Ways to modernize the BMP-2

60
Ways to modernize the BMP-2
BMP-2 of the Russian army in its original configuration. Photo by the Russian Ministry of Defense


The BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle was adopted and entered mass production more than 40 years ago, but still retains its place in the army, and armies are in no hurry to abandon it. At the same time, in order to maintain the required level of performance and overall potential, it is necessary to regularly carry out various repairs and upgrades. As it turns out, the original BMP-2 design has great potential in terms of upgrades and is still of interest in this regard.



Original appearance


The future BMP-2 was at one time developed as a modernized version of the existing BMP-1 vehicle. Taking into account operating experience, a number of small changes were made to the original design, and the weapon system was radically redesigned. In its resulting form, the infantry vehicle more fully met the requirements of its time.

Like its predecessor, the BMP-2 was an armored combat vehicle on a tracked chassis with a full-fledged fighting compartment and a separate compartment for accommodating troops. The tasks of the BMP-1 and BMP-2 were to transport, disembark and fire support infantry - which determined their appearance, composition of units and capabilities.


BMP-2 of the Don detachment with traces of use in the Special Operation zone, May 2022. Photo Telegram / Panzerwaffle

The BMP-2 body was welded from rolled steel armor plates up to 19 mm thick, installed at different angles. The frontal projection of such a hull had to withstand fire from large-caliber small arms weapons or small-caliber guns. Resistance to anti-tank systems was not provided. The protection of the crew should have been positively affected by the layout of the hull with the engine and transmission compartment located on the front right. Also, as in the previous project, the vehicle had a minimal projection, which should have made detection and successful firing difficult.

A new set of weapons was developed for the BMP-2, taking into account the negative experience in operating the previous model. An installation with a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a 7,62-mm PKT machine gun was mounted in the armored turret. In addition, there was a launcher for missiles of the Fagot or Konkurs complex. The fire control system included a combined day-night gunner's sight, a commander's anti-aircraft sight, a two-plane stabilizer, ATGM control devices, etc.

The BMP-2's own crew consists of three people. The driver is located in the bow control compartment, and the gunner-operator and commander work in the turret. A landing force of seven people is transported behind the driver and in the rear of the hull. The place in the bow has its own hatch in the roof, the troop compartment has aft and overhead doors.


BMP-2D with additional protection on top of the body parts. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The vehicle was equipped with a UTD-20S1 diesel engine with a power of 300 hp. and mechanical transmission. The chassis is a six-roller with individual torsion bar suspension and hydraulic shock absorbers on individual rollers. On the highway, the BMP-2 reaches speeds of up to 65 km/h, and on rough terrain – up to 50 km/h. Due to the special shape of the rear wings and the rewinding of the tracks, traction is created for movement through water at speeds of up to 7 km/h.

Obsolescence


At the time of its appearance and subsequently, the BMP-2 fully complied with the customer’s requirements and intended use cases. However, later the situation changed. The car began to become obsolete, and some of its features and advantages turned into disadvantages. There are several main complaints about the original design.

First of all, the BMP-2 is criticized for its low level of protection. The housing can withstand bullets and shrapnel from all directions, as well as small caliber projectiles from front angles. More powerful weapons, such as anti-tank mines or rocket-propelled grenade launchers, are guaranteed to hit the vehicle and, at a minimum, cause injury to the crew and troops.


BMP-2 with the Bakhcha-U combat module. Photo Otvaga2004.ru

The weapons complex as a whole is quite successful, but is not without its shortcomings. Thus, the 2A42 cannon at one time influenced the development of foreign armored vehicles, and the latest model vehicles are often protected from its 30-mm shells. In addition, the BMP-2’s armament is no longer suitable for the tasks of intercepting main air targets. ATGMs “Konkurs” or “Fagot” are obsolete and inferior to newer systems of their class.

The landing capabilities of the BMP-2 also raise certain questions. First of all, the ergonomics of the troop compartment are criticized. The dedicated compartment and its seats turn out to be insufficiently voluminous and convenient for the modern soldier - the latter is on average taller and larger than the average fighter of the past, and also carries more equipment and devices. At the same time, stern doors for exiting the vehicle still remain a relevant and useful solution that increases the safety of dismounting.

It is curious that the power plant, transmission and chassis of the BMP-2 in its original configuration generally do not give rise to complaints. They cope with moving a 15-ton vehicle and give it fairly high mobility and maneuverability characteristics, allowing it to cross water obstacles without preparation, etc.


Modern BMP-2M with the Berezhok combat module. Photo of KBP

Ways of development


The need to refine the original BMP-2 became obvious several decades ago, and at the same time domestic and foreign enterprises began to work on its improvement. A large number of different armored vehicle modernization projects with various features have been proposed. Some of them reached adoption and serial production.

