The landing party almost hugging the crew in the BMP-3: were there any advantages?

Generally speaking, the domestic BMP-3 is a rather controversial vehicle. On the one hand, it has a lot of advantages, among which a special place is occupied by very good armor made of steel and aluminum alloy, as well as powerful main armament in the form of a 100-mm rifled gun and a 30-mm automatic gun. On the other hand, there are also disadvantages or, let's say, controversial points - and, perhaps, the most noticeable of them is the atypical layout in terms of placing the landing force.

The fact is that, unlike other infantry fighting vehicles, both Soviet/Russian and foreign, the BMP-3 engine-transmission compartment is located not in the front part of the hull, but in the rear. Therefore, the landing places for the troops are literally scattered around the vehicle: two are in the front part of the hull to the right and left of the driver-mechanic with entry/exit through hatches in the roof, and five more (theoretically even seven) are close to the fighting compartment with an exit along the roof of the MTO through two passages, which are closed from the rear by double-leaf doors, and from above by covers that can be folded to the sides.

Only the lazy have not spoken about the “increased comfort” this arrangement provides when dismounting and mounting troops in full gear. The vehicle is indeed criticized for this, blaming its designers for laziness and unwillingness to redesign the basic design of the lightweight tank "Object 685", the developments on which were used during the creation of the BMP-3. However, this begs the question: were there any advantages other than ensuring buoyancy (uniform distribution of mass, where the power unit acted as a counterweight to the heavy frontal armor)?

To answer this question, it is worth reading the corresponding article by Soviet scientists, which we publish here without any retelling or speculation. It was published in 1991, just a few years after the BMP-3 was adopted by the Soviet Army. Of course, the material is written in a “dry language” and is not filled with colorful epithets, but nevertheless it can give some idea of ​​what was considered the advantages of this vehicle at that time.

Features of the BMP-3 layout

The layout scheme of the BMP-3 is considered, which allows for the creation of a new infantry fighting vehicle with improved tactical and technical characteristics compared to the BMP-2.

Most modern IFVs have a layout with the engine-transmission compartment (MTC) in the front part of the hull. From the point of view of protecting the frontal projection of the floating vehicle, as well as the conditions for the placement and activation of the landing force, the stern location of the MTC is more rational. When arranging the BMP-3 (Fig. 1), the following requirements were taken into account:

- the maximum possible volume of habitable compartments for the crew and troops, the possibility of communication between them;
- activation of airborne fire in the forward sector;
- optimization of the relative position of the center of mass, the middle of the supporting surface and the center of displacement of the machine;
- the highest possible level of armor protection and thermal camouflage.

The main difference between the 18,7-t BMP-3 layout and the BMP-1, BMP-2, M-2A1 (USA) and Marder (FRG) layouts is the aft location of the power pack. The engine and transmission are combined into a power unit. The main units that require a mechanical drive — the compressor, the hydraulic volume drive pump of the rotation mechanism, the gearbox and the fan for ejecting dust from the air cleaner — are located on the power unit.

The transverse installation of the V-shaped UTD-29 engine allowed the placement of the cargo shaft of the drive to the drive wheels, the cardan shaft of the water jet drive, the electric pump under the engine, and the water jets and air cleaner next to the power plant. The remaining systems of the power plant and the batteries occupy the volume of the niches of the aft part of the hull.

All this made it possible to obtain a compact engine-transmission compartment with a minimum length (up to a partition of 1560 mm) and height. With a 375 kW engine, it occupies 3 m³, which is significantly less than the volume occupied by the MTO of the BMP-1, BMP-2 (4,5 m³) with an engine power of 220 kW. The aft location of the MTO, the ejector cooling system and the minimum length of the exhaust line made it possible to increase the level of thermal camouflage of the machine and eliminate haze in the field of view of its own instruments.

Fig. 1. Layout of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle: 1 — protective hull screen (water deflector shield, bulldozer); 2 — block weapons (100 mm gun-launcher, 30 mm automatic cannon, 7,62 mm machine gun); 3 - fuel tank; 4 - autonomous machine gun mount; 5 - turret protective screen; 6 - commander's backup sight 7 - right magazine; 8, 11 - ball bearings; 9 - window for dispensing 100 mm ammunition from the conveyor; 10 - unguided 100 mm ammunition; 12 - air intake device; 13 - ejector, radiators; 14 - drive wheel; 15 - final drive, brake; 16 - water jet: 17 - power unit; 18 - battery compartment; 19 engine bulkhead; 20 - stowage for additional ammunition; 21 - left magazine; 22 - gunner's backup sight; 23 — combined sight of the operator-gunner; 24, 26 — seats of the paratroopers in the control compartment; 25 — driver's seat; 27, 28, 30, 32, 33 — seats of the paratroopers in the troop compartment; 29, 31 — additional seats; 34 — operator's seat; 35 — commander's seat

The placement of the final drives and drive wheels in the rear of the combat vehicle made it possible to reduce the likelihood of them being hit by shelling and damaged when running into an obstacle.

