From the point of view of the infantry. Our love, trinity

128
From the point of view of the infantry. Our love, trinity

We continue a series of reviews and analyzes of equipment, weapons and tactics with the participants of the NWO.

Our comrade and like-minded Sergey "Observer2014" was assigned for retraining, thanks to which we managed to "finish off" the material that we bring to your attention.




Say hello to everyone who realized that it was him)))

Three “confident users” took part in our “review” at once: a driver, an infantry gunner and a machine gunner. Almost complete set.

Let's start as usual with stories. However, the history of the creation of the BMP-3 has already been painted inside and out, so we will just briefly recall. It makes sense, because in expert circles there is still a debate about whether the BMP-3 is a huge success of the Soviet design shop or vice versa, this is the biggest engineering mistake of our engineers.


1977 Work began on the "Object 688", which after 10 years turned into the same BMP-3 that caused so much controversy. Production began in Kurgan, at the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant named after Lenin, now OJSC Kurganmashzavod.

The BMP-3 was significantly different from its predecessors, the BMP-1 and 2. First of all, the differences concerned the hull and layout. The car turned out to be very well protected and armed. Plus retained the ability to swim.

The level of protection is really decent. The frontal armor can withstand a 30 mm projectile from a distance of 200 meters, and the roof and sides hold a 12,7 mm bullet fired from the same distance. Naturally, protection can be enhanced by installing additional armor blocks on top of the existing one. The only machine completely made of special aluminum, both hull and turret.

Armament. The main one is the 2A70 launcher, caliber 100 mm, which can fire at a speed of up to 10 rounds per minute or launch anti-tank missiles. Gun ammunition 40 shells, 22 immediately in the automatic loader, 18 in the stowage. The crew can fire even afloat, and with fairly high accuracy. The firing range is 4 kilometers.

A 2-mm 70A30 gun is paired with the 2A72, the same one that is on modern armored personnel carriers. Its rate of fire is up to 330 rounds per minute.


The third type of weapon is machine guns. There are three of them, PKT caliber 7,62 mm. One is paired with cannons in the turret, two are located in front of the hull and paratroopers fire from them.

The tower is a module that, in principle, can be replaced with anything from ATGM launchers to air defense systems.

The heart of the car is the UTD-29, a V-shaped "ten", diesel, with a power of 500 hp. Plus a semi-automatic transmission. In general - at the level of world standards.


The main thing around which the noise is now (now, by the way, especially) is the layout. The engine was removed to the rear, and the landing force was "smeared" around it. For this, a wave of criticism went, because although the diesel engine was lowered as much as possible to make it easier for the troops to go outside, this did not help much.


"Butterflies", that is, two hinged doors in the roof of the compartment, seemed to be a way out of the situation, as they facilitated the exit by covering the fighter, but even with them everything was ambiguous.

Word Sergei "Observer":
When they developed the car, I don’t know whether the infantry was lower, or they were selected somehow ... But here I am: 196 cm and so almost a centner of weight (see photo - approx.). Plus armor, plus unloading. No, in Soviet times there were definitely no bulletproof vests and such unloading, in the summer, probably, it was generally gorgeous. I haven’t tried it, but in winter, in a winter suit, and with all this ...

Well, I'll be honest: I almost have to fold in half in order to cut off the carcass of the engine below and the ceiling above. And only then you can straighten up, and, moreover, my head immediately above the "butterflies" begins to stick out like a head of cabbage. Like, sniper, here it is, me!

Pushing inside is not at all easier, but somewhat more difficult, because if you climbed in, then you still have to turn around inside. In general - not with my height and weight.


Yes, many people note that the process of boarding and disembarking is the “Kama Sutra”. But there's nothing to be done, otherwise nothing. Therefore, many (including my interlocutor Sergey) continue to ride on top of the armor.

By the way, there is another opinion about skiing from above. Another Sergei, Markic. Machine gunner.

“I'm on the“ three ”on the armor and nothing else. It is soft, you can shoot from it, if not clearly aimed, then at least in the direction, not to kill, then to scare. It is also important, especially if the stubborn with the RPG sat down on the course. They often keep quiet in the bushes, so from time to time it’s useful to give a little bit into the bushes or “brilliant green”, they begin to think there that they were burned and do not actively rock the boat or even turn back.


In the "three" there is a PKT on the sides, but they are so, for show off. No, maybe it’s normal for someone, it’s unusual for me personally, you don’t see anything there. And the sector is the same. That's how it is, we usually plant fighters, growl in the bushes for fear. The sector is really small.

And I'm behind the tower with mine. And I see 120-140 degrees, and I can look back, and I see not like in this bank. And the “three” goes exactly, and well, you can easily get from it where you aim. Of course, if she is not at full speed, then, naturally, you hold on with your arms and legs. And when we go 20-30 kilometers, I will get where I need to go.”


Opinion private, but having the right to be. Indeed, the view from the tower is better.

One more design feature. About the fuel tank. Since the engine "went" back, the creators sent the tank forward. In place of the engine. Many consider this to be stupid, because the frontal part for the tank is wrong, since there is, as it were, the maximum probability of penetration.

Well, at first glance, it's really debatable. It "arrives" in the frontal projection really often, but the question is - what flies in?

There is almost 80 millimeters of armor. Bullets of all calibers go past, and automatic cannon shells up to and including 30 mm, too. What do we have left? Tank projectile, RPG and ATGM. What are we afraid of?

I addressed this question to the third interlocutor, an infantry fighting vehicle driver with ten years of experience. Vladimir, who began his service on the BMP-2 and moved seven years ago to the BMP-3, said this:

“In general, there is also a mine, if anything. On the list. About bullets and small shells - yes, the armor holds all this. For the rest, I'll break it down for you:
- a tank will never get into an infantry fighting vehicle with an experienced carrier. He is slow. I'll dance him if I see him. Of course, if we don’t notice, then yes, we’re covered, and no matter what he shoots there, with a crowbar or a landmine. But it is necessary that we all catch jackdaws, and he would be in an ambush, and even the crew is no worse than ours. But we are such a target for a tank, we are fast and small. Plus, he is not our weight category, it’s easier to get out of sight somewhere and spit from there with a rocket.
On our question - if a tank gets into an infantry fighting vehicle, then it doesn't matter where we have the tank.

- RPG. This is unpleasant, but then again, over time, you already understand where he can go wrong. RPG is close combat in the city or from an ambush in the green. In a field or at a crossroads, even a good crew will not let you approach them, and if the infantry is also advanced ... We were attached to Kadyrov’s, it’s like behind a wall with them, they generally won’t let anyone into the distance of a shot from an RPG.
If, however, a “carrot” is really planted on board, then it’s not at all an option that it’s in a tank. "Carrot" - it's like that ... wherever it gets, it gets there. In general, we were told back in training that diesel fuel is good at extinguishing a cumulative jet. But I didn’t check it myself, God bless.

- ATGM. This is the most unpleasant, because if a good ATGM or so-so, but with an experienced operator, it will arrive. But where will a good ATGM (in the sense of a modern one) fly? That's right, the engine. That is - in the stern. It is warmer there from his point of view, otherwise the infantry will generally become hot in the compartment. And the operator will push under the tower so that the ammunition rack is hooked. And us that ... And it’s hard to get into the tank in general, so we don’t really worry about it.

- Mina. Here she just can mess things up, if well-placed, right. But then again, if a good mine is set correctly, then our heads will hurt for a completely different reason.

What kind of tank, then the main thing here is to fill it as it is “under the cork” before a good batch so that there are less vapors. And if something flies in from the other side - well, what difference does it make to me, what will shy me, hot diesel fuel or hot metal? Solar somehow even more preferable looks.

Well, here it is worth adding that the BMP-3 tank has a very complex design, porous and with additional fire protection. And certainly everything is no more fire hazardous than a conventional engine, as was the case with the BMP-2.

Let's talk separately about weapons.


The history of the armament of the BMP-3 is generally a separate action, since it is unlikely that there was such a thing anywhere else in history. While all countries in the world were putting 20-30-mm guns on their armored vehicles, we decided to play with trump cards. 30 mm is not enough, we need more! And something like an auction came out, since at first they offered 45 mm, then 57 mm (TsNIItochmash), then 76 mm (TsNIItransmash), and then Tula from the Instrument Design Bureau entered the arena and entered with trump cards, offering its own 2A70 cannon with a caliber of 100 mm, and even with the option of launching ATGM 9K116 "Kastet" from it.

This was already used as a modernization of the old T-54/55 under the name 9K116-1 "Bastion", and for the BMP-3 it was called 9K116-3 "Fable". The Brass Knuckles was controlled by a laser beam or telecontrol, so I liked the idea. Moreover, for that time, the Brass Knuckles broke the faces of almost all the tanks in the world without remote sensing systems. The ammunition load of 100-mm shells came out small, 2 shells in the stowage and another 18 in the aft compartment, under the rears of the infantrymen. But even he promised in advance the coffin of all armored vehicles (except for tanks, of course) that had left for the battlefield.

The 30-mm 2A72 gun has a very decent ammunition load of 500 rounds, could thresh in series of 10 rounds or continuous fire with a rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute.

Three machine guns - this is so, especially considering that the two side ones have pointing angles of about 30 degrees in each direction. And for those infantrymen who did not get machine guns, but their hands itch, there were loopholes in the sides. So to speak - for self-realization.

The turret unit has very decent pointing angles from -6 to +60 degrees, so that the enemy in the mountains or urban areas does not feel deprived of attention. And you can try to reach out by helicopter if one turns up on the battlefield.

Naturally, all this splendor is accompanied by a mountain of boxes with electronics. Rangefinders, lasers, sights (including night ones) - in general, it turned out to be a small and fast under-tank, a maniac's dream.

Plus it floats...


I don’t know who’s tongue will turn to call this car unsuccessful, the weak point is, in fact, only landing and landing. The fact that more than one vehicle was created on the basis of the BMP-3 over a decade and a half indicates that everything turned out as it should.