First of all, various ways to increase the level of protection are proposed. Rebuilding the hull does not make sense, and therefore such projects make do with the installation of additional attachments. For example, for the Soviet contingent in Afghanistan, a modification of the BMP-2D was created with additional armor in the form of solid screens. The modern modification of the BMP-2M, entering service with the troops, receives mounts for mounting lattice screens. In the past, experiments have also been carried out with the installation of dynamic protection units.

Various options for updating or replacing the standard weapons system were regularly proposed. Thus, in the past, replacement of sighting devices or guided missiles was envisaged. Then more daring projects appeared with the replacement of the entire fighting compartment. Thus, the BMP-2M project uses the B05YA01 Berezhok combat module with a 30-mm cannon, a machine gun and a 30-mm automatic grenade launcher, as well as a modern Kornet ATGM. Of particular interest is the project to equip the BMP-2 with the Bakhcha-U module - essentially, a turret from the BMP-3 with a corresponding set of weapons.


BMP-2M at firing practice, February 2023. Photo of the Russian Ministry of Defense

Upgrading the instrumentation of a combat vehicle is of great importance. Along with new combat modules, certain sights, fire control systems, etc. were introduced in modernization projects. Communication equipment was also replaced. For example, the latest projects use the Aqueduct radio station, which uses a secure channel and provides increased data transfer speed.

Almost any modifications to the original BMP-2 led to an increase in combat weight and an increase in the load on the propulsion system and chassis. As a result, mobility deteriorated and the ability to swim was also lost, although the latter circumstance was often perceived as an acceptable sacrifice. In the current BMP-2M project, remotorization was provided using a UTD-23 diesel engine with a power of 360 hp, as a result of which the mobility of the vehicle with all additional equipment remains at the same level.

Past and present


The BMP-2 was created in the late seventies, taking into account the requirements of that time and the existing developments from the previous project. For that period, this approach was completely justified and gave the desired result. However, later the requirements for such technology changed due to various factors. In accordance with the new needs of the troops, the promising BMP-3 was developed, and now the next generation of such equipment is being created.

However, the BMP-2 remains in service and is actively used. To meet modern requirements, it needs some changes and modifications. In recent decades, a number of projects of this kind have been proposed, each of which took an existing design and improved it. At the same time, the high modernization potential of the original BMP-2 and the fundamental possibility of maintaining such equipment in service without significant difficulties were shown.
Our news channels

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

60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    27 November 2023 05: 23
    With Berezhok and additional armor, it is an ideal infantry fighting vehicle in terms of price-combat capabilities.
    1. +11
      27 November 2023 05: 35
      Quote: Bodypuncher
      With Berezhok and additional armor, it is an ideal infantry fighting vehicle in terms of price-combat capabilities.

      Well, this decision is still from the category of “For lack of a maid...”
      1. +2
        28 November 2023 19: 49
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Well, this decision is still from the category of “For lack of a maid...”

        Actually, we now have new formations and armies being deployed, and they need to be armed. BMP-3\3M are being produced at an accelerated pace, but such a number of formations (at least 700 fresh bayonets) cannot be armed with one assembly line equipment in such a time frame. So we have to remove it from storage. And we have a lot of things there - thanks to our ancestors for the “galoshes”.
        And why, tell me, are you not satisfied with the BMP-2 as a base for modernization, if the modernized BMP-1 “Basurmanin” can cope quite well in the North Military District? Especially if the side screens are hung.
        Moreover, during modernization the engine is planned/changed to a more powerful one, which even with the extra. protection maintains excellent mobility.
        Armament?
        And look at its updated combat module - with four ATGMs and an improved sighting system. This is almost the potential of The Terminator. True, without its level of armor protection. So she can’t storm the position - deliver the infantry to the place of dismounting, support with fire during dismounting and evacuation, the rest is more of an ambush.
        So everything is fine with the modernization of the BMP-2, as well as with the modernization of the BMP-1. The most important thing is that we have them and in the minimum time and money they can be supplied to the troops without loading the main production facilities in Kurgan, which are now driving BMP-3M, etc. at its base.
        1. 0
          28 November 2023 23: 18
          If you don't believe it, the answer is very simple, look at the circle that is eating from this table, for some reason they are all... someone's... friends. I'll tell you this, it reminds me of the events before 1917. Smersh one, putting the economy on a war footing is two, changing course is three.
    2. +6
      28 November 2023 06: 43
      The ideal infantry fighting vehicle for 1990. It has been completely outdated for 34 years now.
  2. +1
    27 November 2023 05: 39
    However, later the requirements for such technology changed due to various factors. In accordance with the new needs of the troops, the promising BMP-3 was developed, and now the next generation of such equipment is being created.