The small volume of the MTO and its placement in the aft section created favorable conditions for the layout of the control compartment, combat and troop compartments, and made it possible to accommodate the crew and troops in accordance with medical and technical requirements in the most comfortable area of ​​the vehicle.

The internal volume per person in the BMP-3 is 1,04 mXNUMX.³, which is significantly larger than the BMP-2 (0,52 m³).

The driver's seat is located in the middle of the forward part of the hull. For protection against mines, the bottom in this part of the hull is made double, and the driver's and gunners' seats are fixed to the sides and pillars of the hull. To control the operation of the actuators and control devices of the MTO, this compartment has drives with cable connections on board. To the right and left of the driver, there are places for two paratroopers with two autonomous machine gun mounts. The placement of paratroopers in the forward part of the hull made it possible to increase the effectiveness of small arms damage along the course of the vehicle's movement in a sector of ±30° (Fig. 2). The volume of the forward part of the hull is used to accommodate fuel tanks filled with open-cell polyurethane foam.

Fig. 2. Small arms fire zones: A, A1 — right (-5...+30°) and left (+5...-30°) PKT; B, B1 — right front (25...60°) and left front (-25...-60°) AK; B, B1 — right rear (57°30'…92°30') and left rear (57°30'…92°30') AK; G — rear (±27°30') AK

The middle part of the vehicle's hull is occupied by the fighting compartment, which houses the commander and gunner's workstations, and weapons are installed, consisting of a 100-mm gun-launcher, a 30-mm automatic cannon, and a 7,62-mm PKT machine gun mounted in one mask. The gun-launcher can fire both conventional and guided projectiles. rockets. The feed system for the 30-mm automatic cannon is made in the form of two separate magazines, located on the left and right along the perimeter of the floor of the fighting compartment. Between the magazines of the feed system of the 30-mm automatic cannon is located the mechanism for feeding 100-mm artillery ammunition from the conveyor to the loading line. The conveyor for this ammunition is located under the floor of the fighting compartment. A feature of the conveyor is the location of the nests for ammunition at an angle of 3 ° to the plane of pumping the gun, which made it possible, with a given length of ammunition, to reduce the conveyor sweep zone and increase the dimensions of the passage between the fighting compartment and the sides of the vehicle.

For the gunner, a combined sight with independent stabilization of the head mirror for the horizon and vertical, as well as a backup sight with dependent stabilization of the head prism are installed in the roof of the turret. The combined sight allows firing in day and night conditions with shells and guided missiles. The backup sight ensures firing of shells in the absence of power supply.

The turret of the fighting compartment is made of aluminum armor sheets. The peculiarity of the turret armor is the use of spaced armor in the front sector.

The landing force is located between the fighting compartment and the MTO, with 2 individual seats installed along the sides and 5 more seats in a row in front of the engine bulkhead. Two of them are additional and can be used as footrests. The landing force exits through 2 passages located above the power unit and 2 aft doors. Additional ammunition for the automatic cannon is stowed under the seats on the floor near the engine bulkhead. The landing compartment niches (two per side) are equipped with ball bearings designed for firing machine guns. In addition, one bearing is installed in the left aft door of the hull.

The paratroopers' seats fold down, which makes it possible to place 4 beds in these compartments during airborne landings.

The placement of the MTO in the aft part of the hull also improves the water-going qualities of the vehicle.

The static trim of the BMP-3 without troops increases by only 1°50' to the stern when fuel is used up and ammunition is consumed.

A slight shift of the center of mass from the middle of the supporting surface of the tracks ensures uniform loading of the road wheels (Fig. 3), which improves cross-country ability on soft soil and snow. These advantages have been confirmed during control and military tests. The torsion bar suspension of the BMP-3 is equipped with a clearance change mechanism with an electromechanical drive. It is designed for airborne landing in a platform-less manner and can be used to reduce the height of the vehicle, increase cross-country ability, during self-entrenching, repairs and in cases of getting stuck.

Fig. 3. Load on the BMP-3 road wheels: 1 - on the ground; 2 - on the road wheel axle; 3 - on the tires.

The BMP-3 hull is made of aluminum armor sheets with spaced armor of the frontal projection. Overall dimensions of the BMP-3: height of the turret roof 2300 mm; width 3150 mm; length with a 100-mm gun-launcher forward 7200 mm; working clearance 450 mm, maximum 510 and minimum 190 mm - all this allows it to be transported by rail (2 vehicles on a platform), road, sea and air transport, as well as parachuted from ships by IL-76, An-22, An-124 aircraft both by landing and non-stop methods.