- KShM, in which, instead of landing, they stuffed additional radio stations, a radio operator, a place for the commander and a table for cards.
- BMP-3F. Marine's dream. They removed the stray for self-digging, added a wave-reflecting shield and an air intake.
- BRM-3. They removed the 100-mm cannon, in intelligence they considered it superfluous. Then there was another BRM-3K "Lynx" with a steel hull.
- BREM-L "Runaway". It can do everything from the delivery of fuel and ammunition to replacing the turret in the field.
- Installation of the tower from the "Nona" with a 120-mm cannon-mortar gave rise to 2S31 "Vienna". They say they wanted to adapt the 152-mm howitzer in some way, but it didn’t work out.
- 9K123 "Chrysanthemum". The best in the opinion of many Russian anti-tank systems.


And so on.

I pass the word again Sergei "Observer", who communicated very closely with the "three rubles".

"Mercedes" among military equipment. More precisely, not to say, but the conditions, of course, are not Mercedes. I can still get into the place of the commander, but the gunner must be tank-sized. I just got stuck in his hatch when I tried to climb into place.

From the troop compartment, in principle, you can even get into the combat one. But not for everyone, but for those who are small in stature and with flexibility, everything is fine. We were told that for one infantryman in the BMP-3 there is already a whole cubic meter of space! That is, like, much more than in the "two". I was not in the deuce, but I am clearly more than a cube.

There are five places in the troop compartment, where we usually place four. In armor and with unloading, it’s difficult for five there, plus if there is someone with a machine gun or (even worse) with an SVD, it’s guaranteed that someone will grab it in the eye on the go.

Yes, there is a toilet in our compartment! A toilet is hidden under one seat.


Steel, almost like a train. We thought for a long time how and when to use it, and didn’t really think it out, because when you go, it will not be an easy task, but when you arrive, it’s already too late, as it were.

And there is one more minus: a bunch of all sorts of brackets and hooks for fastening, don’t understand what. There is something to put your head on every square decimeter.

The car is very soft, but shakes when starting and stopping be healthy. And if the commander makes stops for firing from a cannon, he can get sick, many were sick to the point of eversion inside out.

VladimirA: It's a matter of habit. Yes, the car nods, there is such a thing, but you can really get used to it after a certain time.

If we talk about my place - everything is just chic! I am sitting in the middle, on the right and on the left are two fighters who are having fun with course side machine guns. There, too, not everyone can travel, when braking on a metal butt plate, you can thin out your teeth like that ...

In general, the driver's seat is made wisely. We were able to adjust the chair - fine, but you can still raise the chair so that the head sticks out of the hatch. In a casual way, so to speak.

The fact that the “troika” is rocking is not fatal. When you start, she lifts her nose decently, when you slow down, she nods strongly. So experienced drivers use the brake pedal only for the final stop or when they urgently need to stand up.

The machine is easily controlled, and can dance as you like, leaving the fire in case of emergency. Speed, agility - our everything.

Sergei: we generally fell in love with our “troikas”, because the car is just for us, for infantrymen. She can do everything that is needed: deliver there, take away from there. You can carry the wounded, whatever you want. But the main thing is that you feel protected with it. No, not when you sit inside, the feeling inside is so-so when they are nearby, they are buried in the plantings.

Tank... He's so... A little alien. A tank may or may not be given. Tankers - they are also with a temper, sometimes you take the trouble to explain to him what and how. And on the "troikas" all our drivers, they already know everything about the region.

With "behami" calmly. Relatively, of course, but calmly. This car has everything we need. Infantry will climb - plus a couple of machine guns is not at all superfluous. A 30-mm cannon is a nervous thing, but Lech the tanker said that they don’t like them, two infantry fighting vehicles can easily “take off their shoes” and blind them, simply by taking everything off the armor, sights, panoramas, prisms ... Well, “weaving” - it’s generally useful in all respects.

Our mini infantry tank. Someone can beat, someone scare away. Of course, if the crew is clear, then everything is simple.

The only thing that the infantry fighting vehicle does not do well is carry the infantry inside. So we, especially those who are fighting Winnie the Poohs, in the old fashioned way, ride on armor. But in all other respects - this is a military masterpiece. To make it a little higher and thicker armor - and it would be great at all.


Here is a collective opinion that gives a good answer to the fact that there is a BMP-3. We can say that this is a successful transitional model from infantry fighting vehicles of the last century to modern heavy infantry fighting vehicles like the same Puma. All the claims of the main users were exclusively about the volume of the troop compartment, so everyone who calls the BMP-3 an unsuccessful machine can be sent in a good way to where they themselves could evaluate all the capabilities of this machine. You know where: where did the opinion you just read come from.
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +20
    15 March 2023 04: 21
    At Otvaga.2004 there were articles "How the BMP-3 was created", "How the BMP-3 was sold". A very interesting story. In short, the UAE, with their order, helped a lot in the development of this car!
    1. +28
      15 March 2023 05: 09
      1977 Work began on the "Object 688", which after 10 years turned into the same BMP-3,
      35 years ! And what kind of infantry fighting vehicles would be NOW, if over the years they have advanced in their design and production!
      1. +32
        15 March 2023 07: 10
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        35 years ! And what kind of infantry fighting vehicles would be NOW, if over the years they have advanced in their design and production!

        Yes, if there was a Union now, then there would be a real renewal of the Army by 70%. There would be various
        new galoshes of the Armata type and the Su-57 type, not in single quantities, but as expected. And no one would say that we have not started yet. And they would not go to deals with the West, even if they were grain! And even gestures would be very unkind.
        1. +5
          15 March 2023 08: 08
          Errors in the article:
          1. The engine was removed to the rear, and the troops were "smeared" around it. For this, a wave of criticism went, because although the diesel engine was lowered as low as possible to facilitate the landing of the troops outside, this did not help much.

          The troops sit in the BMP-3 around the tower. For this, they criticize mainly that only the rear infantrymen can leave the BMP 3 through the rear tunnel.
          They say they wanted to adapt the 152-mm howitzer in some way, but it didn’t work out.

          The self-propelled version was created in the design bureau of the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant. Howitzer for 2S18 was developed in OKB-9 at the artillery plant number 9 under the leadership of Golubev V. A. [2] The chassis was developed under the leadership of Sushko N.M., however, after the machine was not put into service, the chassis was used to create the 120-mm SAO 2S31 "Vienna"
          1. +5
            15 March 2023 14: 23
            Errors in the article:

            forgot the most important advantage of the BMP-3 is dump for self-digging

            see diagram number 40
        2. -16
          15 March 2023 09: 04
          Yes, if there was a Union now,

          A normal infantry vehicle was not created in the Union either. All of our BMP-BTRs can be easily cut off from above and it will be even better.
          Something like this:




          The concept itself - the front dviglo, the rear doors were also invented back then. According to her, everything is normal and developing.


          In our BMP-2, they seem to have come to something, and then again they began to sculpt a hunchback.

          I can't believe our designers are so stupid. Involuntarily, you will think about agents of influence in the military-industrial complex ...
          1. +5
            15 March 2023 09: 59
            A normal infantry vehicle was not created in the Union either. All of our BMP-BTRs can be easily cut off from above and it will be even better.

            All our infantry fighting vehicles do not need to be cut off. It is enough to open the hatch from above and sit on top under its protection.
            The concept itself - the front dviglo, the rear doors were also invented back then. According to her, everything is normal and developing.

            And why didn’t you like the dviglo and the doors at the back? Yes, it may not be so convenient for tall infantrymen to climb in, but conceptually what is the difference?
            1. -13
              15 March 2023 10: 18
              All our infantry fighting vehicles do not need to be cut off. It is enough to open the hatch from above and sit on top under its protection.

              It is enough to take ATS-59, weld steel sheets on the side, put armored glass and stick KPVT over the driver's cab. It will turn out the best armored personnel carrier-infantry fighting vehicle of all time.
            2. -5
              15 March 2023 10: 21
              And why didn’t you like the dviglo and the doors at the back? Yes, it may not be so convenient for tall infantrymen to climb in, but conceptually what is the difference?

              And why should they sit on the move, it's high, and we seem to be fighting for a lower profile. JUST PUT THE ENGINE IN THE FRONT, will it cover a little from the shells?
          2. +5
            15 March 2023 10: 54
            All of our BMP-BTRs can be easily cut off from above and it will be even better.
            Both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were created to transport infantry through the epicenter, so the top cannot be cut off. Otherwise, they would still drive the BTR 152.
            1. -4
              15 March 2023 11: 34
              Both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were created to transport infantry through the epicenter, so the top cannot be cut off. Otherwise, they would still drive the BTR 152.

              Agree. But automatic telephone exchange would be even better, for it is more capacious. Seal the cabin of everything.
              Of course, if you turn on the brain, you can move the engine in front of the driver and attach the drive to the front sprocket. Then it will not be necessary to pull the cardans back and the height will decrease by 40 centimeters. Most of the vehicles around us are arranged this way, but for our military designers this is, of course, too innovative technology. laughing
              In a country where people wear winter clothes for 8 months and mud the rest of the time, they will construct hatches like this:


              Although everything has long been invented.
            2. +4
              15 March 2023 14: 42
              That's where the roots grow - to demand to go through the epicenter. Well, what if tomorrow is a war with the use of nuclear weapons! In local conflicts, I would ride the BTR-152. Fresh air, the ability to jump out, you can screw in an 82mm mortar ... and most importantly, an overview! There is a gas mask for chemical attacks, but for radiation ... well, yes.
              1. +3
                15 March 2023 15: 51
                In local conflicts, I would ride the BTR-152. Fresh air, the ability to jump out, you can screw in an 82mm mortar ... and most importantly, an overview!

                Everything has been invented for a long time.

                From the Strikers. Pum, Marderov to the wild Swedish SV90 - the infantry "heads and trunks" sticks out of the hatches of the troop compartment and can fight like that.