    It is very good that the requirements for technology have changed due to various factors. But have WWII battle tactics changed?
    For goodness sake, if modern tank models are not capable of withstanding guns and anti-tank weapons, then how can a “mass grave of infantry” be capable of this?
    The transformation of a lorry with a canopy (or even without it) into a vehicle tasked with transporting, disembarking and providing fire support for infantry was successful. But the means of destruction have also changed dramatically. Therefore, there is no need to assign any additional functions to a machine whose tasks and purpose do not change. You cannot throw infantry fighting vehicles against heavy tanks and artillery.
    * * *
    I still don’t understand what modern strategists and designers want to get from infantry fighting vehicles? For what purposes is it created? Maybe the classic infantry can be transferred to BMPT? In any case, combat tactics must change depending on the weapons available to the enemy. You can fight with infantry fighting vehicles against the Zulu tribes, but even terrorist gangs have in their arsenals various means of destroying armored vehicles.
    * * *
    Even more problematic is the use of landing forces according to the variant shown in the famous film. excuse me, but transport aircraft on enemy radars are visible VERY FAR, and existing aircraft made using stealth technology and long-range air defense systems are unlikely to allow a “transport aircraft” to fly close, close and unexpectedly...
    * * *
    As the famous satirist said:
    1. +21
      27 November 2023 08: 11
      I ask the namesake to forgive me for the criticism, but the topic of the article is completely unclear.

      I understand that the modernization of absolutely any combat vehicle comes down to only 3 components: improving weapons, increasing security and improving the capabilities of the propulsion system, but to describe everything so dryly and not informatively, you need to try. But you could, for example, consider modernization options proposed by different design bureaus or, for example, try to offer your own unique version of upgrading a combat unit, since the topic indicated in the title of the article is simply a treasure trove for all sorts of thoughts and ideas.

      In addition, the experience of foreign countries operating this equipment has not been considered, but there is something to pay attention to and something to borrow.

      In general, the swing was worth a ruble, but the blow hardly cost a penny.

      Personally, in my opinion, the modernization of the most widespread infantry fighting vehicle in our troops today, despite the scourge of modern warfare, FPV drones and the massive number of anti-tank weapons, is still relevant and in demand, but only on the condition that this modernization is relatively cheap and simple in production, otherwise this idea simply makes no sense, because 100-200 repaired vehicles, although capable of saving someone’s life, are unlikely to radically change the situation with the delivery of personnel and supporting them with fire on the scale of the entire army.

      So, the first thing that, in my opinion, the Devoyka needs to say goodbye to is the ability to independently overcome water obstacles, leaving this option to the younger and more toothy BMP-3. With such an elegant solution, we are significantly expanding the range of hull armor capabilities. Here, however, we can remember that Kurganmash, in its version of modernization (which I personally really like), managed to strengthen the armor and even keep it afloat, but at what cost the Kurgan engineers managed to achieve this we can only guess.


      Most likely the success of this lies in the use of booms or floats between the side screen and
      BMP body, which is clearly visible in the next photo


      In principle, there is nothing critical about this. But what definitely cannot be taken away from this modernization is the thoughtfulness: the hull protection was strengthened along the entire perimeter, including fuel tanks in the doors, reinforced with armor plates


      Of course, the increased weight due to the alterations required strengthening of the engines and torsion bars, which, coupled with a new turret sighting system, which would later be replaced by an even more advanced, sophisticated and expensive Berezhok, should have resulted in a decent cost.

      One can also recall the experience of the now no longer friendly Finnish army, which also operates the BMP-2

      Pay attention to how the residents of the country of Suomi strengthened the sides by welding a shelf and installing boxes in it for transporting equipment, which, in theory, can be filled with materials that prevent penetration by RPGs and ATGMs with cumulative ammunition. The Kurgan people initially had this place empty for a long time, but later our engineers also thought of using it, moving the main fuel tanks here


      Speaking of fuel tanks. If you remember, initially they were placed in the middle of the troop compartment, and on their sides there were benches (it’s hard to call it anything else) for the landing force, which was thus facing the sides and could fire from personal weapons through the embrasures in the hull. This is, to put it mildly, an amateur activity, since shooting in a closed BMP without the possibility of ventilation a priori does not have a very favorable effect on the health of passengers. With the advent of external screens, this option turned out to be completely unavailable, so the need to place troops facing the sides disappeared by itself. But the mentioned features of the fuel system did not allow changing the placement of transported personnel; they also greatly limited the soldiers in the dimensions of the equipment that they could take with them. With the advent of external screens and fuel tanks located outside the internal volume, this problem also disappeared. Now there is enough space not only to transport paratroopers and payload, but also to evacuate the wounded. So being from Kurgan is a big plus here too.

