often "goats" stuck up to their ears. Miracles don't happen. The box-shaped hull design by no means contributes to armor resistance, which will be achieved mainly due to the thickness of the armor, i.e. weight increase. And MCIs are cheaper, primarily because they are deprived of weapons and sighting systems of modern infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The height is prohibitive, no one will equip them with active protection systems.
      2. +2
        February 20 2023
        I very much doubt that for such equipment the biggest problem is a heavy machine gun. There are almost no infantry in the states, even armored personnel carriers began to be armed with automatic guns. As for reliable splinter protection, it has already been written here that this is STANAG level 6. From all sides it will be very, very much .... weigh.
        1. 0
          February 20 2023
          From all sides it will be very, very much .... weigh.

          Therefore, 6 is redundant, and 4 is quite viable
          1. +1
            February 20 2023
            Viable, but no longer guarantees anything.
            1. 0
              February 20 2023
              Viable, but no longer guarantees anything.

              There is no limit to perfection, but there is a principle of reasonable sufficiency. It's up to the mathematicians.
              1. 0
                February 21 2023
                Let's say, but after that there will be no fundamental difference between "DShK minimum" and "KPVT minimum" for anti-fragmentation protection. And even more so, the RPG-7 tandem grant will not care, 25-mm armor there or 30.
        2. +3
          February 20 2023
          Quote: Dimax-Nemo
          There are almost none in the infantry states

          What?) In the US, 57% of the army is infantry on light wheeled vehicles. No automatic guns. But saturated with UAVs, snipers, machine guns, AGS, 60-120 mm mortars, 105-155 mm howitzers, etc.
          "Heavy" infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers are needed for specific tasks of storming fortified areas, 95% of the war is a routine where just infantry is needed. But this infantry must be extremely mobile, have the highest situational awareness and be armed with modern weapons.

          List of army brigades + national guard:

          16 tank brigades (Abrams, BMP / BTR Bradley);
          9 striker/motorized infantry brigades (BTR/BMP Stryker);
          33 light (25 infantry, 5 airborne, 3 air assault) (buggies, cars, armored cars, MRAPs, helicopters, airplanes).
          1. 0
            February 20 2023
            Quote from cold wind
            Heavy "infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers are needed for specific tasks of storming fortified areas, 95% of the war is a routine where just infantry is needed.

            Well, we have light infantry, this is the Airborne Forces.
            No kidding, infantry units should be on MRAPs and light armored personnel carriers for clearing cities. Light infantry, essentially motorized infantry, can be recruited from conscripts and must be made up of them. They do not need complicated and expensive equipment
            essentially assault light infantry units for urban combat. In their case, the simpler the better. That equipment they should have is advanced, as it is the key to their survival on the battlefield. Heavy armored and motorized rifle units on well-protected vehicles with bells and whistles are the lot of a professional army.
          2. +2
            February 22 2023
            There are almost no heavy machine guns in the infantry states. At least in ours and Ukrainian ones. Ukrainians have to take what they give, incl. Hummers and pickups with M2. But the survival of this technique raises even greater questions than the BMP-2.

            The Americans have had a completely different war for the last twenty years. In places where the Abrams and Bradleys could not even bring in noticeable numbers. From here, dancing with a tambourine around the "airmobile" tank is already in the third circle. But this is not about Ukraine. With the density of artillery fire, air strikes that take place there. The United States has not been preparing for a war in Europe "in an adult way" for a long time. There were other problems. Hence the half-infantry in helicopters-VTS-hummers-MRAP.
      3. 0
        February 20 2023
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The main and most frequent threat to light armored vehicles is shrapnel and DShK/KPV bullets. Here from them the car must have protection, from all directions

        Ivan, what do you think, such a level of protection in the lateral projection is capable of providing 30-ton Marders and Bradley M2A2

        IN THE BRADLEY OF THE LATEST MODIFICATIONS, PROTECTION AGAINST KPVT IS DECLARED. Marder does not hold even after modernization, since protection against 50 cal is declared there.
  10. +9
    February 20 2023
    The author "something" forgot. The second BMP in NATO was the French AMX-10 (1973), a little over 14 tons. And the mass of the BMP-1/2 was not "extremely low". At that time, tracked armored personnel carriers, BTR-50 and MTLB, for example, weighed about the same. In the 60s and 70s there were NO armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles of "heavy armor" (with the exception of Marder). BMP-1/2 is, in fact, an armored personnel carrier with a gun and anti-tank systems, when the "penny" appeared, it had no analogues at all. Already starting from its characteristics, the Germans made Marder (which, that’s not a task - it doesn’t swim!) And AMX-10 (the French preferred not to philosophize slyly, and conceptually repeated the BMP-1, but with an automatic gun).

    The BMP-3 is not as secure as the first modification of Bradley, as many now think. At "sane" distances (not point-blank), its sides protect against the M2 Browning, the forehead - from its own 30 mm. At the first Bradley, the side (maybe!) Is protected from KPVT, but KPVT was with us, not with them.

    There is a difference how to swim and how it is achieved. The BMP-3 swims so well that without significant modifications it was considered suitable for the marines (i.e. no worse than the PT-76). This is hardly to be expected from Kurganets and Boomerang (not to mention the first Bradleys, who required "additional training" to force water barriers, which is hardly possible in real combat conditions). To achieve buoyancy, increase resistance to mine explosions under the bottom, it was necessary to increase the height of both Kurganets and Boomerang so much that it reached the highest MBT values ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXb(which has already caused serious doubts among many experts).

    In fact, the mass of Soviet infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is limited by economic considerations (the required number of such vehicles and cost restrictions) and size restrictions, which should remain sane, provided there is good "water flow".

    So, "girls", either remove the cross, or put on panties. Or you make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with enhanced armor and introduce additional engineering equipment for the crossing under it. Or you make a more or less floating vehicle, but at the same time you will not be able to achieve more security than the BMP-3 with a mass of up to 19 tons. And, yes, it is also unlikely that it will be possible to equip ALL infantry with heavy infantry fighting vehicles, there will not be enough money, because its cost will approach the cost of MBT. Those. at best, this will be infantry directly attached to tank units.
    1. +2
      February 20 2023
      The second BMP in NATO was the French AMX-10 (1973), a little over 14 tons

      And where is this AMX-10 now
      In fact, the mass of Soviet infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is limited by economic considerations (the required number of such vehicles and cost restrictions)

      Why do we still have such equipment in service, in the 21st century. The question to which everyone imagines the answer, but is afraid of it
      1. -1
        February 20 2023
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Why do we still have such equipment in service, in the 21st century.