                No one rides "on armor"; without armor on the roof, convertibles do not cosplay. All countries (with one exception feel , but it’s not necessary to start with the infantry am corrections) motorized infantry is trained, including "the head and weapons control the situation around, if necessary, we climb under the armor."
                Here are the Swedes - they do it too, and not only machine guns, but also a machine gun from the troop compartment on the armor at the hatches, according to the mood:

                https://youtu.be/h4M0tQmQORI?t=19
              2. +4
                15 March 2023 20: 01
                Quote: Andrey77
                That's where the roots grow - to demand to go through the epicenter. Well, what if tomorrow is a war with the use of nuclear weapons! In local conflicts, I would ride the BTR-152. Fresh air, the ability to jump out, you can screw in an 82mm mortar ... and most importantly, an overview! There is a gas mask for chemical attacks, but for radiation ... well, yes.

                However, there is another reason for the appearance of a roof on an armored personnel carrier. This is the reason for the fighting in the cities. These roofs first appeared on the BTR-152 after the events in Hungary in 1956, when the field for the entry of troops in the cities of the Soviet troops suffered significant losses from fire from small pieces from the upper floors of buildings. Just from the upper floors, the infantry was at a glance in the back of an armored personnel carrier. And the little thing (caliber 5.6mm) is not audible at all during the battle, but it kills for sure especially when hit in the head or in the pile. And then the infantry did not have broniks from the word at all. Of course, during the Second World War, there were bibs, but in the troops in 1956 they were not.
                1. -8
                  15 March 2023 20: 16
                  You're lying. A small-caliber rifle can only sacrifice a bear in biathlon.
                  1. +1
                    15 March 2023 23: 06
                    When hit in the head without a helmet, it knocks down normally, as if checked, incl. and in the criminal record.
                    1. -4
                      16 March 2023 00: 51
                      From 10 meters - knocks. And then 50 - zilch. All targets are 25 meters.
                  2. 0
                    18 March 2023 02: 46
                    Quote: Andrey77
                    You're lying. A small-caliber rifle can only sacrifice a bear in biathlon.

                    There was such a case at one time. They found a dead boy in a field of corn. The most interesting thing is that the wound was in the head, but the bullet was not found !!! It turned out that at that very time his friend secretly took a small PISTOL from his father and went to shoot at the crows in the field. And one of the bullets hit the child's head from a distance of 250 (two hundred and fifty) meters. The bullet pierced the bone of the skull, but there was not enough energy to penetrate the head and it fell to the ground where it was later found by criminologists after a thorough examination of the place of death. But the pieces of the skull damaged the brain irreversibly. !!!
                    With an energy of 54-60 jaules, a .22LR bullet pierces the chest bone, while 135-140 jaules pierces the entire body !!!!

                    Modern .22LR cartridges have a bullet weight of 2,60 g, a bullet speed of 320 m / s (energy - 140 J) when using a weapon with a long barrel of 152 mm (6 inches, i.e. something like a sports pistol), when used in rifles, the speed is on average 60 m / s more. THOSE. 380 m / s, respectively, and the muzzle energy is more than 140 Jaules.
                    1. 0
                      23 March 2023 01: 01
                      This tale has been passed down from generation to generation. In safety lessons.
              3. 0
                15 March 2023 20: 50
                Quote: Andrey77
                In local conflicts, I would ride the BTR-152. Fresh air, the ability to jump out,


                To do this, it is enough to install an add-on and benches like stadium benches on a top three - a frame, benches with wide aisles on it, sheets on the sides for protection against fragments, and an awning on top.
                There is no way back, because we live in a nuclear age, and we need equipment with anti-nuclear capabilities - and it is not known whether nuclear arsenals will grow again after a period of cuts.
                1. 0
                  16 March 2023 00: 55
                  Those. all appliances, household incl. should be designed for nuclear war? What if she doesn't? Someone will screw up.
                  1. +3
                    16 March 2023 19: 32
                    Quote: Andrey77
                    Those. all appliances, household incl. should be designed for nuclear war?


                    Anti-nuclear equipment in service is a military-political argument for the balance of power, first of all. Naturally, there is no household one, but armored vehicles in the atomic age are by default anti-nuclear and no other, especially since it is possible to have separate modifications for local conflicts.
              4. 0
                3 June 2023 23: 19
                In Hungary, in 1956, rebels fired into the open compartments of the BTR152 from the roofs and upper floors of buildings, and threw grenades. This was one of the reasons (along with the need to seal the VT in the face of the use of weapons of mass destruction by the enemy) for the appearance of roofs on the BTR40, BTR152 and BTR50 during the next modernization of armored vehicles. Of course, by solving some problems, you always get others, but here, you really have to choose: either save food with the risk of losing the horse, or take care of the horse without saving on food!
          3. +11
            15 March 2023 14: 36
            Quote: Arzt
            All of our BMP-BTRs can be easily cut off from above and it will be even better.

            And they were originally cut off - both "fifty dollars", and "one hundred and fifty-second", and "sixtieth". An open body with an awning and machine guns on brackets.


            And then the requirements for RKhBZ and protection during battles in urban conditions went - and the hulls became closed and airtight.
            1. +4
              15 March 2023 20: 56
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And then the requirements for RKhBZ and protection during battles in urban conditions went - and the hulls became closed and airtight.

              152 got a roof after Hungary
          4. +1
            16 March 2023 21: 39
            Quote: glory1974
            All of our BMP-BTRs can be easily cut off from above and it will be even better.

            There was also armored vehicles in the USSR, open from above.
            BTR-40, BTR-152, self-propelled guns ASU-57...
            Street fighting demonstrated their high vulnerability.
            I'm talking about the uprising in Hungary (1956).
            The main losses of the BTR-152 were from Molotov cocktails thrown from the upper windows of houses.
            On TV, I saw footage of the chronicle: someone then filmed the flight of a bottle, and its hit exactly in the troop compartment.
            A lot of kids died...



            As a result, already at the end of the 50s, it was proposed to produce part of the armored personnel carriers in a closed version, especially for operations in such conditions.
            The BTR-60 was designed initially closed.
            Plus the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons.
            Sealing.
            1. 0
              3 June 2023 23: 24
              Oh, and no! BTR-60-open! Open! Find on the Internet photos from parades on Red Square in the early 60s and from SA exercises and you will see the ranks of soldiers in an open corps! Then came the BTR-60P with a roof and the BTR-60PB with a roof and a machine-gun turret!
        3. +2
          15 March 2023 12: 33
          Quote: Stas157
          gestures would be very unkind.

          One movement of Brezhnev's eyebrows stopped any discussion!
        4. +4
          16 March 2023 06: 39
          Quote: Stas157
          Yes, if there was a Union now, then there would be a real renewal of the Army by 70%. There would be various
          new galoshes of the Armata type and the Su-57 type, not in single quantities, but as expected.

          If there was a Union now, it is simply impossible to imagine WHAT would be on planet Earth. I only know that in the early 00s the USSR would have had at least 10 aircraft carriers, of which at least 4 nuclear, about twenty cruisers (four nuclear) of the Atlant and Orlan types, even then fighters of 5- first generation in mass production with cruising supersonic ... on the basis of Project 1155, Burke-class destroyers with Onyxes and Grenades in UVP would be built, and all Sarychs were modernized with the replacement of the aft turret with four UKKS, and 1155 of the first sub-series would have been upgraded with the installation of a UVP in place of the 2nd tower. In short, already in the 00s, we would have drawn complete parity in the surface forces of the Fleet. At the same time, we would have retained an advantage in submarine forces ... by about one and a half times.
          And by now, there would have long been Soviet bases on the Moon and Mars on a permanent basis (remember the Energia rocket and its Energia-Mars variant with a payload capacity of 200 tons) ... And of course, the RUSSIAN LANGUAGE would now be the most common and popular in the world.
          Quote: Stas157
          And they would not go to deals with the West, even if they were grain!

          At that time (from the beginning of the 70s) we had one "Grain deal" with the West - the United States supplied grain to the USSR (we did not have enough feed for livestock), and we pretended to believe in their flights to the moon.
          We would unite Germany, albeit later, but on our own terms. And under these conditions, there would have been no occupiers from the USA and England there at all. Germany would bear the proud name of the GDR! And as before, I would have fought at the Olympics for a prize-winning (1 - 3) place.
          The United States would not have survived its crisis and the new Great Depression of the early-mid 90s, and it is likely that after some time it broke up into several modest North American states. Yes Much to the relief of the entire world. In England, the socialists would come to power again ... and in France, the communists.
          It would be fun - in the best sense of these words.
          But it turned out differently.
          1. +3
            16 March 2023 08: 00
            Dreamer, I called you. And where is the money, Zin for this banquet? The budget of the Union was already bursting at the seams. Are you talking about moon bases?
            1. +6
              17 March 2023 10: 05
              Quote from Zebra
              Dreamer

              Alternative history is always fantasy. the question is how justified it is.
              Quote from Zebra
              And where is the money, Zin for this banquet?

              What do you know about the financial possibilities of the USSR? What do you know about the financial system of the USSR? Do you know how Gosplan worked? What was the GDP and what budget did the Land of Soviets have? How many and what kind of programs were carried out then (before the Gorbachev pogrom)?
              Do you have an economic education?
              Maybe you moved in those circles where decisions were made and economic programs were born?
              What do you know about the balance of the Soviet external debt and the amount of foreign borrowers owed to our country? And when was the repayment of those unprecedented debts to begin?
              Do you know that a third of the passenger aircraft fleet in the world were Soviet-made aircraft? Do you know the structure of Soviet exports? What part of this was machine tools, industrial equipment, high value-added products? That the USSR had the world's largest fishing fleet and one of the largest Merchant Fleet?
              That the USSR launched about 115-120 satellites and interplanetary stations every year? Or rather, there were so many launches per year. And there were at least 120 spacecraft landings per year (reconnaissance satellites had 4+ descent vehicles each for delivering cassettes with captured (and developed) film. I took part in ensuring the landings of such spacecraft, including the only Buran flight.
              The country had enough funds, production capacities, technologies, and bright minds. It's just that the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB decided to destroy the USSR for the sake of joining the Western elites ...
              And they were bred as the last suckers.
              All the shortages, disorganization in the late USSR, supply disruptions, an anti-alcohol campaign, the simultaneous shutdown of almost all cigarette factories in the USSR for reconstruction ... and the disappearance of cigarettes, which very wildly annoyed smokers (and there were more of them than now). All these were artificial operations to provoke discontent. The buildup of small-town nationalisms was also artificial. Suffice it to say that the same former "young Bandera" Kravchuk was then the second secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR and was responsible for ideology. Both the Central Committee and the KGB knew about this. Nationalism in the Baltics and Transcaucasia was also supervised by the Central Committee and the KGB. Just look who led these republics after the murder of the USSR. smile Former heads of the KGB of these republics or their employees / agents.
              And there was enough money. External debt was even at the time of the collapse of "only" 150 billion dollars. While the USSR owed Samos over 500 billion transferable rubles (at least 750 billion dollars). And the return of these debts was to begin in the early 90s and end (return) within 10 - 15 years.