      But what cannot be said absolutely positively is about the composition of the weapons. Bakhcha-U is clearly redundant for the BMP-2, so talking about it, in my opinion, makes no sense. Although the guard is good, it does not solve the main problem - placing the ammunition inside the case, which not only entails the risk of detonation if the case is knocked out, but also takes up useful internal volume. In addition, Berezhok cannot be a cheap product, because... The presence of a combined gunner's sight, combining a thermal imaging, laser and rangefinder channel with a missile control channel, as well as a commander's panoramic sight, with a TV and a rangefinder, is in itself an expensive pleasure. In theory, we need something like the Ukrainian Shkval module, in which the entire ammo compartment is located outside the body. It’s better to either leave the commander’s sight the same (by default it’s TKN-3B), equipping it with the Double complex, thereby making it possible to observe the same picture as the gunner, or replace it with something like TKN-3TP - set something more advanced is simply not economically feasible and makes no sense.

      This version of modernization could have been easily described if desired, but apparently the author did not have such a goal.
      1. +2
        27 November 2023 09: 22
        Your Ukrainian Shkval is not needed on the Deuce. In order to carry out such modernization, one must completely lose common sense. Here, in a car with a stabilizer, you lose yourself while turning, how can you navigate with a remote module. This will replace the awl with soap and worsen the performance of the machine.
      2. +12
        27 November 2023 11: 54
        The comment is better than the article!
        1. +3
          27 November 2023 22: 03
          Well said. +
          The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
        2. 0
          28 November 2023 15: 19
          I completely agree. Moreover, no modernization has been proposed in other parts of the world. I remember the modification proposed by the Ukrainian Practice, which included the introduction of a folding rear ramp. There are modernizations proposed by the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
      3. +3
        27 November 2023 13: 12
        The criticism is certainly justified. But look who the author is! Kirill Ryabov! This is the second time I’ve read his article in a row, and I don’t want to spit like before. There is less water in the article! Already good. The author is working on himself. There is certainly something to work on! I hope constructive criticism will help him.
      4. +4
        27 November 2023 16: 12
        + for such excellent comments, I also go to VO hi
        1. +1
          27 November 2023 23: 51
          Thank you for your high rating. It’s especially gratifying to hear this from those who still remember what interesting comments there were once on VO. And what kind of holivars were there then mmmm... nice to remember. I sometimes enjoy re-reading backups of those materials. Frankly, sometimes I really miss those times and that audience; for some reason you even remember the notorious Professor with only warmth))))
      5. +6
        27 November 2023 16: 16
        "because shooting in a closed BMP without the possibility of ventilation a priori does not have a very favorable effect on the health of passengers"
        About the impossibility of “ventilation” - this is in vain. Fire from airborne weapons is carried out with the supercharger and gas removal fan turned on, and a corrugated hose is placed on each barrel.
        1. -1
          27 November 2023 23: 39
          About the impossibility of “ventilation” - this is in vain. Fire from airborne weapons is carried out with the supercharger and gas removal fan turned on, and a corrugated hose is placed on each barrel.

          In the self-propelled guns Akatsiya and Gvozdika, the gas removal system should also work... in theory, but, unfortunately, the reality of current hostilities shows that for the most part these systems on many vehicles have long been out of order, and the crews can repair them on their own usually not able to. But in addition to the powder gases, another problem remains - the volume of the sound of shots in a closed case, which noticeably hits the ears, so that after a burst from a machine gun, everyone nearby is guaranteed to have problems with sound perception, and such a useful thing as active headphones is not available everywhere and not everyone. All that remains is to do it the old fashioned way - plug your ears with cotton wool, but this is not a panacea either, since you don’t know exactly when it might come in handy...
        2. 0
          29 November 2023 13: 36
          These installations never worked as expected. After a dozen shots, the gases always ended up in the fighting compartment. Always.
      6. 0
        15 January 2024 21: 05
        Very insightful comment, I fully support it
    2. +1
      27 November 2023 11: 20
      Read Veremeev. He writes that these vehicles, BMP 1 and BMP 2, were created for a war that never happened. BMP is a taxi to the English Channel. That is, they were created for a major European war with the use of weapons of mass destruction in the form of tactical nuclear charges. This time.
      And secondly, to attack the enemy’s hastily erected field fortifications. There are no pillboxes there, 30 mm is enough. Again, if you wish, you can shoot at the turntables.
      1. +1
        27 November 2023 16: 19
        “Again, if you want, you can shoot at the turntables.”
        The probability of shooting down a helicopter with a BMP-2 is about 1%, so you need to shoot the entire regiment.
    3. +1
      27 November 2023 19: 25
      ROSS 42 (Yuri Vasilievich)
      I still don’t understand what modern strategists and designers want to get from infantry fighting vehicles?