        Alas, Russia is a poor country that is forced to save on those things on which it is impossible to save. As, in particular, on the acquisition of modern infantry fighting vehicles with side protection from fragments of six-inch shells. And the most terrible economy goes on personnel training. In addition to the projectile, we also have an intellectual hunger.
        1. +1
          February 20 2023
          Medium WWII tanks - T-34, Sherman, "four" were more or less protected from such fragments. But they all weighed from 28 tons. And Marder actually "does not live up to" them. If, with this level of protection, you try to make a "bus", then Puma will be at the exit. And it will cost almost like MBT. Puma is not a car that can be produced and bought by the thousands. Not only us. The Germans and everyone else, too, except for the Yankees, and maybe the Chinese.
          1. +1
            February 20 2023
            Medium WWII tanks - T-34, Sherman, "four" were more or less protected from such fragments. But they all weighed from 28 tons.

            You apparently didn’t pay attention, 30 tons of Sherman and T-34 are, among other things, a heavy 76 mm gun and ammunition

            + technical progress over 70 years, how much the mass of all components and mechanisms has now decreased. What used to be for MTO can now be spent on additional protection, incl. combined type, with ceramics and remote sensing
            1. +1
              February 21 2023
              I "paid attention" to this, this barrel weighs approximately 900-1000 kg. If you "subtract" the standard armament of the BMP (a powerful automatic cannon can also weigh quite comparable, especially given the reinforcements for a very strong return on automatic fire), then this difference will no longer be significant. This is where another problem comes into play. The fact that the internal volume will increase dramatically, because in addition to the crew (albeit 1 person less), you need to shove another 7-8 paratroopers into the car. If we still do it not like on the BMP-3, but according to "feng shui", at the exit we should get an armored like a tank (at least from the sides and stern) "minivan". Our tanks are lighter primarily because they have less reserved volume. It was for this that they fiddled with reducing the crew to 3 people and an automatic loader.
        2. +2
          February 20 2023
          Russia is a poor country, seriously?! Only from 2001 to 2010, Russia earned 1,6 trillion from oil and gas. dollars ... By the way, if we take the maximum cost of Kurganets and Boomerang (with all R&D), somewhere around 5 million dollars apiece, then 2000 units would cost 20 billion dollars. At one time, almost $200 billion was allocated for the rearmament of the army. Every year, the defense budget is over $50 billion. And you want to tell me that Russia did not have the unfortunate 20 billion dollars to transfer the army to modern technology?
          1. +1
            February 22 2023
            Firstly, the MO had (and, I suspect, still have) very serious questions for both Kurganets and Boomerang. Secondly, out of $1 billion in defense spending per year, the ground forces account for about 2/50. We also have the Strategic Missile Forces, the Aerospace Forces and the fleet, in all three R&D and rearmament are actively going on. As for the ground forces, infantry armor is far from the only one, and, very possibly, not even the most significant problem.
            1. +1
              February 23 2023
              Strongly disagree! Just nonsense ... And what about the Strategic Missile Forces? I thought that they would add a typical argument - there are other expenses ... The fact of the matter is that there was enough money for everything! Moreover, no one would have allocated 20 billion at once, these 2000 units were built in 5-7 years. 3-4 billion a year, a lot?! Russia had enough resources for everything, you just need to admit the obvious: theft and wild incompetence have done their job.

              About the fact that "As for the ground forces, then in them infantry armor is far from the only, and, very possibly, not even the most significant problem." I will leave it to your conscience. How many guys burned down because of "insignificant armor", mines, fragments ... in fact, the whole article is because of this.
      2. +2
        February 20 2023
        Replaced with a wheeled boomerang-type monster. More precisely, it is a Boomerang of the VBCI type. That's just what this VBCI would do now in the South-East of Ukraine with 32 tons on 4 axles - an "interesting" question. This is not the Middle East for you.
        We have BMP-1/2 for the same reason that, oddly enough, NATO had a lot of BMP-1s. It is very expensive to replace it with something fundamentally better, even the BMP-3.
      3. 0
        February 21 2023
        Quote: Santa Fe
        And where is this AMX-10 now


        Soon they promise in Ukraine. And so about 500 pieces in different countries are in service and about the same in storage. However, the French themselves modernized it precisely in terms of armor protection.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        February 20 2023
        Well then, how do you explain that the MTLB became the most massive armored personnel carrier and it is just the most in the troops.

        Simple unpretentious chassis. For a tractor and a platform for experiments - that's it. was developed not as an armored personnel carrier, but as a budget (with an engine from KrAZ and half of the nodes from the PT-76) replacement for the AT-P.
      2. 0
        February 21 2023
        Ha. They will increase it, but who will let them cross NOW? Yes, even through a serious water barrier. There are already more than enough examples on both sides.
        With MTLB, everything is simply explained. Because to change the entire fleet of infantry fighting vehicles for at least a "three-ruble note" the toad is strangling. And because there was simply no time to make a lot of BTR-80s under the USSR. And the "motorbike" swims better than the BPM-1/2. Simply because the engine is in the middle, and not in the face, as modern "Feng Shui" is supposed to be. In my opinion, there are no water cannons on it, if sclerosis does not change. The military did not abandon the requirement of buoyancy for either Kurganets or Boomerang. But it’s unlikely that the Kurganets, and even more so the Boomerang, will swim better than the BMP-2. Oh, not likely...
  11. +2
    February 20 2023
    The author says the mass of the BMP-3 is less than the mass of some kind of car there? Okay, what about dimensions? The fact of the matter is that with the dimensions that some Western infantry fighting vehicle has, it turns out that ours has even more armor per unit volume. The same first delusions, until they were later scalded with more armored steel and they lost their buoyancy, armored worse than the BMP-3 ...
    1. 0
      February 20 2023
      Well, you would compare with wedges. Compare then with modern infantry fighting vehicles. CV 90 is shorter and narrower than bpm3, and slightly higher. Weighs 15 tons more
      1. +1
        February 20 2023
        So she doesn't swim. The author claims that it is possible to make a floating and well-protected infantry fighting vehicle. Can. Only it will suck to swim and will be the size of Abrams.
        1. 0
          February 20 2023
          And what for? Did you sail a lot of BMP 3? In theory, the Dnieper can be crossed on anything, but in practice?
          Last May there was a good article about the uselessness of this option.
          1. 0
            February 20 2023
            Quote: Tlauicol
            And what for? Did you sail a lot of BMP 3? In theory, the Dnieper can be crossed on anything, but in practice?