              Quote from Zebra
              Are you talking about moon bases?

              I knew those who worked on the first (royal) Lunar program. And just the lunar module and the transport system for delivery to the lunar surface.
              It’s just that all Soviet people (and especially young people) of those years were sure that flights to the planets of the solar system, and manned ones, would be carried out during their lifetime, and in the coming years. That is why the most intelligent and talented youth went to technical universities.
              All these "hypersounds", "superlasers" and 5th generation aircraft should have appeared (and would have appeared) already in the mid-late 90s. The latest tank with extreme security and the ultimate 152 mm cannon. would have appeared in the 90s.
              Quote from Zebra
              The budget of the Union was already bursting at the seams.

              lol Probably because of the sharply cheaper oil? belay wassat laughing And what percentage of the budget of those years was occupied by the export of oil (and gas)? You know ?
              Sheer nonsense! Do not listen / do not read liberal propaganda - these are all stories. It was just a collusion of the elites, followed by a throw through the thigh of a trusted "partner".
              Once again - if the Central Committee and the KGB had not decided to curtail the Red Project, curtail the communist ideology and liquidate the USSR (dissolution and cleansing solely for the sake of evading criminal responsibility).
              So, if the conspirators thrown by the partners did not then go to these madnesses, then in the 90s the "collective west" would have collapsed, and not us. and only for economic, financial and social reasons. By killing the USSR, they extended their lives.
              Quote from Zebra
              Are you talking about moon bases?

              It was a hyperbole to assess WHAT we have lost, what status and opportunities we have lost. Now we have the "Rogozin Trampoline" and are fighting in ... Ukraine. fool And still we can’t win ... ourselves ...
              Our troops then stood in Germany and in general in Eastern Europe. Half of Europe was part of our military-political bloc. Our fighters and anti-submarine aircraft regularly flew over the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, and at any moment we could simply land a helicopter assault from Cuba, where we had a contingent based forty thousand, in Florida.
              We controlled the Straits of Malacca and the Suez Canal.
              Our naval bases were in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (mainly secret for the supply and maintenance of submarines).
              We controlled and trained elites (trained in our universities) for many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. And the Russian language was one of the most widely spoken in the world. Moreover, in terms of the dynamics of popularity, the Russian language surpassed all others.

              And you don’t believe about moon bases here.
              There was no Central Bank in the USSR!!! There was the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury !!
              Sovereign Financial System!!! And we traded in RUBLES. Yes
              There was no crisis in the USSR. The crisis was only in the minds and TV. Staged , forgery and robbery .
              1. +1
                20 March 2024 07: 10
                I agree.
                And yet, organized criminals have been preparing and training openly since the mid-80s for the subsequent violent seizure of property (by turning a blind eye to law enforcement agencies to youth gangs and street fights).
                1. +1
                  20 March 2024 07: 34
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  organized crime for the subsequent forceful destruction of property has been preparing and training openly since the mid-80s (by turning a blind eye to law enforcement agencies to youth gangs and street fights).

                  The creation of such gangs was often supervised by the special services and the vanguard of the CPSU - Komsomol (or rather a certain category of its leaders)... from whose leaders so many “talented” and even “outstanding” businessmen appeared to the amazed world. . . who became oligarchs.
          2. +2
            16 March 2023 11: 04
            Quote: bayard
            It would be fun - in the best sense of these words.

            It was smooth on paper ... what to do with Central Asia? It was fun there even in Soviet times - Ferghana alone is worth what (when there started, then the Vova had to send the Airborne Forces to help). And then centuries-old national and territorial disputes, and even fueled by Islamic radicals because of the ribbon (which would be fed from all sides - the Gulf monarchies, Iran, the USA, China through their Pakistani proxies), against the backdrop of the degeneration of national communist leaders into beys and shahs would cause the region to flash green.
            1. +3
              17 March 2023 02: 58
              Quote: Alexey RA
              It was smooth on paper ... what to do with Central Asia?

              It always comes out smoothly on paper, and it endures everything.
              And with Central Asia ... request what was to be done with her?
              Well, they staged an interethnic feud with bloodshed ...
              Who arranged?
              The same thing happened in Transcaucasia then.
              It was only then that Karimov begged for the best specialist in Central Asia with the rank of lieutenant general, gave him full civil and military power in the region (martial law had already been introduced), and he, without any bloodshed, with only knowledge of the mentality and customs, resolved the conflict ... and stayed there.
              though they buried him all the same in Donetsk, a few years ago.
              If the KGB and the Central Committee of the CPSU wanted to preserve the USSR and develop it, and not ruin it for the sake of looting, the Union would still be healthy and prosperous. All distortions and disorder in the USSR were artificial, for the sake of bringing it to a "natural" death.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              the region would flash green.

              Yes, everything there was sewn with white threads ... and there was no "green" there, except for the manipulation of emotions ... they did not even know what Shiites and Sunnis were! If there was a NORMAL work of special services and party instances of an ideological profile, nothing would ever happen there.
              And in Afghanistan, the Taliban would not have come to power if we had not abandoned Najibula at the most critical moment! The leader was competent and authoritative enough. If the bourgeois shifters hadn’t thrown him, x.ren (a useful plant) would have worked out for Pakistani intelligence, MI6 and the CIA.
          3. -1
            19 March 2023 16: 51
            All P
            Quote: bayard
            RUSSIAN LANGUAGE would now be the most widespread and popular in the world

            In the scoop in 50-60 years, computers based on Russian-language programming languages ​​even surpassed computers based on English-language programming languages, but at some point the top decided to stop supporting all projects and follow the path of copying Western computers, supposedly if we copy their computers, then software can also be (software) to copy and save energy on software development by stealing and running Western software on our machines, but something went wrong and it didn’t work out completely and Western software didn’t run on our computers, and since then absolutely all electronics have been in English, there is with a translated interface, but all the program code is in English, so I see the hypocrisy of the English language, whether it’s from the USSR or without it
        5. 0
          21 March 2023 08: 26
          Quote: Stas157
          And they would not go to deals with the West, even if they were grain!

          Come on???!!! Didn't go at all???
          Where did you buy factories for industrialization?
          Which Germany was the gas sent to?
          From which Canada did you buy grain?
          Whose buildings were the ships of Vyartsilya?
          Avto VAZ who was your girlhood?
          Why did they introduce Novorossiysk GOST and Northern GOST for the forest ???
          And so no, no deals, you che, as you might think - the USSR and deals ...
      2. +3
        15 March 2023 10: 52
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        35 years ! And what kind of infantry fighting vehicles would be NOW, if over the years they have advanced in their design and production!
        They were modernized, the engine, for example, was moved so that it did not interfere with the landing (BMP-3M Dragun), a variant with a tank gun was offered. Does not take MO.
        1. 0
          15 March 2023 20: 57
          Quote: bk0010
          e takes MO.

          Now the manul (aka dragoon, but with the era) will take it.
          1. +2
            16 March 2023 06: 50
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            Now the manul (aka dragoon, but with the era) will take it.

            "Dragoon" turned out very even. Holds 30 mm in the forehead and from the sides. , front engine , rear comfortable ramp for dismounting , comfortable and fairly spacious troop compartment . If you add at least 20 cm of height along the body, then there will already be luxury.
            And you can put any combat module there, there are now a lot of them to choose from.
    2. +3
      15 March 2023 19: 43
      Quote: andrewkor
      In short, the UAE, with their order, helped a lot in the development of this car!

      By the way - a toilet, to solve problems in areas of radioactive contamination, etc.
  2. +9
    15 March 2023 04: 28
    I also don’t fit in our infantry fighting vehicles in all the equipment, I always ride on top
    1. +8
      15 March 2023 07: 44
      because BMPs were built for 18 year old conscripts (under the USSR). thin and weighing up to 75 kg, and actually after the collapse of the union, the people went through acceleration in terms of height and weight during the maturation of the body, so the growth used to be less hence the current inconveniences, well, the soldiers used to have less equipment. So the bmp-3 is more means of supporting infantry is obtained, but as a convenient transportation for infantry, it does not come out very well
      1. +3
        15 March 2023 08: 35
        In general, there is a variant of the BMP-3 with the Manul index, where the front engine is implemented, but, it seems to me, this option turned out to be unreasonably expensive, and all because of the desire to place the entire crew by all means, just as it is implemented in the "unparalleled" Armata, those. in one next to each other, because of which they had to resort to an uninhabited tower and fabulously expensive, and most importantly not very reliable electronic surveillance devices. Considering that the BMP-3 is already not a very cheap product, such "excesses" are not very clear. Why not just follow the path of the Koreans, who, inspired by the BMP-3, were able to create one of the best K-21 infantry vehicles to date, which, in addition, having dimensions similar to the three, is capable of transporting a full-fledged infantry squad (which is very, very important).
        1. -1
          15 March 2023 16: 29
          were able to create one of the best K-21 infantry vehicles to date, which, in addition, having dimensions similar to the troika,

          there is a payoff for everything.
          bmp-3 height 2300
          bmp k-21 height 2600
          this means that only the body is about 15-20 cm higher.
          the difference in weight is 8 tons, the difference in width is 10 cm - and this despite the fact that the K-21 floats only with huge removable floats.
          and firepower is incommensurable.