      Armchair "echserts" want to turn the infantry fighting vehicle into a doomsday MAUS. Because in the Vartundra the LT does not bend over
      And the military department and designers are gradually refusing to position armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles as infantry transport, because the soldiers still ride on armor. scoring on defense. And turns infantry fighting vehicles into tanks, increasing armament. Classic tanks are expensive, there is a lot of Soviet heritage in warehouses, the modernization ceiling of which has almost been reached. And with the advent of ATGMs, the cannon of a classic tank became redundant. Building an infantry fighting vehicle is simply simpler. What about the armor? It no longer plays a role, there is protection from shrapnel and machine guns, and thank you for that.
      Armored cars take on the task of transporting infantry.
      1. +1
        29 November 2023 13: 39
        Armored cars cannot solve the problem of transporting infantry through muddy and plowed fields, gullies, swamps and deep snow. Well, I can’t and that’s all for you. To accompany tanks, tracked vehicles are needed. Even the BTR-80 cannot pass where a tank passes. Therefore, a tracked infantry fighting vehicle is needed. Deep penetration and reach operations are here to stay.
    4. +2
      27 November 2023 21: 31
      Quote: ROSS 42
      You cannot throw infantry fighting vehicles against heavy tanks and artillery.

      The BMP is designed precisely to protect infantry from artillery, and more precisely from shrapnel. And for the 1960s, when the main calibers were 105-122mm, the armor of the BMP was sufficient. But it’s been 30 years since 152-155mm guns became the main caliber; to protect against such fragments, you need armor of at least 25mm.
  3. -9
    27 November 2023 05: 57
    The only thing suitable for this is an old and thin trough. This means driving to the scrap metal collection point under your own power. All. Well, you can still redo it, remove all these Berezhki. And where to go hunting. For modern combat, this is garbage. Just like the BTR 82, however. Well, you can also stuff fans of sailing on BMPs into this garbage and send them to the front line on their last journey. Then, if there are any survivors, we’ll talk about the security of modern infantry fighting vehicles.
    1. +3
      27 November 2023 10: 28
      In general, an absolutely fair statement. Especially about the completely cardboard BTR-82, used exclusively on the principle of “for lack of a maid, they tear up the janitor.”

      Well, the proposal to send fans of cardboard infantry fighting vehicles into a “meat fight” is something that should have been regularly practiced for a long time.
    2. 0
      27 November 2023 16: 24
      It has already been pointed out that this vehicle would be an infantry fighting vehicle in a nuclear war.
      Today it is a tracked armored personnel carrier.
      And like any armored personnel carrier on a LBS, it has nothing to do, only transportation in the rear.
      And for an armored personnel carrier to float is not superfluous at all.
  4. 0
    27 November 2023 06: 11
    The BMP commander sits not in the turret, but behind the driver. There is enough space in the turret for the gunner-operator, but not enough for two.
    1. +3
      27 November 2023 08: 59
      This is not a BMP-1, but a BMP-2 with a larger turret.
  5. +12
    27 November 2023 06: 44
    Normal car. Is the armor weak? Well, name an MBT that cannot be knocked out by the same ATGM? In addition, the motorized rifle squad now has both PKM and grenade launchers. How to drag all this stuff through the mud? And then there’s the 2A42. A very useful gun.
    And one moment. The tank regiment consists of three MBT battalions and one motorized rifle infantry fighting vehicle. How do you order motorized riflemen to keep up with armor without infantry fighting vehicles, on trucks? And here is a normal cart, with some kind of protection. With good maneuverability and an automatic cannon. And even the opportunity to cross all sorts of rivers right on the move.
    1. +4
      27 November 2023 07: 27
      Quote: madrobot
      Normal car. Is the armor weak? Well, name an MBT that cannot be knocked out by the same ATGM?