            So near the Dnieper, where ours need to land, the coast is steep and not suitable for BMPs and armored personnel carriers to swim on it.
            1. +1
              February 21 2023
              We once had to cross not only the Dnieper, but in general everything on anything, to look for the last remaining amphibious tanks, or at least just easier. Hence the requirement for the buoyancy of all light armored vehicles. There are enough non-floating cars in the units, and without them, you won’t get enough of all the pontoons.
          2. +1
            February 21 2023
            In practice, pontoon crossings are quickly covered, counter-battery fire remains a problem for everyone (but even more so for us) and therefore does not solve this problem. You can't cross the Dnieper on anything. Certainly not on Bradley with an "additional watercraft." After that, I see no point in talking about the uselessness of this "option". Rather, we can talk about the futility of building crossings closer than 100 km. from the enemy.
  12. +1
    February 20 2023
    Good article, the problems are shown and justified. And the perspective is set. One misfortune - not in the RF Ministry of Defense! Kurgantsev and Boomerangov. But there are BMP-1/2/3, although their consumption is going through the roof. And when this situation will change only knows ...
    Or maybe never.
  13. +2
    February 20 2023
    For some reason, the author began to compare the BMP-1 with the Bradley. This is a technique of different eras and different concepts. Compare with peers and predecessors. Then it will get much more interesting.
    Firstly, the BMP-1 is not
    the world's first mass-produced infantry fighting vehicle.


    German BMP Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30. Years of production 1956 - 1958. 2176 pieces were produced. Weight 14,6 tons, frontal armor 30 mm (protection against 20 mm projectiles), side armor - bulletproof. floating. Armament - 20 mm automatic cannon, coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun.

    Austrian BMP 4K 4FA-G2 Schützenpanzer. This is a 1965 modification. Weight - 15 tons. The main armament is an automatic 20 mm cannon and a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun. In the front projection - protection against 20 mm shells, side armor - bulletproof. Doesn't float. The Austrians simply felt that they did not need this option at all.

    And this is the American BMP XM701. Only five of them were built. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is that it was designed in 1965 and served as the basis for the following developments. Weight - from 20 (with aluminum armor) to 24 (with steel armor) tons.
    It turns out that at the time of the creation of the BMP-1, in terms of the level of protection, it was "within the framework of European concepts." And the Americans already at that time paid much more attention to protection.
    1. +3
      February 20 2023
      It turns out that at the time of the creation of the BMP-1, in terms of the level of protection, it was "within the framework of European concepts

      This was noted in the article

      There are no questions about the adoption of the BMP-1 in 1966
      For some reason, the author began to compare the BMP-1 with the Bradley.

      Because BMP-1, like 2, is still in service with us. And this is a complete indifference to the lives of l / s and a crime
      1. +1
        February 20 2023
        Not only here, there are still plenty of them all over the world, including NATO a year ago. By the way, the BMP-3 sold well back in the 90s.
        1. +1
          February 20 2023
          The BMP-3 sold well back in the 90s.

          They were sold to the natives, seduced by the price, and that's what happened

          Chronicle from the Middle East:

          “The use of the BMP-3 as fire support vehicles, due to the lack of full-fledged tanks, quickly led to losses. The Arabs in Yemen also ran into the same problem, who at first used troikas on the front end, but after a mine explosion with complete annihilation of the car, they were replaced with MRAPs.
          1. +2
            February 21 2023
            Arabs bought BMP-3 along with Bradley. Any technique must be applied with an understanding of how to do it. The BMP-3 is at best a light tank, not an MBT. And MRAP can die just as quickly. From the banal RPG-7 or "boot".
      2. 0
        February 20 2023
        Because BMP-1, like 2, is still in service with us. And this is a complete indifference to the lives of l / s and a crime

        That. that they are still in service, in itself, does not say anything.
        In Germany, the Marder has also been in service for over fifty years. And development generally began in 1960. And the prototypes RU 111, RU 112 and RU 122 from Rheinstahl, 1HK 2/1 and 1HK 2/2 from Henschel and HM 1 and HM 2 from MOWAG in terms of security were "classmates" practically with the BMP-1 and weighed about 16 tons. And today Marder 1A5 weighs 33 tons. There is, on the one hand, constant modernization in order to increase security, on the other hand, the machine has the potential for such modernization.
        Why was the BMP-1 not "honored" with a similar upgrade? There are two options. Either no one bothered about this, or the car did not initially have the possibility of any kind of modernization and it was necessary to develop something corresponding to the time, but not the BMP-3 for sure.
        1. 0
          February 20 2023
          prototypes RU 111, RU 112 and RU 122 from Rheinstahl, 1HK 2/1 and 1HK 2/2 from Henschel and HM 1 and HM 2 from MOWAG in terms of security were "classmates" practically with the BMP-1 and weighed about 16 tons.

          And they remained prototypes
          BMP Marder turned out different

          ... at the beginning of 1969, a contract was signed for the mass production of 2136 machines with firms of that time: Reinstahl AG / Special Production (Kassel) as the general contractor, Atlas-MaK (Kiel), Keller und Knappich (KUKA) , Augsburg). Recent changes have led to an increase in weight to 28,2 tons.
          Why was the BMP-1 not "honored" with a similar upgrade?

          Because the BMP-1 weighs 13 tons
        2. +1
          February 21 2023
          The BMP-2 was modernized (BMP-2D), but then it was all stripped off. A set of dynamic protection was also developed. Of course, it is impossible to "reach" -1/-2 to Marder, but in practice the difference may not play a role in terms of military-economic criteria. As for the “three”, then the advantages of Marder in defense are far from being so obvious.
      3. +1
        February 20 2023
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Because BMP-1, like 2, is still in service with us. And this is a complete indifference to the lives of l / s and a crime

        BMP - 1,2 and armored personnel carriers, this technique is still suitable, but not on the first line, but deep in the rear for transporting personnel. For the leading edge, you need a technique that is average between the BMPT and the Terminator with a remote module, otherwise.
    2. +1
      February 20 2023
      German BMP Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30. Years of production 1956 - 1958. 2176 pieces were produced. Weight 14,6 tons, frontal armor 30 mm (protection against 20 mm projectiles), side armor - bulletproof. floating.