          .
          capable of transporting a full-fledged infantry squad (which is very, very important).

          a full-fledged infantry squad is only on the first day of hostilities.
          BMP-3 has seven seats for infantry + a hinged compartment above the engine, which the author of the article apparently did not appreciate
          1. +4
            15 March 2023 17: 25
            Our "Kurganets-25" in comparison with the BMP-1

            And how do you like this body kit DZ
      2. +7
        15 March 2023 09: 50
        Just don't talk about the acceleration of the Pepsi generation. Degradation, yes. And, they were not thin, but wiry, and they fulfilled the TRP standards, and in football, "priest", "Cossack robbers", etc. played, unlike noneshnyh "cybersportsmen". And the meat grew on the bones. That's what physical training is for.
      3. +7
        15 March 2023 14: 45
        And now the same. The average estimated height is 175 cm. If you are a "dylda" 190 - sorry, no one will design an armored personnel carrier for you.
  3. +23
    15 March 2023 04: 29
    An excellent review, in the style of oral military history, thanks to the author and the interviewed soldiers !!!
    Regarding the built-in pot - it is necessary when operating in contaminated areas.
    1. +5
      15 March 2023 18: 23
      On long marches, for 100 - 150 kilometers - a pot is a very necessary stray. And then "pret" if necessary, at least hang yourself))) For a little more, wherever RPG 7 went to the "end" to help. But in a serious way - just a pitchfork. Passed. So it's not just the designers who introduced it.
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. +3
      15 March 2023 07: 48
      about tanks with a solarium as protection against a cumulative jet. there was an experience with Large-caliber Trouble on YouTube, they put canisters with a solarium in front of the tank near the armor and fired from an RPG, and the jet really works, it is extinguished in the solarium, the armor didn’t have a fig
      1. +2
        15 March 2023 09: 11
        Yeah. A canister with a solarium completely extinguishes a shot from an RPG-7. From 23 minutes.
    2. +2
      15 March 2023 14: 51
      A lot depends on the staffing here. Our first armored personnel carrier of the company commander was chock-full of company property. The personnel rode "on horseback" on other armored personnel carriers.
  5. +11
    15 March 2023 07: 13
    Huge hello to Sergey (by the way, banned from VO for criticism) !!!
    May he return alive and well!
  6. -27
    15 March 2023 07: 25
    These BMP-3s have absolutely no protection, they cannot be sent on the offensive. It's not good for attacking. We need an infantry fighting vehicle that can withstand the blows of Putrov, shells. But floating funds could be organized with the help of pontoons
    If he swims along the river and they shoot at him from the same cord, he will go to the bottom, you need to release the Kurgan-25.
    On this BMP-3, only during exercises you can show off how we advance.
    The infantry does not even climb inside, and the driver-mechanics on it are simply suicidal. When it lights up you can't get out
    The Americans have cars that Abrams throw across the river, such as bridges. These are the cars you need.
    Like there were nuclear weapons and they won’t attack us, well, they don’t care about Ukraine for nuclear weapons, we are losing our citizens.
    And in Stalingrad, when the war was going on, a bridge was laid under water to protect it from aviation
    When it ends, the question of the army will be seriously raised, there are big problems, including in terms of ammunition in storage
    WE must return to the Soviet semblance of a combat-ready army
    Pilots why they stopped flying because they are badly beaten if they shoot down a plane
    1. +6
      15 March 2023 08: 15
      Quote from Alexwar
      And in Stalingrad, when the war was going on, a bridge was laid under water to protect it from aviation

      It was not in Stalingrad, but in Voronezh, my grandfather, a participant in those events in the battle for Voronezh, came to our school as a soldier and built this miracle of engineering.
      Technician quartermaster 2nd rank Kazim Davletovich Shamgunov on September 20, 1942, with soldiers at a depth of 1,6 meters, installed gantry supports and laid girders when building an underwater (filling) bridge across the Voronezh River.
    2. +15
      15 March 2023 09: 18
      The BMP-3 is a light infantry tank. Basically the whole article is about it. The infantry rides on it in the same way as on a tank. Therefore, as an infantry fighting vehicle it is bad, as a tank it is good. Therein lies the contradiction.



      There is a version of the BMP-3 Manul, here it is extremely interesting. Hang additional armor by strengthening the chassis and get a modern infantry fighting vehicle.

      1. +3
        15 March 2023 09: 49
        Therefore, as an infantry fighting vehicle it is bad, as a tank it is good. Therein lies the contradiction.

        The armor is thin for a tank. How good is the BMP. You can ride both inside and outside. What’s more, the folded hatches protect you from the outside, which is good.
        1. +1
          15 March 2023 15: 36
          Quote: glory1974
          Therefore, as an infantry fighting vehicle it is bad, as a tank it is good. Therein lies the contradiction.

          The armor is thin for a tank. How good is the BMP. You can ride both inside and outside. What’s more, the folded hatches protect you from the outside, which is good.

          The folded hatches in the BMP-3 are death from a stray bullet for the driver's driver and gunner when attacking the stern.
      2. +4
        15 March 2023 14: 09
        Quote from cold wind
        There is a version of the BMP-3 Manul, here it is extremely interesting.

        Did you read the article? The opinion of people who fought on the BMP-3 - they are for the BMP-3! But for those experts who judge the car from their sofa, the main thing in the car is that, in theory, it’s hard to climb over the engine. Apparently it's supposed to. that basically the fighter is busy with this, how he climbs back and forth through the motor.
        1. +8
          15 March 2023 16: 50
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Did you read the article? The opinion of people who fought on the BMP-3 - they are for the BMP-3! But for those experts who judge the car from their sofa, the main thing in the car is that, in theory, it’s hard to climb over the engine. Apparently it's supposed to. that basically the fighter is busy with this, how he climbs back and forth through the motor.

          I will say as a person who rode it more than once, not in a patriot park, but in the Caucasus in armor with a machine gun and in unloading from it to get off and climb that other quest. It is necessary, like a window sill, to bend three times. As an infantryman, the BMP-3 in its current configuration is not convenient as a commander, mechanic driver and gunner of a combat vehicle, it has no price.
          This is essentially a good light fire support vehicle for infantry. BMD-4 in a duel with tanks already had such episodes and showed itself poorly.
          1. -1
            15 March 2023 20: 33
            Here you also answered. It will be ridden on horseback. And at the bottom of their trunks. Yes?
      3. 0
        15 March 2023 17: 18
        Looks like an infantry fighting vehicle Dragoon top photo, you can see the chairs of the Research Institute of Steel and additional protection on the floor
    3. +2
      15 March 2023 09: 54
      We need an infantry fighting vehicle that can withstand the blows of Putrov, shells.

      Such in nature does not exist.
      And in order to escape from enemy firepower, there is a trained crew and infantry, tactics of use.
      1. +7
        15 March 2023 10: 20
        Quote: glory1974
        Such in nature does not exist.

        Yes? laughing

    4. +1
      15 March 2023 11: 39
      Ptury and shells can not withstand anything, neither tanks, nor infantry fighting vehicles. And the main thing is that they will not withstand either ours or imports, either now or in 10 years. On the contrary, every year the range of means that can hit them will increase ... And even bmd-4s go on the attack, on the attack, and nothing.
      1. -5
        15 March 2023 13: 07
        ATGMs and crowbars have quite specific penetration parameters for themselves, and if there are economic opportunities, you can create a car with a tandem airborne missile defense system and spaced multi-layer passive armor (steel-ceramic-glass fiber, for example), KAZ has not lost its relevance, the essence of its existence boils down to counter ATGMs
        The revolutionary tank of our time has not yet been created, there was still no need for capital preparations for a large-scale war, even though the Armata and the Panther are most likely progressive tanks, they are not revolutionary enough to break through (the armor volume has not been reduced due to crew reduction, mechanical transmissions, the line of combat vehicles of the front line echelon for all possible functions, as it should have been, was not created on their basis, the latter should have looked like Ob. 299, where there would be BMPT, BTR-T and MBT)
        1. 0
          15 March 2023 14: 41
          Quote: Materialist
          ATGMs and crowbars have quite specific penetration parameters for themselves, and if there are economic opportunities, you can create a car with a tandem airborne missile defense system and spaced multi-layer passive armor (steel-ceramic-glass fiber, for example), KAZ has not lost its relevance, the essence of its existence boils down to counter ATGMs

          And this machine is called MBT. smile
          And now we are removing a turret with a 125-mm cannon from the MBT, installing an infantry fighting vehicle weapon module and trying to cram a motorized rifle compartment and ammo module (shots for the cannon and ATGMs) into the combat compartment of the MBT. The case cannot be touched - security will decrease or the mass will increase.
          1. 0
            15 March 2023 15: 07
            Firstly, the tower, for example, the t-90M weighs under 20 tons + gun, even the BMP module, which I did not intend to put on the unchanged tank hull, does not weigh even half
            Secondly, the unchanged hull of the tank is designed specifically for the tasks of MBT, but to make a transporter on a tank chassis means replenishing the lightness of the tank, removing the turret and cannon from it, increasing the height of the hull and installing exclusively defensive weapons, ideally, a new hull should be made or thoroughly digested old, moving the engine to the center or front
            1. +2
              15 March 2023 19: 38
              Quote: Materialist
              Firstly, the tower, for example, the t-90M weighs under 20 tons + gun, even the BMP module, which I did not intend to put on the unchanged tank hull, does not weigh even half

              It's not about the mass, but about the booked volume. We increase the volume - the mass grows.
              Quote: Materialist
              Secondly, the unchanged hull of the tank is designed specifically for the tasks of MBT, but to make a transporter on a tank chassis means replenishing the lightness of the tank by removing the turret and cannon from it, increasing the height of the hull and installing exclusively defensive weapons

              Let me remind you of the original problem: smile
              Quote from Alexwar
              We need an infantry fighting vehicle that can withstand the blows of Putrov, shells.