      Anything can be knocked out, but as it turns out, Bredl’s landing party is better preserved in this case. Because a cumulative jet through a hole is one thing, and a considerable part of the energy of an explosion through a hole is quite another.
      1. +2
        27 November 2023 23: 38
        Nobody really knows the statistics; there were videos where the BMP-1 somehow magically withstood hits from 122 mm shells. The cumulative ammunition has a very small cone of destruction, can penetrate right through, and the passengers only have their eyebrows burned. Well, if a jet hits the ammunition rack, then things are bad and the delirium will be in trouble.
    2. +5
      27 November 2023 12: 18
      She was normal 30 years ago. Now she is a museum piece. Have you crossed many rivers? In 60 years of operation of the BMP-1/2, I don’t remember a single incident. But everyone, young and old, was talking about thin armor. In Afghanistan we even had to come up with a BMP-2D with additional armor.
      1. 0
        13 February 2024 17: 49
        The main disadvantages of the BMP-1,2 and all our armored personnel carriers include not only “plywood armor” but also the complete lack of mine protection. Because of this, motorized riflemen are forced to sit not behind the armor, but on the armor. This is nonsense. In fact, these old infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have ceased to fulfill their main task and purpose. A This is the safe transportation of personnel to the site of hostilities. All these modernizations without a radical increase in mine protection, anti-drone protection and hull armor with a module do not make much sense. The infantry still rides and will continue to ride, unprotected. In the conditions of modern warfare, this is not acceptable. Then why do we need such modernization and such infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers? We already have developed modern models, such as the Kurgan, boomerang. We can’t set up mass production yet, is it expensive? Then maybe, as a temporary solution, it is better to use the hulls, chassis, and power plants of old T-55, 62, 72 tanks, of which we still have a lot in storage, to create heavy infantry fighting vehicles. In Israel at one time they had such an experience, which turned out well. As armored personnel carriers, use already proven armored vehicles of the Typhoon type based on the Ural or bonneted Kamaz. This will increase the level of protection for our soldiers and save their lives, unlike the hopelessly outdated infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers of the Soviet era.
  6. +5
    27 November 2023 07: 09
    Soon the SVO will be going on for two years, and ours can’t make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle out of old medium tanks, even if it will be a palliative in many ways, but such a vehicle is needed here now, and all these Kurgans and T-15 barberries can be put off for later
    1. +2
      27 November 2023 07: 30
      How do you imagine converting the T-55 into a TBMP? It’s not just like that - take and move the MTO to the front part, cut down the turret, throw out the ammunition rack. Yes, and the department needs an entrance/exit. There, only the torsion bars with the gooseneck will remain from the tank.
      And don’t talk about Akhzarit or Namer. There are nothing on the move. In Wiki they whistle like that lark.
      1. +9
        27 November 2023 08: 22
        Quote: madrobot
        How do you imagine converting the T-55 into a TBMP?