      Hello, Viktor Nikolaevich! XC30 does not apply to amphibious vehicles.
      1. 0
        February 20 2023
        XC30 does not apply to amphibious vehicles.

        Yes, it doesn't apply.
    3. +1
      February 20 2023
      According to our "concepts", they lack "one detail" before the BMP - anti-tank systems. However, it depends on what is meant by BMP. And so - yes, no one in the 60s was going to make infantry fighting vehicles with armor much better than those of the then light tanks.
    4. +1
      February 20 2023
      For some reason, the author began to compare the BMP-1 with the Bradley. This is a technique of different eras and different concepts. Compare with peers and predecessors.

      Well, it's O. Kaptsov!!! It's about armor! He previously offered to book missile cruisers like battleships of the Russian-Japanese fellow
  14. +1
    February 20 2023
    To the above, we can add that impenetrable armored vehicles do not exist, in principle. Mattress "abrams" and Jewish "merkavas" are also burning. Therefore, talk about the best armor "bradley" or "marder", in comparison with the BMP - 1/2/3 - is talk about who will burn out earlier and under what circumstances. But the cost of the car itself and fuel consumption per 100 km. - This is a very serious and quite tangible indicator. Even the most powerful US and Germany, it used to be able to produce them in large quantities. And now even more so. The cruising range on one gas station, especially on the Eastern European theater of operations, is also a very important parameter. The Hitlerite generals understood this, but the current gay and mattress ones somehow forgot.
    1. -1
      February 20 2023
      But the cost of the car itself and fuel consumption per 100 km. - this is a very serious and quite tangible indicator

      So how did you save

      I think it was enough for a couple of palaces and yachts
      1. -1
        February 20 2023
        You also say that in mattressland and geyrop there is no corruption and embezzlement))) they steal no less from them. Willing to listen to objections
  15. 0
    February 20 2023
    How will building up armor on heavy infantry fighting vehicles help when an Excalibur projectile hits the engine compartment? We can say that such a projectile is not cheap. But a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will be slightly cheaper than an MBT.
    1. +3
      February 20 2023
      How will building up armor on heavy infantry fighting vehicles help when an Excalibur projectile hits the engine compartment?

      Armor will help when the Excalibur falls 20 meters from the BMP
      1. 0
        February 20 2023
        Armor will help when the Excalibur falls 20 meters from the BMP

        According to Stanag 4569, this is level 6, and all around. Which, for obvious reasons, has not yet been implemented on any serial BMP in the world (we do not take commercial offers for additional booking of existing samples).
        1. +1
          February 20 2023
          According to Stanag 4569, this is level 6, and all around. Which, for obvious reasons, has not yet been implemented on any serial BMP in the world

          It is interesting from how many meters a fragment of 152 mm will sew through the side of the BMP-3. If it explodes 50 meters away, is there at least some chance not to lose the car and the landing force?
          1. 0
            February 20 2023
            It is interesting from how many meters a fragment of 152 mm will sew through the side of the BMP-3.

            Honestly, it’s too lazy to look in your stash for data on undermining 152 OFS in fragmentation pits with calculations on the masses and velocities of the fragments.
            If it explodes 50 meters away, is there at least some chance not to lose the car and the landing force?

            Yes.
      2. +2
        February 20 2023
        It is unlikely that a satellite-guided projectile will be fired at such a target. For something that stands still, they will save it. Krasnopol doesn't care how "heavy" it is.
        1. +2
          February 20 2023
          Krasnopol doesn't care how "heavy" it is.

          How many mines and shells are produced from barrel artillery and MLRS for one fired krasnopol and escalibur

          Why take an extreme case and draw conclusions from it
          1. +1
            February 21 2023
            Well, since someone (not me) wanted to "shoot" the US at the "box", then Krasnopol would be much more logical, of course, with the possibility of backlighting. The fact that light armored vehicles do not survive dense shelling of 6 "was known from the very beginning (our specialists did not immediately get to the Americans), but Marder / Warrior / Bradley-M1 does not solve this problem either. And it's not a fact that Puma solves it / Bradley's latest T-15? Maybe, but will there be one at all? The Americans failed two or even three projects of a "tank" infantry fighting vehicle.
            1. 0
              February 24 2023
              Well, since someone (not me) wanted to "shoot" the US at the "box"

              Artoy is fired at positions and places where the accumulation of equipment was revealed

              MLRS hit targets dispersed over a large area

              Fragments and a blast wave can come from anywhere at any time
              Marder / Warrior / Bradley-M1 does not solve this problem. And it’s not at all a fact that Puma / Bradley is the last to decide it.

              If they keep aboard 12,7 with 200m
              Then they are guaranteed to be protected from fragments of artillery and MLRS, at a distance of 50 m from the explosion site, from any direction

              + mine protection
    2. 0
      February 28 2023
      excalibur??? by bmp??? How???? how do you point it at the BMP?
  16. 0
    February 20 2023
    Personally, I came to the conclusion that in connection with the increased capabilities of reconnaissance and fire damage, heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on tanks are needed. The task of the TBMP will be to deliver troops directly to the fortification of the enemy. Therefore, her reservation must be appropriate. All-perspective from RPGs and from ATGMs at heading angles. This can be achieved by abandoning the tank gun and strengthening armor protection.
  17. +1
    February 20 2023
    If any vehicle is urgently needed, it is a truly heavy T-15, capable of being in the same formation, on an equal footing, with tanks.

    It is unlikely that "Kurganets" and "Boomerang" can be mass-produced and used within the framework of the SVO.
    And for existing infantry fighting vehicles, the most important thing will be equipment with anti-cumulative, anti-drone gratings and hinged armor. The mass appearance of kamikaze drones has become one of the main threats to armored vehicles, along with various types of cumulative grenades.
    It is desirable to deal with the design of hinged lattices and hinged armor without delay. And one of the main shortcomings of our light infantry fighting vehicles, such as unsuccessful upper hatches that do not allow hiding behind them, cannot be quickly eliminated. And there is no understanding of the importance of the design of hatches. Although the hatches on the BMP-3 are relatively good now.
    1. +2
      February 20 2023
      Although the hatches on the BMP-3 are relatively good now.

      The wounded will have to crawl out along the red-hot passage above the engine

      On the other hand, moving the engine back to a less vulnerable part of the car is a win-win solution.