              That is, the protection of TBTR / TBMP should be at the level of MBT.
              1. 0
                15 March 2023 20: 37
                BTR-T and TBMP are two different vehicles, the first one plays the role of a front-line transporter or operator vehicle, and the second role is to support tanks, transport, and can still potentially be used independently as a BM
                I am not considering a tank chassis for a promising infantry fighting vehicle and do not mean at all that the latter can be such
                One of the fundamental reasons for the division of functionality is the excessive increase in mass of the BMP due to the need to combine the habitable fighting compartment, at least with operators, with the landing compartment, for example, the T-15, almost 10 meters long
                Having removed the turret from the tank, rearranged it, built up the hull and moved the MTO to the front, the armored volume will not increase dramatically
                1. 0
                  17 March 2023 02: 33
                  Quote: Materialist
                  I am not considering a tank chassis for a promising infantry fighting vehicle and do not mean at all that the latter can be such

                  And in vain. It's just that you're looking at the wrong examples. The best example of TBTR (not TBMP, although it is possible on this case) is TBTR-64 ​​and TBTR-55 proposed by KhTZ engineers back in the 90s. Google it, take a look at them. There, the T-64 and T-55 hulls were digested, turning the MTO forward, and behind it placing a spacious fighting compartment with a capacity of 12 to 14 people. The combat module there was offered quite light - a machine-gun one, but the BM from the BTR-82A with 30 mm will fit perfectly. cannon.
                  The booking level of such an TBTR was made at the MBT level, take a look at the archive of the VO "Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicles based on the T-64 tank" for November 7, 2013. conditions, it is the T-80 hull at our storage bases that must become the base for the TBTR \ TBMP in the same way as the Ukrainian pre-revolutionary "Badger". In the article presented in that article, the troop compartment accommodates 64 troops + 12 people. crew. At the same time, there is a fundamental possibility of stretching the stern back another 3 - 50 cm (+ two more landing troops), which will better balance the heavy frontal armor and MTO in the bow. So that on the go at speed and when braking, it doesn’t nod too much.
                  The combat module should not sink its lower part into the inner part of the hull, so as not to hamper the landing (as is done there and is now being done with us. We now have many different similar modules, so there will be no problems with equipment for different tasks. T-64 on bases of at least 2000 units, about as many TBTRs we need.Works can be performed by repair plants.
                  Quote: Materialist
                  an example of this is the T-15, almost 10 meters long

                  This is perversion and cutting. Weapons of such cost, complexity, novelty and availability will never enter service. It is the TBTR / TBMP based on old tanks that is the key to success and the speedy coverage of all the needs of the RF Armed Forces in highly protected assault equipment for our infantry.
                  Quote: Materialist
                  Having removed the turret from the tank, rearranged it, built up the hull and moved the MTO to the front, the armored volume will not increase dramatically

                  The "Badger" after such a re-arrangement, together with the combat module, mounted armor and dynamic protection, has a mass of 34,5 tons - exactly as much as the T-64 suspension was originally designed for.
                  Such TBTR / TBMP can be made from old T-64, T-55, T-72 and T-80 early versions. There should, maybe and MUST be a lot of them.
                  And let the BMP-3 \ 3M remain as a floating (!) And airborne (landing) BMP. I consider BMD-4 a mistake and a waste of time, money and resources.

                  And pay attention to the photo of the "Badger" from the stern with the ramp open - it clearly shows that the driver can easily leave the car through the back door, and how free the armored space of the troop compartment is. And he has DIFFERENT booking of the sides, on which there is also dynamic protection and side screens.
                  These are the machines we need now. And - immediately.
                  1. 0
                    17 March 2023 11: 57
                    I saw that from the standpoint of unification, it would be most expedient to reconfigure the BMO-T / 2 and there would be a worthy mass analogue of the armored personnel carriers, the level of security of the TBTR-55 is at the level of the MBT of the same name, + the archaic chassis, the TBTR on the 64-ki chassis raises questions about the chassis and its load limits, which will be about 40-42 tons,
                    if necessary, already on the chassis of the t-72 there is the possibility of modernization with an increase in mass up to 50 tons
                    There are several ways out of this situation, including the modernization of the BMP-3, with the same rearrangement, the DZ Cactus, ideally with a new barrel, in this form, the losses would decrease somewhat, but it would not be compared with the resistance of the potential BMO-3 (as a promising one). could
                    In any case, all of the above is impossible according to the objective limitations of the harsh Russian bourgeois reality, so I think the problem may be the inability of the Moscow Region to simply realize the need for such measures, such as, for example, many in a fit of vigorous activity do not realize the need for all the results of their sick imagination, at least partially unify
            2. +1
              15 March 2023 20: 09
              This is also decided ... They turn the tank backwards, hang the appropriate armor, the mechanical driver shifts the swing hatches and the landing force to the engine. Thus, in WWII, someone made a self-propelled gun from the tank
            3. 0
              17 March 2023 14: 29
              Quote: Materialist
              ideally, a new body should be made or the old one should be thoroughly digested by moving the engine to the center or front

              Like BMPT tanks, they will not be a mass phenomenon in the troops, but a practically piece phenomenon.
              There is a problem, like the Red Army before the war, 20 thousand light tanks and 3 thousand heavy ones. So the light BT-7 and T-26 were riveted to the warriors in thousands of pieces. Therefore, there were few KV tanks and there were also few T-34s. After the war, the USSR riveted armored personnel carriers, BMP-1,2 and MTLBs in thousands of pieces, bringing their number to 20 thousand BMP-1, 10 thousand BMP-2 and 19 thousand of all major modifications of tanks and 37 thousand armored personnel carriers of all modifications after military release.
      2. +2
        15 March 2023 16: 53
        In a duel with BMD-4 machines, they lose even with guided weapons.
        In fact, the BMP-3 and BMD-4, when seeing a tank, should immediately drape and without looking back.
        1. 0
          15 March 2023 20: 24
          Quote: insafufa
          In a duel with BMD-4 machines, they lose even with guided weapons.
          In fact, the BMP-3 and BMD-4, when seeing a tank, should immediately drape and without looking back.

          So after all, neither the BMP-3, nor even the BMP-4, are intended for duels with tanks !!! Their task is to transport and support INFANTRY, and fighting tanks is not their task. Well, they can shoot at tanks from an ATGM or undress a tank, but their main task is to fight the enemy infantry and its defensive structures.
          1. 0
            17 March 2023 14: 33
            Quote: nedgen
            So after all, neither the BMP-3, nor even the BMP-4, are intended for duels with tanks !!! Their task is to transport and support INFANTRY, and fighting tanks is not their task. Well, they can shoot at tanks from an ATGM or undress a tank, but their main task is to fight the enemy infantry and its defensive structures.

            You watched a movie about self-propelled gunners, what the battalion commander said to the main character where it was seen that I attacked a company of tigers with everything .. (I don’t remember how many tanks there were) this is also not according to the charter when the battery commander objected to self-propelled guns going along with tanks.
            So it happens in life that an enemy will jump out like a devil out of a snuffbox, but you have nowhere to go, so you take the fight as you have to.
      3. 0
        23 March 2023 16: 03
        Ptury and shells can not withstand anything, neither tanks, nor infantry fighting vehicles.


        The T-90, which calmly withstood a TOW-2 hit (it was in Syria), grins.
  7. +1
    15 March 2023 07: 34
    A very strange article, a mixture of copy-paste from Wiki and eulogies ... I’ll be a stuffy bore - as far as I remember, the protection of the BMP-3 stated in the article (and Wiki, by the way) is not confirmed anywhere ... the level of armor protection + - corresponds to the first iteration of the Bradley BMP, and the latter received protection forehead from 30 mm only after the installation of spaced steel armor ... additional armor modules appeared only after Syria (where the armor was recognized as insufficient and it was decided to urgently strengthen protection), and even then additional kits began to appear in the photo from the NWO zone quite recently, there was also a kit "cactus" in the early 00s, but in fact it is stillborn ...
  8. -3
    15 March 2023 07: 48
    Yesterday I read an article that who is to blame, Serdyukov is to blame, he first ruined the army, and then he was allowed into the military-industrial complex, where he also ruined purchases for the army
    I understand why the old equipment is being returned, because shells remained on it.
    1. +7
      15 March 2023 15: 06
      Quote from Alexwar
      Yesterday I read an article that who is to blame, Serdyukov is to blame, he first ruined the army, and then he was allowed into the military-industrial complex, where he also ruined purchases for the army

      Uh-huh ... Serdyukov ruined the army so much that they received his orders until the beginning of the 2020s. Just the massive rearmament of armored vehicles from the Soviet-made T-72A and B to the overhauled T-72B3 is worth something. smile

      Serdyukov was to blame for the fact that he swung at two sacred cows.
      Firstly, he decided to bring the structure of the Armed Forces into line with objective reality, otherwise, in the presence of 300 officers, the army could hardly scrape together 000 people "in the field", and even in court divisions, 50/000 officer positions from the battalion and below were occupied by two-gadushniks and wreed sergeants. This resulted in a massive reduction in "headquarters without subordinates", many of which have been preserved from Soviet times. And the mass crying of the staff poured out, which, not only were they driven from a warm office with a telephone into the field, they were also given into submission to personnel for whom they had to be responsible.
      And, secondly, he swung at the sacred - at the military-industrial complex, which, using its monopoly, drove slightly turned products from the times of the USSR into the army, passing them off as having no analogues in the world, and at completely insane prices. The apotheosis was the increase in the cost of the T-90 by 70% per year. belay UVZ dkmal. Which will work this time too - but it didn’t work, the Moscow Region refused to improve the well-being of the best people of Russia and ordered instead of the T-90 a "tank for 52 million", that is, the T-72B3.
  9. -8
    15 March 2023 07: 53
    Nedotank with a "sprat compartment" for infantry. 70 years of development, and the infantry rides TOP of the armor. But 3 PKTs are shooting somewhere.
    1. +1
      15 March 2023 11: 02
      Quote: Zufei
      Nedotank with a "sprat compartment" for infantry. 70 years of development, and the infantry rides TOP of the armor.
      If you want the infantry to sit inside, then you need to increase the comfort and organize the broadcast outside, that is, the dimensions will be like that of a bus, and it’s unrealistic to book it decently - it won’t leave (well, or you will have to install a tank engine).
    2. 0
      15 March 2023 11: 41
      It all depends on TVD. In Ukraine, where the main losses from shrapnel, they travel quite well inside boxes ...
      Where the main danger is SVU, it is logical to ride on armor.
      1. +2
        15 March 2023 14: 06
        Have you seen the video of the Marines advancing? It does not at all follow that they ride under armor
        They ride on armor because it’s easier to control the surrounding space and react, the place, apparently, is also enough only ON the armor, in order to change this, the infantry under the armor needs to be provided with safe and satisfactory living conditions and appointed as UAV operators, this is the only way, without exposing the infantry to shelling, not nullify the whole point
        the existence of infantry fighting vehicles (ideally BTR-T) and improve reconnaissance and surveillance systems
      2. 0
        15 March 2023 17: 00
        Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2
        It all depends on TVD. In Ukraine, where the main losses from shrapnel, they travel quite well inside boxes ...
        Where the main danger is SVU, it is logical to ride on armor.