        Why imagine when you can watch? It's called BTR-T

        1. +7
          27 November 2023 08: 45
          And then there is BMO-T. They were released in quantities of 10 pieces. All are (if they are still in service at all) in the RKhBZ arsenal. Well, what do you think - did the conversion of the T-55 into a TBMP not justify itself in some way, or were there other reasons?
          1. +2
            27 November 2023 23: 51
            There are problems with dismounting personnel, and to make it convenient, you need to seriously redesign the vehicle. Kind of like the Israelis, who have little left of the T-55 at all. But in general, the history of purchases of infantry fighting vehicles by the Russian army over the past 20 years has shown that they were remembered only quite recently, and before that neither light nor heavy ones were needed, well, just to ride in a parade for show
      2. Eug
        0
        27 November 2023 17: 04
        This issue has already been resolved in Kharkov at 115 BTRZ about twenty years ago. But very expensive to operate. Although the alteration itself is quite technological.
    2. +1
      27 November 2023 12: 20
      You still can’t understand that the “dared” government has destroyed most of the country’s industrial potential in 33 years. We simply have NO WHERE to make armored personnel carriers from tanks. And there is NOBODY to make them!!! There are NO qualified personnel. And they won't appear tomorrow. But the “daring” government in Mercedes does not change the situation in any way. Vote further for the EdPa farts and capitalists.
  7. +2
    27 November 2023 08: 16
    Well, this is clearly not scrap metal, after all, military operations have shown that the same MT-BLs are still needed and relevant.
    1. +3
      27 November 2023 08: 56
      Of course, in the absence of a choice and the BTR-70, it’s better than nothing... if only MTLBs weren’t needed, what would they actually be replaced with? But according to the article, the car itself needs to be changed... what's the point of its main purpose if everyone is driving "from above"? so its main purpose, like that of an armored personnel carrier, is to deliver troops intact, and based on the implementation of this main purpose, it should be considered first.. and if you still ride from above, you can even “repurpose” the airborne squad..
    2. +3
      27 November 2023 12: 09
      What does an artillery multifunctional tractor-truck and an infantry fighting vehicle have to do with it? MTLB will still be relevant in 30 years. But the BMP-2 was outdated back in the 1990s.
  8. +1
    27 November 2023 09: 15
    I noticed that the modernized BMP-2 with the Berezhok module has upper hatches that open outward, which allows troops to move on the armor behind the hatches. It’s gratifying that the designers took this feature into account.
    But now the vehicle should be able to withstand small enemy drones. For example, a grenade launcher must be placed in a separate module with a high-speed drive, adapted for anti-aircraft firing of grapeshot and shrapnel grenades.
    It is also desirable to have an additional propulsion system, and a removable one at that. In order not to involve thermal imagers and power the vehicle’s weapons autonomously. Also to control the vehicle’s weapons remotely.
  9. +2
    27 November 2023 09: 45
    In my opinion, this is a useless idea for modernizing the BMP-2, well, maybe just to improve them somehow. We need new infantry fighting vehicles to attack.
  10. +3
    27 November 2023 10: 01
    BMP 2 is an outdated vehicle, like the T-62. It can be used, it can be modernized, it’s better than nothing, and so on, but in new conditions it’s better to produce something new.
  11. +1
    27 November 2023 12: 00
    Maybe stop raping a museum exhibit? The BMP-2 is technically no different from the BMP-1 of the early 60s. Installing Bakhchi-U on the BMP-2 is cretinism to the highest degree. There isn't much room there for landing troops, but there will also be a carousel of 100mm landmines. Fireworks are amazing when hitting a mine or when hit by any anti-tank weapon. What's the point of using old 40-year-old armored hulls? They have clearly already rusted in some places and have cracks. Complete disassembly and reassembly of the hull with new components is not much cheaper than building a new infantry fighting vehicle from scratch. And in terms of time costs, it will most likely take much longer. There can be only one way out - bringing all BMP-1/2 to the standard of the "Berezhok" module and additional armor of the BMP-2D type. And at the same time, launch production of the NEW BMP on an industrial scale. Not the outdated BMP-3, but a NEW vehicle, taking into account the experience of modern combat operations.
  12. -2
    27 November 2023 14: 11
    There can only be one upgrade option! Development and launch into mass production of a modern infantry fighting vehicle that meets the current and future realities of war. And the old infantry fighting vehicles, after complete replacement in units and storage bases, will be distributed to museums and friendly countries for foreign currency.
  13. 0
    27 November 2023 16: 50
    1. Rename from BMP-2 to BTR-2.
    2. Remove the 2A42 and PKT, install the GShG and fire control system, designed for drones and subsonic ATGMs. Detection and automatic tracking in visible/thermal ranges + acoustics. Your own wired drone.
    3. The released mass is used to protect the roof. A used machine gun is much less dangerous due to deflagration.
    If each squad has such a drone striker (and at the same time a conveyor), the “birds” will have much less freedom.
    Just don’t bury it, but give it the opportunity to travel at a distance. The stationary one will be quickly covered. Single too.
    Such machines must cover each other (with automatic exchange of information).

    It's too early to scrap.
    1. 0
      27 November 2023 18: 26
      It was the BMP-2 that you needed to disarm? MTLB or BTR-70 will not suit the expert? Some people definitely want to remove the guns from tanks, but here the optimizers got to the BMP-2.
      1. 0
        27 November 2023 19: 04
        Such an installation will not fit into the turrets of the MT-LB and BTR-70.
        It can go into the T-55 turret.
        Or will the BMP-1 suit you?
        1. 0
          27 November 2023 21: 08
          Which one is it? The one you imagined?
    2. -1
      27 November 2023 19: 22
      The filling is expensive and non-core.
      Here is my version of an armored personnel carrier..
      Minus the tower. The weight of the tower is in Kurgan type screens which have positive buoyancy. Not for the sake of buoyancy, but for the sake of weight. So as not to overload.
      Tower with good heat. 7,62×54 + 12,7 or AGS 40 mm. Plus some kind of bassoon.
      Driver plus tower operator. The rest of the landing force is in mine-proof chairs.
      The bassoon is not so expensive that you should spare it for a firing point or a soft target. The AGS 40 mm can do a lot and yet weighs very little. And it can pour out from behind cover. Where the armored personnel carrier should actually be located. The machine gun on the march will fight back.
      Inexpensive and exactly what you need for the near rear. And the BMP must withstand the blow. And they will snap back. A completely different weight and a completely different price category.
  14. 0
    27 November 2023 21: 49
    A new set of weapons was developed for the BMP-2, taking into account the negative experience in operating the previous model.
    It's not about negative experiences. The old ATGM had a dead zone of 500 m. There the tanks had to be hit by a 73 mm gun, which is very similar to the LNG-9. The new ATGMs no longer had a dead zone; it became possible to replace the weapon without losing anti-tank capabilities.
    Next, how could one write
    First of all, the BMP-2 is criticized for its low level of protection.