      You can always recruit a new crew, but you can’t lose an infantry fighting vehicle. Even if you pay 200 million for every 6th, this is incomparable with the loss of the 85 millionth car
      + ammunition,
      + other military equipment
    2. -1
      February 20 2023
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      Although the hatches on the BMP-3 are relatively good now.

      Extremely bad. In real conditions, you can not be inside the BMP-3. The attack goes like this:

      1. 0
        February 20 2023
        This is just a good option, under the protection of manhole covers. On the BMP-1/2, this is much worse, there is nothing to hide behind on armor.
        1. +4
          February 20 2023
          Do not make me laugh. You choose between worse and worse.
          Here is the correct landing for an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier in 2023.

          1. 0
            February 20 2023
            What does landing have to do with it? We are talking about the convenience of traveling on armor.
            Here,
            even more successful hatch design with backwater, more durable.
            1. 0
              April 13 2023
              We are talking about the convenience of traveling on armor.
              The landing force must move inside the combat vehicle (armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle), and not on top of the armor.
          2. 0
            April 12 2023
            Quote from cold wind
            Do not make me laugh. You choose between worse and worse.
            Here is the correct landing for an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier in 2023.


            I agree with you 100%!
            Therefore, our BMP-1,2,3 need to be changed to BMP-3 "Dragoon" or BMP-3 "Manul".

        2. 0
          February 20 2023
          It's kind of like an attack by the Marines on Ugledar, go see what the results of "covering with hatches", or rather, not only the incorrect use of vulnerable vehicles themselves, but also as shock
          1. -1
            February 20 2023
            Quote: Materialist
            It's kind of like the attack of the Marines on Ugledar,

            It is she. Screenshots from the video. Here is an earlier video, the same picture:
            1. +1
              February 20 2023
              Soldiers in battle formations like these are initially doomed
            2. +1
              February 21 2023
              Just don't tell me that they were shot down with heavy machine guns. Such a tank is not a fact that it would survive.
            3. 0
              February 21 2023
              Hmm .. I noticed that the soldiers were leaving both wrecked cars ... This is a word about insufficient security.
  18. 0
    February 20 2023
    Oleg, excellent style, the article is read with pleasure! Thank you.

    I completely agree with the main thesis that equipment created 50+ years ago under the conditions of a total nuclear war is completely unsuitable for today's tasks and conditions. And if so, then it makes no sense to find fault with trifles.

    In all wars, starting with Vietnam, little known to me, where the Americans urgently riveted dumbbells and gunships literally on their knees, and up to Afghanistan (USSR), when the elevation angle of the guns suddenly turned out to be insufficient for fighting in the mountains, the equipment was used for other purposes and fought with what was available. Now they are putting machine guns on the Gazelle ...

    With regard to Soviet infantry fighting vehicles, it is still surprising that no other vehicle has been developed for such a long time. Almost 1 years have passed since Chechnya-30.
  19. -1
    February 20 2023
    The problem is that we have one machine (in different modifications) solving different tactical tasks, which, for good, should be solved by completely different machines. Offhand: 1. Transportation of infantry under enemy infantry fire - a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, with the best possible protection, without a combat module. 2. Reconnaissance in combat, infantry support with heavy machine gun fire, 20-30mm guns, ATGM - light tank. 3. Transportation of infantry outside of direct contact with the enemy - tracked armored personnel carrier, analogue of the M-113. Three fairly prominent, most common tactical roles. And in the first position we have nothing at all that can confidently hold fragments and infantry weapons at the MBT level, in the second position there are existing infantry fighting vehicles, which could well add armor due to the weight of the landing force, in the third - BTR-80 with no mine protection and insufficient cross-country ability due to its wheeledness ...
  20. 0
    February 20 2023
    And if you focus on disguise?
    Equip existing vehicles with automatic grenade launchers to shoot smoke and heat traps in constant mode, use screens that reduce visibility? Plastic / hay / straw linings? (Joke)
    It’s not easy to get into an infantry fighting vehicle from a machine gun or cannon on the go. Install jamming systems to suppress drones? Use electronic warfare vehicles to cover the offensive?
    It's cheaper and, most importantly, faster.
    Convert some of the machines into uninhabited ones to cover the main ones?
  21. 0
    February 20 2023
    Auto RU. I am surprised that you did not understand how the paratroopers were supposed to fire from the BMP-1 in practice. She thought for TMV. Hence the consequence. The paratroopers fire from the BMP at the enemies dying from radiation and / or HE, saving them from torment. Well, preventing the use of weapons against themselves, loved ones. Fso!
  22. 0
    February 20 2023
    Quote: Materialist
    So, tens of thousands of tanks could, but the T-BMP is already beyond the capabilities of Soviet industry, right?
    It can allow fighting, as it turned out, even a pickup truck with a machine gun, but who are you going to defeat with this and at what cost?
    How do you imagine modernization? We take a car whose survivability in combat tends to zero, "modernize" it, whatever that means, and on that, does it become more survivable or what? If you cannot ensure the survivability of the infantry, which conducts absolutely all offensives, then there can be no talk of victories by increasing the cost of cardboard vehicles, the only thing you will achieve is a more significant loss of each of them, for example, due to the installation of "expensive" (after all, it is important for you in order to spend less money) of the combat module, it will be more significant, moreover, each modification of this machine just requires its rise in price to increase the effectiveness of its weapons
    Regarding the article, which, according to the canons, extols the defense of Kurganets and Boomerang over all their predecessors (the difference in their masses, after all, is really different by orders of magnitude, by as much as 10 tons ("!!!"), nothing but "another pearl of ignorance", there is nothing to say