        With SVO, a bunch of videos like riding a BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 ride. There are videos of an attacking infantry fighting vehicle with infantry on top of the armor, as soon as the attack begins, it cannot leave or turn back, since the infantry spilled out on the ground, you will corny suppress your own. So the BMP takes an unequal battle, surrounded by its mixed infantry.
  10. Zug
    -1
    15 March 2023 08: 07
    My brother saw this - some sides were left without a top, the tower flew xs somewhere, the wheels in different directions ... and garbage around ... But the armor is grit quite thick
    1. 0
      15 March 2023 11: 42
      There, 5 cm of aluminum, from the forehead are still covered with a steel plate of high hardness.
  11. 0
    15 March 2023 09: 49
    In 1988, the troops received the first analysis of the combat use of this machine with recommendations for combat use in various types of combat contact with the enemy .. The conclusions were far from unambiguous, so the first impression was twofold ...
  12. +2
    15 March 2023 09: 52
    Good car. The only downside is the small size. If earlier the small size gave an advantage, now, with the development of high-precision weapons, the size does not matter.
    it is necessary to increase the size of the machine by at least half a meter in length and height. Ergonomics will increase dramatically, armor can be increased, etc.
    1. +7
      15 March 2023 11: 34
      The rest of the world has always built sheds. Here, for example, are the supplied FVhi of the 70s through Pritula.


      In terms of armor protection, by the way, he is +/- like three. But a huge door in the stern, a one-volume compartment that can be converted at hand as you like.
    2. +1
      15 March 2023 11: 37
      Not necessarily, the most costly way to build a new car would be the right one. You can go the other way, supplement each platoon with a tracked armored personnel carrier, such as the BT-3F. And already on an additional conveyor to transplant both the drone operator, and tall grenade launchers, and overall machine gunners with snipers. It was on this path that they went in the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps, and only in the ground forces continue to cultivate simplification and primitivism, bordering on idiocy.
      1. +1
        15 March 2023 16: 22
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        and only in the ground forces

        Perhaps the fact is that in the NE the quantities are different. Tens of thousands of marines and airmen are one thing, hundreds of thousands of infantrymen, who are often on BMP-2s, not even on BMP-3s, are another thing, what kind of BT-3s are there. In addition, it is possible that with an additional vehicle in a platoon (or a couple of vehicles in a company), the battalion, when transporting railways, will go beyond the permissible limits, which our authors of the OShS do not like.
        1. 0
          15 March 2023 22: 45
          Not on your nelly. If they were concerned about the scale, then they could not have 3 BMP-3 + 1 BT-3, but for example 2 BMP-3 + 1 BT-3. The problem is. which is nothing at all, only wretchedness, only primitivism. It's good that the Airborne Forces and the Marines exist separately, otherwise a disaster.
    3. +3
      15 March 2023 11: 44
      Half a meter there, half a meter here, the mass immediately +5 tons))). Plus, the mass means you need to change the engine and chassis ...
      In general, there will be more kurgans and boomerangs ...
  13. 0
    15 March 2023 10: 20
    Quote: glory1974
    Good car. The only downside is the small size. If earlier the small size gave an advantage, now, with the development of high-precision weapons, the size does not matter.
    it is necessary to increase the size of the machine by at least half a meter in length and height. Ergonomics will increase dramatically, armor can be increased, etc.

    American Bradley - a barn, a grenade launcher's dream.
    BMP-3 - it would be necessary to increase the compartment for landing.
    But this is different)
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      15 March 2023 17: 08
      Quote: Wildcat
      Question, IMHO, regarding the need for a 100 mm gun. But, given that "a tank ... It's so ... A little alien. A tank may or may not be given. Tankers are also with a temper, sometimes you get tired of explaining to him," in fact, she is needed.
      And a good question with the 30 mm gun option, "rollback with a long stroke" how does it affect accuracy? Isn't it better to go with a gas outlet, how to return to the BMP2?
      And do you need 2 machine guns in front? Or is it easier to put a DUM on the tower so that the machine gunner does not sit on the back of the armor ?!

      So what's the problem with giving each company like the Germans during the Second World War a tank platoon at the forefront of the attack and then problems.
      1. 0
        15 March 2023 18: 03
        The author refers to the participants: "Tank... He's so... A little alien. A tank may or may not be given. Tankers - they are also with a temper, sometimes you take the trouble to explain to him what and how. And on the "troikas" all our drivers, they already know everything about the region.
        With "behami" calmly. Relatively, of course, but calmly. This car has everything we need.
        "
        I agree, a strange problem with tanks and tankers. But since it exists and there are no other solutions, you have to solve it with the help of BMP3 weapons ... request
  15. 0
    15 March 2023 11: 37
    Actually, 8-10 years ago I also heard about the BMP-3M ... I don’t remember all the details of the modernization, but I remember that the engine power was increased by 20% ... that is, it should be, somewhere, up to 610 hp ! I also remember that the weight of the modernized BMP has increased ... But is there a BMP-3M in the troops ... I don’t remember anything about it! In general ... "I remember here, but I don’t remember here"!
    1. +1
      15 March 2023 12: 53
      Any solution. including technical specifications for any type of equipment and the resulting model itself is the fruit of a mass of compromises between conflicting requirements (security - mobility - firepower - comfort - ...). Obviously, in the 1980s, the Soviet GABTU ordered a light tank with acceptable conditions for the crew, and not, for example, an armored personnel carrier with one 12.7 machine gun on the roof and not a 60-ton tank with a troop compartment. And, judging by the feedback from users, the result was not the worst.
    2. 0
      15 March 2023 14: 20
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Actually, 8-10 years ago I also heard about the BMP-3M ...
      If you see a BMP-3 with a panorama from the commander (a turret like the BMD-4M), then this is the BMP-3M with the UTD-32T engine (660l / forces), and so on ...
  16. +2
    15 March 2023 13: 22
    Some things in the article put me in a stupor. For example, I can’t understand what is meant by “slow tank”
    a tank will never get into an infantry fighting vehicle with an experienced carrier. He is slow. I'll dance him if I see him.

    The tank does not seem to hit itself. I see two more interpretations:
    1) this means that the tank has insufficient horizontal guidance speed and the gunner will not have time to aim the gun at the target. It is nonsense. 18 degrees per second at a distance of say 1000 meters gives a transfer chord of 312 meters per second. The chances of escaping are Russian roulette, depending on the difference in time to detect each other and the distance to the zone outside the tank's line of sight.
    2) this means that the gunner will not be able to take the correct lead on a moving target. Again, Russian roulette, depending on the experience of the gunner, the type of projectile and whether he will have time for a second shot before losing sight of the target.
    In any of the cases, talking about "dancing" is bragging on the verge of stupidity.
    Or this:
    But where will a good ATGM (in the sense of a modern one) fly? That's right, the engine. That is - in the stern. It is warmer there from his point of view, otherwise the infantry will generally become hot in the compartment.

    If this is a hint at the FGM-148, then it is not more modern, for example, Stugna or Kornet. What follows is not at all clear. I got the impression that the narrator wanted to say that the brains of the rocket were programmed to aim at the stern of the AFV, since there is an engine, which means the end of the infantry in the troop compartment, since instead of the engine, the rocket is programmed to fly to the stern, where, according to the rocket, it should be. From the point of view of the GOS Javelin, it will fly neither into the engine, nor into the stern, nor much warmer - the principle of forming a "flight mission" through the CLU is somewhat different.
  17. -2
    15 March 2023 13: 30
    The BMP-3 was created under the supposed concept of a war between the socialist bloc and the capitalist one, where the war was supposed to be as large-scale as it became nuclear, and on this condition it must immediately be clarified that maintaining a database in conditions of a massive nuclear strike is fundamentally different from "classical "
    From everything mentioned in the article, it follows: the car is nimble, fast, soft, can create a flurry of fire, with a strong desire of the crew, it can even "dance" from a tank shell
    Apparently, none of the interviewed soldiers had ever been under concentrated fire and had not experienced direct hits, in the latter case it would not have been possible to interview them
    The conceptual contradiction of modern infantry fighting vehicles: Too small to force the landing force to move under armor, or too large for more firepower
    How this contradiction is removed - by dividing the transport and combat functions into two vehicles on the scale of one chassis (not BMP-3)
    The car is good, until it comes to its combat qualities (inflict and hold damage), the presence of two barrels indicates the desire to universalize the car without achieving the result to the maximum extent possible (which is not possible, as I already wrote, to implement in one car ) The USSR could afford to switch to the production of BMPTs (Not T-BMPs) and BTR-Ts that already existed at that time, the expediency of production of which would be a natural way after comparing the roles of tanks, BMPTs and BMPs on the battlefield
    The Russian Federation cannot afford the design of progressive machines, especially their production, not to mention the fact that in general to design and produce a new machine for modern Russia is a task from the world of fantasy (Kurganets is a conceptual successor to the BMP-3, it does not carry anything fundamentally new , the difference between it and the T-15 is only physical)
    1. 0
      15 March 2023 14: 29
      Remove the restriction on swimming (yes, it infuriates me wildly) - and you can work wonders. The landing party will always ride on armor. Trusting your life in the hands of a driver without the possibility of his control is not a minibus. The ability to observe 360 ​​degrees, plus the entire sky. The radio station under the armor sucks. Better on armor. If you were wounded - the chance of evacuation is higher from the armor (try to get out of the wounded one).
      1. -1
        15 March 2023 14: 50
        The radio station under the armor sucks. Better on armor.