    and further
    It is curious that the power plant, transmission and chassis of the BMP-2 in its original configuration generally do not give rise to complaints.
    ?
    The low level of protection is a consequence of this chassis, and not a requirement for sailing.
    It seems to me that the next infantry fighting vehicle will have modular armor. The engine, body and chassis are calculated for the maximum configuration. Design standard mountings for mounted modules. Without additional The armor of the infantry fighting vehicle must be able to float and be transported by a medium transport aircraft. Further, standard or heavy armor modules can be attached to the BMP, and reactive armor modules or grenade launcher gratings can be attached to the armor modules. It is imperative to provide means for the movement of troops on armor or at least with open hatches and means for quickly and safely leaving the roof in or from the vehicle. This is especially true in the presence of anti-drone nets. In peacetime, they won’t ride under armor anyway, but in wartime, only if they are sure of the presence of danger.
  15. +2
    28 November 2023 07: 23
    1. If you are upgrading with the real goal of improving performance, then you need to install, instead of the old turret, a remote combat module completely removed from the fighting compartment with its ammunition removed. The module must have an autocannon, a twin PKT, a modern ATGM (4 pcs), 2 panoramic sights with TV and night vision devices for the commander and gunner.
    2. The central fuel tank must be removed from the fighting compartment and the fuel tanks placed on the sides, above the tracks.
    3. From the factory, the side must have a removable armored screen in the entire projection with guaranteed protection against armor-piercing 12.7 mm bullets fired at point-blank range. It should be equipped with removable dynamic protection and the possibility of increasing the protection class.
    4. The stern doors need to be redesigned. On the side of the door you need to install a remote clip-on/removable module with a machine gun for shooting small drones and the ability to be controlled by the landing force.
    5. The driver needs a normal modern night vision device.
    6. It is necessary to modify the old TDP taking into account modern technologies in order to increase its power, efficiency and service life between major overhauls.
    7. Replace the upper armor plate with a thicker and more armor-resistant one. Perhaps it makes sense to install a steel one of the same thickness with gas stops. Well, or attach the cover to the old aluminum armor plate.
    8. Mine protection is required.
    This will be a good upgrade at a cost comparable to the construction of a new infantry fighting vehicle. Moreover, with all the shortcomings of the old 60-year-old design (engine, transmission, chassis, etc.)
    There is no point in it. We need a new infantry fighting vehicle.
  16. +1
    7 January 2024 03: 44
    The BMP-2 is so outdated that there is simply no point in modernizing it.
    Well, only if it’s to cut the dough.
  17. +1
    29 January 2024 15: 31
    In the meltdown of this dinosaur, I, with my 183 cm and in full equipment, could only ride on top of the armor, you couldn’t climb into the hatches, I was twisted to death inside and was about to suffocate. Fire control is a nightmare, give me a monitor and a joystick (leave the Cheburashka as a reserve). This is a very old car and we are simply ruining ourselves with it. If you have any doubts, put on the SIBZ + RD with zinc, + rations and drink + 16 magazines on yourself and try to climb into it.
  18. 0
    13 February 2024 12: 16
    If you modernize it a little, it is the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world. Increase the armor, change the ATGM competition to an ATGM cornet on a rising ramp. Armored floats can be hung on the sides for additional buoyancy. Strengthen the electronic warfare system to combat drones. Install the latest communication and surveillance systems. The BMP itself is excellent. Low and maneuverable. The engine is in the front and the troops exit from the rear through the aft doors. I almost forgot. Strengthen mine protection.
    1. 0
      13 February 2024 18: 57
      I almost forgot. Strengthen mine protection.

      How can it be strengthened? Install mine-resistant chairs. But this won't solve the problem. The most important thing is the V-shaped bottom and the corresponding suspension. And it’s difficult to remake them in an old infantry fighting vehicle. It's easier to do it again in a new...
  19. 0
    10 March 2024 17: 30
    I understand that I’m writing into the void, but I have only one thought, to make new infantry fighting vehicles based on T-55/62 tanks and only with a remote control turret with Utes and 2 Kornet ATGMs and 1 MANPADS, and stop sticking 30-57 mm guns, this you are not a tank and its tasks are not the same, if you want a BMPT, then make a BMPT, and not from an infantry fighting vehicle - BMPT. The main task of the infantry fighting vehicle is to deliver infantry to the battlefield and support it... am

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

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