    As for the "pearls of ignorance". You google, please, the meaning of the word "orders of magnitude different" (C) since you are so unlucky in life with a teacher in mathematics. I hint, I do not know about armored vehicles weighing more than 1000 tons. :)
    1. 0
      February 20 2023
      Google the meaning of the word "sarcasm"
      About embodied in metal or as such? Ratte, Landkreuzer Monster, TG-5...
    2. +2
      February 21 2023
      With Soviet appetites for the number of tanks and art. trunks - yes, beyond the possibilities. There is nothing to remember about modern Russian industry here. Pale shadow.
  23. -1
    February 20 2023
    Low fuel consumption and low cost are, of course, good, but this is a consequence, not a cause. A consequence of the extremely low weight, which is only necessary to ensure the buoyancy of the car.
    Confirmation - Kurganets, which, with a mass of 25 tons, also floats !!! The idea is alive, it is not dead. And, as a result, Kurganets lacks serious protection - with its dimensions it is simply impossible to provide it even with a mass of 25 tons!
  24. +4
    February 20 2023
    Again, the old song that they want to make an ersatz tank out of an infantry fighting vehicle.
    To make it clear again, I will explain what I wrote about under another article.
    The main purpose of the BMP was to overcome the line of barrage of enemy artillery with the infantry in the airborne compartment. At the same time, infantry fighting vehicles moved 200-300 meters BEHIND the battle line of tanks.
    When the battle line of tanks approached the line of safe removal - 200 meters from the line of artillery shell explosions - the artillery began to move the fire shaft further deep into the enemy defenses. The density of artillery and mortars with a caliber of 120 mm or more was calculated at 110-130 barrels per 1 km of the front, excluding MLRS. At the same time, part of the artillery fires shells with ready-made lethal elements 3Sh1 (3000 elements per projectile) and 3Sh2 (7000 elements per projectile). After the tanks reached the first line of enemy defense, motorized riflemen dismounted and the battle formation acquired the following formation: 200 meters from the firing shaft - tanks, 200 meters behind the tanks - motorized rifles, 200-300 meters behind the motorized rifles - infantry fighting vehicles, move from cover to cover. At the same time, the BMP was assigned the task of destroying enemy infantry anti-tank weapons and, in part, enemy infantry fire weapons that survived after artillery preparation and the passage of a fire shaft.
    The counterattacks of the enemy were the first to begin to reflect the BMP with ATGM fire.
    In 1973, during the Doomsday War, after the Egyptians crossed the Suez Knal, it was the attack of Egyptian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles behind the artillery barrage that led to a rapid breakthrough of the Israeli defenses. And the Jews managed to cope with this breakthrough with great difficulty. At the same time, losses in armored vehicles turned out to be low at this stage. Moreover, the unprepared Israeli counterattacks ended in heavy losses of armored personnel carriers, while most of the equipment was destroyed by BMP anti-tank systems.
    But the Syrian and Iraqi troops on the Golan Heights, neglected such tactics, relied only on the attack of masses of tanks, in the end they could not break through the Israeli defenses.
    The requirements for buoyancy came from the conditions of the European theater of operations, where there were abundant water barriers, and the probability of capturing bridges intact was considered scanty. That is why one of the requirements for infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers was the ability to overcome water obstacles by swimming. For crossing on ferries and floating transporters under direct enemy fire would be simply suicide of the troops.
    NATO adhered to the tactic that the seizure of the bridgehead should be carried out by airmobile units with landing from helicopters, after which bridges should be quickly built and both tanks and infantry fighting vehicles were already crossing the river. At the same time, it was a priori believed, for some reason, that the military air defense of the Soviet army would be completely destroyed, as well as front-line aviation, and the NATO Air Force would reign supreme in the air. Which will ensure unhindered landing of airborne units.
    1. 0
      February 22 2023
      Well, it is clear that the Soviet General Staff were not entirely idiots. The problem is that we will not be able to reproduce such tactics now. And you have to fight with what they did for her then.
  25. +6
    February 20 2023
    We continue further.
    All claims now made against the BMP are mainly related to its use in counterguerrilla operations, which are fundamentally different from operations against an enemy with an established line of demarcation. From the same opera, lamentations that the BMP is easily hit by a grenade launcher.
    The tactics of using infantry fighting vehicles, when they had to follow the tanks, BEHIND the fire shaft, when the enemy positions were plowed up, including by 3Sh1 and 3Sh2 shells (protruding under these conditions with a grenade launcher or with a portable ATGM from a trench meant guaranteed to turn into a colander), this is absolutely does not coincide with counterguerrilla actions. Because such actions require completely different vehicles: they do not need buoyancy, they must be protected from anti-tank grenade launchers, in the first place. They must be able to immediately open fire from any angle without the time delay required for the turret to turn and the gunner to search for a target.
    By the way, it's worth looking at what armored vehicles the Israeli security forces use in the fight against Palestinian militants, what kind of hanging screens are around them, which screens are above the roof. In a field battle, this armored car is needed as a stoplight hare, but in urban areas or in forest plantations it will perfectly fulfill the main function - to protect personnel from being hit by a cumulative jet of a grant launcher, when several layers of a hinged screen neutralize even tandem ammunition. But these armored vehicles have several machine guns, which bristled like a hedgehog.
    And when the IDF failed in the relatively recent war with the Lebanese Hezbollah, this happened precisely because the Israelis drove tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles into settlements, into forest plantations, where they were fired from grenades or from light portable ATGMs.
    However, today, for some reason, we suddenly began to demand that infantry fighting vehicles act as ersatz tanks and cover motorized riflemen with their armor in attacking enemy strongholds. Which, of course, is a function that is absolutely not characteristic of the BMP. As I already mentioned, the function of the BMP was to provide armor cover for the landing force when overcoming the zone of barrage fire of enemy artillery, from small arms fire at long distances and landing in the immediate vicinity of the first line of enemy defense, as soon as the artillery fire shaft moved deep into enemy positions. And motorized riflemen with a quick throw will reach the first line of enemy positions, eliminating the possibility of stopping them with small arms fire.
    As for the NATO infantry fighting vehicles, they were created on the principle of providing protection against weapons that are installed on them. Both "Marder" and "Bradley" were calculated in order to guarantee protection against armor-piercing ammunition of 14,5 mm - the armament of Soviet armored personnel carriers of that time. Against the cumulative shots of the Grom cannon and the Malyutka anti-tank systems, of course, the armor of the Bradleys and Marders did not provide protection. However, the calculation was that the guns of both infantry fighting vehicles had a direct range twice that of the Grom (730 m), and this would provide a fire advantage. With the advent of the 30-mm cannon on the BMP-2, the armor of NATO BMPs again became inadequate. In order to fend off this threat, additional armor had to be hung on both BMPs, which added several tons of additional weight. "Marder" eventually began to pull 35 tons, at the level of the Soviet T-54 tank. However, as in the case of enemy tanks, the Soviet infantry fighting vehicles did not need to achieve an indispensable penetration of the armor with shells, the impact action of a hail of 30-mm shells led to damage to the enemy BTT, which practically excluded their further participation in the battle.
    At the same time, NATO infantry fighting vehicles were protected from the damaging effect of cumulative ammunition a little better than nothing, before the advent of hinged dynamic protection kits (although they still did not provide guaranteed protection against cumulative ammunition), which brought their mass closer to the mass of our main battle tanks, with the appropriate cost. Those. it was possible to make them only on the basis of an army that is going to fight only with the Papuans, and even small losses become irreparable.
    In the NMD, we again see that there is no offensive following the barrage, no normal artillery preparation, no artillery support for the attack. There is a slow and viscous smoking out of the enemy from one platoon stronghold to another, then from another to a third. Naturally, under these conditions, if infantry fighting vehicles are trying to replace tanks, then nothing good can be expected.
    1. 0
      April 10 2023
      If we proceed from the fact that the Soviet infantry fighting vehicle must protect motorized riflemen from artillery fire, then it does a very poor job. Just like the BTR80. Fragments of 155 mm shells pierce the armor of the BMP-2. In this regard, Western infantry fighting vehicles are much more adequately protected. The BMP-3 is inconvenient for transporting drugs, and is also very dangerous in case of defeat due to the presence of OFS in the troop compartment ... The BMP should have small-caliber artillery, supplemented by anti-tank missiles with different warheads. And maybe even an automatic grenade launcher. And a pair of powerful art guns (125 mm) with a 30 mm autocannon should be placed on MBT.
  26. -1
    February 21 2023
    The latest Russian responses 40 years late Bradley BMP Kurgan and Boomerang should conduct a baptism of fire in the zone of their own. We need a result and not "sea trials", stop the boys from dying in cans of BMP2 These sea trials of the Kurgan and boomerang will go on forever as long as the government gives money
  27. -2
    February 21 2023
    At the time of the development of the vehicle, amphibious infantry fighting vehicles were relevant, then the birds had not yet gone as far as they are now, there was no massive use of reconnaissance UAVs and assault UAVs, there were no corrected artillery shells that from 50 km range could hit a fast moving target 5 meters in size.
    I also read a lot of comments here about the possibility of transferring BMP 2 through helicopters, but it was possible and practical at the time of creation, then there was no stinger MANPADS and now there is only 1 stinger missile and the helicopter was destroyed, the BMP along with the landing force
    The USSR had to simultaneously create 2 infantry fighting vehicles with opposite tasks, 1 is a fast floating BMP1-2 with mediocre protection, and the second is a BMP CONVENIENT FOR LANDING, well armored and with good weapons for fighting on land BMP like Bradley or Warrior.
    And the most important thing about the buoyancy of the BMP 2, let's give each soldier an employee a shotgun, this is an extra 5 kg of weight, it's inconvenient, but there is a very small chance of using it in a trench battle or when storming a building.
  28. 0
    February 21 2023
    Relax: it is possible and necessary to modernize infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. It is enough to give diploma topics to graduates of the relevant universities every year.
    Only the next one (the end of this war) will be maximally saturated with drones and the WTO. Lancet series 3-10 will not care what weight and armor. Do not care active protection. Therefore, an infantry fighting drone, with remote control, hung with screens with remote sensing and KAZ, is simply beautiful. And the same one rides behind, but with a landing force.
  29. +1
    February 21 2023
    Soviet motorized riflemen were supposed to fire directly from their regular places through loopholes in the sides.