        Whose radio station? And who does the armor prevent you from contacting?
  18. +1
    15 March 2023 14: 19
    I have only one question. Why is it a requirement to be able to swim? It comes from the USSR. Tanks swim (thank God - no, they cross the bottom), armored personnel carriers float, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles float - and they float and splash down on a parachute system, anti-aircraft systems float ... And we pay for this skill with armor. How often do you need to swim? Attach, when necessary, a company of pontooners. Everything is floating...
    1. +7
      15 March 2023 15: 16
      Quote: Andrey77
      I have only one question. Why is it a requirement to be able to swim? It comes from the USSR. Tanks are swimming (thank God - no, they are forcing along the bottom), armored personnel carriers are swimming, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles are swimming - and they are swimming and splashing down on a parachute system, anti-aircraft systems are swimming ...

      Because the reality given to the army in sensations is such that our engineering troops obey the laws of quantum physics. That is, in principle, they exist, they were observed, but in this particular place there is either no PMP at all, or it is stuck on the road and it is not known when it will be. smile
      Simply put, the means of forcing water barriers always lag behind the advanced units on the march. And if you wait for them, then they will come exactly at the moment when the enemy pulls up reserves and builds up defenses.
      1. 0
        15 March 2023 15: 53
        There are many rivers and estuaries on the European theater of operations. There is experience in WWII and overcoming water barriers ..... and technical specifications for infantry fighting vehicles were also written by those who forced them under fire. And for Local conflicts, you need to do MCI ...... here are 404 e they are actively used in the absence of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. There will be some statistics.
        1. 0
          15 March 2023 21: 24
          Quote: Zaurbek
          And for Local conflicts, you need to do MCI


          Taking into account the specifics of the climate and mrap, all the same, b. caterpillar, African wheeled version through European fields and forests is not a walker. True, he will swim well - simply due to the volumetric body.
      2. +1
        15 March 2023 20: 24
        OK. Is it really safe to cross the river in a floating way? During the exercises, the Pskov 76th Guards Airborne Forces lost a BMD-3 (with the entire crew). This is TEACHING, this is the elite of the Airborne Forces - and they lost ..
        1. +1
          16 March 2023 20: 16
          Quote: Andrey77
          OK. Is it really safe to cross the river in a floating way?


          Always dangerous, even in modern times. But it can be even more dangerous and unpleasant - for example, swimming in icy water under fire not in a strong case with a powerful engine, but, as in the early Red Army, without its protection directly on (I don’t advise, horror how unpleasant) the modern version of Polyansky’s float, only stuffed no longer with the bats of the milkweed, but with some kind of ground foam.
          Most likely, as a result, they will come to the conclusion that there will be large floating mraps with harps and non-floating equipment in the form of heavy armored personnel carriers and tanks with pontoon parks. Perhaps - the trucks will change, they will become floating, with the help of removable floats. Now it has been forgotten what it means to force water in winter and autumn, and the buoyancy of equipment has ceased to be appreciated.
          ___________
          War and hydraulic engineering. Prof. B. A. Pyshkin
          Wild plants for the needs of defense. Prof. G. G. Bosse
          https://topwar.ru/127142-hozhdenie-po-rekam.html
          http://saper.isnet.ru/history/pontrota-1805.html
      3. -1
        15 March 2023 20: 40
        OK. force (at a speed of 10 km / h under fire). Get hooked on rollers. From the company 4 behi force. So? There is no fuel, there is no grub, the ammunition load is the one that is loaded.
        1. 0
          16 March 2023 10: 51
          Quote: Andrey77
          OK. force (at a speed of 10 km / h under fire). Get hooked on rollers. From the company 4 behi force. So? There is no fuel, there is no grub, the ammunition load is the one that is loaded.

          So the enemy, on the other hand, also has nothing serious yet - a maximum of consolidated units with which he plugs the hole. According to the experience of the Second World War, at least some bridgehead on the other side is better than forcing a river, the other side of which is occupied by the enemy. And according to the experience of the same WWII, until the approach of their main forces, bridgeheads occupied by infantry, which had 0,1-0,2 BC for artillery, held on the other side.
  19. 0
    15 March 2023 15: 51
    As long as there is no new generation, BMP3 can be developed. Go to the steel in the armor and move the diesel forward.
  20. 0
    15 March 2023 17: 15
    Quote: Arzt
    And why didn’t you like the dviglo and the doors at the back? Yes, it may not be so convenient for tall infantrymen to climb in, but conceptually what is the difference?

    And why should they sit on the move, it's high, and we seem to be fighting for a lower profile. JUST PUT THE ENGINE IN THE FRONT, will it cover a little from the shells?

    "Covered" and the BMP got up, and what's next?
    1. 0
      15 March 2023 18: 24
      ICE in front (you need to distinguish between types of military operations) for a light BT is the norm, for a tank - reducing the thickness of the frontal armor ... and moving the transmission forward.
  21. 0
    15 March 2023 23: 21
    I'm not a tanker...
    But one gets the impression that the situation (habitability) can be improved by "raising the roof" along the entire length, say, by 10-15 cm. Fundamentally, this will not change anything in the design and undercarriage loads, but it will improve habitability. And the security of the infantry at the exit will also increase, the passage will become, as it were, deeper.
    Down the aisle.
    [media=https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2023-03/thumbs/aee5a2as-960.jpg]


    It seems to me that given the "love" for sitting on the roof, this passage can be quite adapted to placing part of the troops on folding benches. In the hatches, only loopholes are added for review. In any case, this option can be considered. In this case, the infantryman is already sitting, as it were, not on the roof, but in the "trench". wink

    In principle, the people here are already crowded together, but everything needs to be done in such a way that it would be convenient, well, maybe not for everyone, but at least partially.

    1. +3
      20 March 2023 17: 34
      The available height is probably a requirement - "must fit into such and such a transporter"
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. +2
    16 March 2023 00: 25
    The only thing that the infantry fighting vehicle does not do well is carry the infantry inside.
    Well, in general, this phrase is the whole article.
  24. +2
    16 March 2023 06: 24
    This machine is old and does not correspond to the realities of the current time. Previously, you could hide, but now you can’t hide from a drone. It is necessary to put armor and some kind of air defense systems on the armor.
  25. -1
    16 March 2023 15: 04
    So I imagined that I was going in this BMP. And there are 7 other people besides me. And here I am, in their very close environment, lower my pants and sit down ... On this very toilet bowl. I'd rather "put on" my pants - it still won't be so dumb.
    Not to mention how "fellow travelers" will react to this.
    ... I don’t even know from whose position it looks more disgusting.
  26. 0
    17 March 2023 12: 51
    Well said! Neither add nor subtract!
  27. 0
    21 March 2023 13: 43
    .. The only thing that the infantry fighting vehicle does not do well is that it transports infantry inside ...
    ------------------------------------------------
    The main task of the BMP is fire support and transportation of infantry under the protection of armor (inside).
    With fire support, everything is fine, but with transportation inside, it didn’t work out at all. As the fighters began to ride on armor, and not inside, with the beginning of Afghanistan, they have been riding for more than 40 years. And there's no end in sight...
  28. 0
    22 March 2023 12: 20
    This is probably the best combat vehicle in the world, and it could have been even better if it had been originally designed as a BMP-3 "Dragoon", with a rear landing. Equally controversial is the armament of an infantry fighting vehicle with a 100 mm gun, both in terms of necessity and in terms of safety, of course, 45mm or 57mm in a pair with 30mm as an option would be preferable, but 30mm with ATGMs is also not bad, because versatility is a good thing, but in within reasonable limits and security should not suffer, this machine is still designed to deliver and support troops, it should not perform the functions of a tank!
    Here, by the way, the question arises about the need for a light maneuverable tank in the troops, maybe based on the BMP-3, but much better protected.
    As for the "three rubles" itself, the most surprising thing is why a decision was not made to release the BMP-3 "Dragoon" which flashed through exhibitions back in 15 ??? As a result, there is no controversial "Kurganets" yet, there are few BMP-3s and they are in such an outdated version, and the army enters Ukraine on ancient cardboard BMP-2s and even 1, on which the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan 40 years ago! 40!!!


    1. -1
      23 March 2023 01: 39
      And why, Ukraine has the same "cardboard" equipment - BMP-1 and BMP-2. Artillery is the same. Only Russia has 5 or even 7 times more of it. Russia has 1000 (!) times more stocks of shells. Russia will stupidly interfere with artillery to ruin everything.
  29. 0
    24 March 2023 22: 20
    Quote: Andrey77
    From 10 meters - knocks. And then 50 - zilch. All targets are 25 meters.

    As a child, I hit a penny with 75 m in the shooting range, quite confidently, very accurate weapons and ammunition. And the energy was normal. A dangerous thing. In the open air in the field, an almost silent weapon. But the wind blows the bullet well. In windy weather, a penny is 15-25 meters away for a sniper shot, or wait for a pause in gusts.
  30. -1
    11 July 2023 23: 42
    It is always interesting to compare the opinion of the expert and the end user. The expert ruthlessly stigmatizes, and the user is delighted with what is.