    It is difficult to say how this could be used in practice, taking into account all the above circumstances and the “cardboard” sides of the BMP.
    In practice, firing from the loopholes of the BMP 1-BTR 60 occurs while crossing the enemy trenches or when landing in front of the enemy trenches, for this purpose, there are two machine-gun loopholes on board the BMP 1, which, when a PK machine gun is installed in them, can be fired at the rate of the BMP, this is from the manual tactics of using BMP 1 in combat. Finally, on the BMD 1, BMD -2, BMP 3, the course loophole on the BTR 80, course machine guns were specially made to create a density of fire per meter during the dismounting of an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier.
    As for buoyancy, if water barriers can be overcome on BMP 1 with landing inside BMP 1, then with BMP 2 it’s sad here, the probability of sinking is very high, there were orders that during the exercises it was forbidden to overcome water obstacles on BMP 2 with landing inside the vehicle
  30. 0
    February 21 2023
    The future belongs to simple and cheap robots. You can also rivet thousands of “dummy” robots from plywood and stupidly send them head-on so that the enemy spends expensive anti-tank systems. Similarly, I believe, UAVs can be made. Why expensive carbon fiber and titanium? There is also plywood and fabric for sheathing. Let them buzz and unnerve the enemy in 24x7 mode.

    I believe that even schoolchildren in Labor lessons can easily master this in thousands of pieces.
  31. 0
    February 21 2023
    That's right, what kind of war are weapons being created for? For one - BMP1 / 2, for the other BMP-2D, which would be worth remembering, and in which buoyancy was sacrificed for the sake of additional booking.
  32. +1
    February 21 2023
    so many times it has been said / written, but still again an argument))))
    1. Who served in the army knows that any thing is used not only for its intended purpose, but has several more functions. For example, a bayonet knife is also a hammer, etc., etc.
    2. BMP - 1/2 was designed not only as an infantry fighting vehicle, but also as an BREM, BRM, KShM, etc., etc.
    3. The economy must be economical. And in the army they are striving for unification. And it was this unification that was also one of the most important requirements in the development of the BMP.
    4. Everything flows, everything changes. The era of capturing bridgeheads by direct attack on the trenches on the coast has passed. In addition, everyone understands that any bridgehead now without a pontoon crossing is not for long.
    5. Buoyancy of the BMP is not needed? No and yes. The ground forces in the state of a motorized rifle regiment have three line battalions. These line battalions should be on heavy infantry fighting vehicles. But the reconnaissance battalion on the BMP-2/3. Self-propelled anti-tank systems are also based on the 2nd and 3rd infantry fighting vehicles and the battalion artillery should be floating. Because a maneuver is needed in battle, and according to the law of meanness, it either forces the river to cross, or some kind of pond, or simply flooded territory. And the infantry urgently needs support, you won’t wait for the pontoons. And the tanks of the enemy that broke through along the flank with birds must be resolved, and so on and so forth.
    6. Regarding the use of infantry fighting vehicles in the NWO now - 1/2/3. It is necessary for you, comrade commentators, to simply understand. BMP 1 and 2 is a UAZ-loaf with a machine gun and no armored one. It's much better than walking. And you don’t need to carry ammunition for company / battalion and other weapons. It goes by itself. And if there is also a gun that will support! More cool! And it's better than just driving a UAZ. The BMP has a harp.
    7. Thus, the infantry must be inside the TBMP. For women do not give birth. But various other units are in need of amphibious infantry fighting vehicles.
    1. -1
      February 24 2023
      has a few more features. For example, a bayonet knife is also a hammer, etc., etc.

      For what other functions is used, for example, a tank

      In addition to those situations in which a highly protected combat vehicle weighing 45-70 tons is required
  33. -1
    February 24 2023
    ... BMP-1/2/3 are used in all forms in the combat zone. And this story has no end in sight...
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    That's for sure. As they began to move on armor in Afghanistan more than 40 years ago, this is how it all continues, and there is no end in sight.
    No matter how much you put new towers and modules on ancient infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, they are more modern and more secure than the statute ...
    What do they think in MO?
    Does everyone study according to Soviet military textbooks and think in terms of the "cold war" of the last century?
    The world, or rather the war, has changed ...
  34. 0
    February 28 2023
    25 ton kurgan and 30 ton boomerang?

    Author, you have reputed something. Rather the opposite is true.
  35. 0
    March 23 2023
    The conditions of the war changed and the BMP-2D appeared.
  36. 0
    March 23 2023
    There is a misconception that the weak security of domestic infantry vehicles and combat vehicles is entirely related to their ability to swim. The allegedly unjustified desire of the military to get floating armored vehicles forced the designers to sacrifice other characteristics.

    you mean misleading??? this is elementary physics))) and it is for this functionality that we have been paying for a decade now, what an armed conflict has already been, a huge bloody price! And for this very reason, the BMP-2 appeared during the Afghan war, when they did not put up with worthless security, they began to install additional armor plates, so the BMP-2D appeared, which completely lost the ability to overcome water barriers!



    Without raising the question why today, after more than 30 years and at least three wars, our army still uses the BMP-2 and even the BMP-1 in different variations and the same BTR-80 and its modernization, despite what has been developed, there are kits to improve the security of these combat vehicles, I don’t install them en masse ?? and the fighters on the spot "collective farms" as best they can, installing all possible screens and handy materials. Even in the shots, boxes of dynamic protection "Contact" installed on cars come across, and to a greater extent boxes with stones or sand, tracks, sheets, rubber bushes and even logs !!!
    It seems to me that today's armed conflict will put an end to the issue of the need for combat vehicles to have the ability to airborne landing and overcome water barriers, the first was not carried out and does not make sense at all, and the second for the entire time of hostilities took place with the help of pontoon crossings! In this regard, the concept of infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers should be reviewed. BMP-2, all BMDs and armored personnel carriers that are in service with the army, should finally go to their well-deserved rest, along with the dream of the grenade launcher "Kurganets" and "Boomerang". Vehicles capable of swimming and landing from aircraft should remain only with detachments such as special operations forces!

  37. 0
    April 7 2023
    An infantry fighting vehicle is a taxi with protection against light and medium small arms, it is offensive insofar as it is from ambush, accidentally ran into.
    You can raise the defense up to a certain level, but even a tank does not have absolute protection.
    So-so article.
    The armament of the BMP - the suppression of points of small arms in the forehead, other means of destruction according to the principle - shot and washed off.
    In general, there should be a high-speed fire control system, firing only on the move - stopping is tantamount to death.
  38. 0
    April 9 2023
    Firstly, mass is important not only for swimming, but also for air travel.
    Secondly, over the hill the task of increasing protection has long been solved - there is an additional set of reservations installed when necessary. An example is the Swedish CV90 in modifications A - 26 tons, B - 32 tons, C - 40 tons. They set that when necessary.
    Thirdly, Kurganets is, in principle, an unsuccessful poorly arranged machine. An example is the Afganit complex, arranged formally. The result is a huge radar reflection.
  39. 0
    April 12 2023
    Why such light infantry fighting vehicles?
    And buoyancy has nothing to do with it at all.
    Also, it's elementary physics.
  40. 0
    April 13 2023
    As long as there is no air superiority and enemy artillery is not suppressed, there is nothing to think of climbing somewhere with tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles and defeating with little blood, and if you plan an offensive, then the tank wedge should significantly exceed the capabilities of enemy artillery in numbers
  41. -1
    6 May 2023
    The Ministry of Defense often has non-combat generals who have not gone through wars. Generals without offensive experience. Therefore, without motivating that we need heavy infantry fighting vehicles, they didn’t order at all, as you can see.
    BMP1, 2, 3 cannot be attacked in the current realities. Bring infantry no more, but run from the battlefield on it.
    Well now is the time when new infantry fighting vehicles could be tried out, order 10 models and try them out in battle along with armats
    It was just possible to form groups with armats, terminators and kurgans, and a couple more tugboats, all of a sudden they would blow something up so that they could drag it back to their
    Kurgan Machine Works continues to produce infantry fighting vehicles that are not needed by the front. Instead of setting up the production of heavy infantry fighting vehicles, they are most needed by the front at the current time. On those that are made of aluminum, you will not go far, but yes, they look beautiful.
    Here is an example of a war for Artemovsk, but the city could be bypassed, they cannot bypass because there are no heavy infantry fighting vehicles
    An example of the Chechen special forces broke through to the infantry fighting vehicle, the maximum was enough for them to reach the trenches of the enemy, she stood there and stood as a monument
    On these BMPs, you can get to the front line, but you won’t go back on it already, you’ll have to die there. On these infantry fighting vehicles you can only become a war hero
    Here the terminator proved itself, I think it is necessary to install such modules on the BMP as the terminator has
    If you put a tower from a terminator car on a Kurgan, then there will be a serious threat to the enemy. I believe that the armament of the new infantry fighting vehicles should be no less than that of the terminator, the enemy is afraid of them and does not stick out
    If hundreds of vehicles of such infantry fighting vehicles launch an offensive, the enemy will simply run.
    Or such BMPs should go with terminator-type machines
    The main purpose of the BMP is to be well armored and protected for infantry.
  42. 0
    13 May 2023
    All this is beautiful ... Only then 25-30 tons will be thrown on black soil, like Tamantsy T-80. These beauties are for driving on asphalt or stones.
  43. 0
    19 May 2023
    As they say, feel the difference in the analytics of this informative, seasoned and quite convincing in the arguments of the article and Skomorokhov's tantrums.

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

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