The layout of the BMP-3 allows for the efficient use of the chassis for special-purpose vehicles. Various VGMs are currently being developed on the basis of the BMP-3: BMP-ZK, a unit commander's vehicle, a self-propelled gun, a self-propelled ATGM mount, an anti-aircraft missile system, a command and staff vehicle, an armored repair and recovery vehicle, etc.

Output. The design solution adopted during the development of the BMP-3, which provided for the aft placement of the engine-transmission compartment, the use of a 100-mm gun-launcher, a 30-mm automatic cannon and a 7,62-mm machine gun placed in one mask, the activation of airborne fire in the front sector, as well as the installation of water-jet propulsion, made it possible to create a more advanced infantry fighting vehicle compared to the BMP-2.

Source:
"Features of the BMP-3 layout". S.F. Zakamaldin, A.V. Kurlov, M.I. Moskvin, and others.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

And formally there is nothing to find fault with, everything is beautiful... Especially this:

the crew and troops in accordance with medical and technical requirements in the most comfortable area of ​​the vehicle.

It’s a pity that the military comrades seem to have forgotten about body armor when developing the requirements for the project.
And so it seems that the hundred is justified, because in the same M2 the TOU missiles also did not add health to the landing force.
However, when unloading the TEU, the Bradley practically did not lose its firepower, but the BMP-3 did, and how. And as a result, the Bradley as an IFV copes quite well, but the BMP-3 does not. Because if the landing force is riding on armor, then it is not an IFV.

[Wildcat]

As the article explains everything in the most... clear way:

its designers are lazy and unwilling to rework the basic design of the light tank "Object 685", the developments of which were used during the creation of the BMP-3

But the question is different.
Knowing about the benefits of jumping from the engine to the ground (and jumping back, not to mention the "carry the 300th on a stretcher" trick); knowing about the stunning effect 100 mm shells produce when they explode on the crew and troops; knowing that 100 mm ATGMs are of little use against modern tanks "head-on"; knowing about the accuracy features of the 30 mm gun with a moving barrel - well, is it really impossible to fix this in 30 years?

Okay, the weapons have no analogues in the world; but with the landing of troops, everything was obvious long ago, and there was and is a version of the Dragoon with a ramp (2015) - why can't it be made?!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Wildcat

Well, is it really impossible to fix this in 30 years?

No, not 30, maximum 15-20, the years from 90 to 2005, or even 10, can be safely crossed out...

[Wildcat]

...again about the 90s...
Okay, from 2022 - why can't it be fixed?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Wildcat

Okay, from 2022 - why can't it be fixed?

Are you asking me this? Maybe you should also ask why the top leadership of the Army and the General Staff is still not in the dungeons of the ̶NKVD̶ FSB?

[Wildcat]

Sorry, the questions are rather rhetorical...

[storm]

Until the children of the current "elite" begin serving in the infantry, no well-armored and mine- and ATGM-protected BMPs or APCs will appear...

[AAK]

What kind of wars were our generals and military-industrial complexes preparing for, and we have such equipment, 35-50 years old in design... that is why the methods of replacing military and military equipment projects are not at all Stalinist, that is why, in addition to weapons, ammunition and fuels and lubricants, a very significant share of deliveries for other items is carried out by volunteers, and someone reports that "the army is provided with everything"...

[parma]

The 90s are to blame for everything again? Maybe it's time to stop blaming them for everything? As far as I remember, up until 1995, units received 300+ vehicles, they participated in both Chechen wars, where their protection and convenience were already not praised at that time! Up until 2000, they delivered about 700 vehicles abroad - 50 to Cyprus and Korea, 150 to Kuwait, 400 to the UAE! We returned to the BMP3 in 2005 with a new contract, what prevented us from ordering not the original version, given the "fie" from foreign customers, given the experience of Chechen companies (body armor was still widespread even here), and from ordering a modified version? After all, even then, the BMP-3 was equipped with the "cactus" kit, and the "berezhok" and "melon" kit, and a bunch of other things... what prevented us from making a different layout then?
In general, it's not about the "holy 90s", as the practice of the T-90 and Su30 showed - if the customer had some wishes, then it was possible to remake anything. If not - then no. Nobody wanted to bother, for the sake of paradox it will do.

[MCmaximus]

Oh. Yes, the Su-30 is an export machine. It could not appear for our Air Force. Our aviation did not want to see it for a very long time. You see, it did not correspond to the views.
So, as always.

[Aristarkh Verkhozin]

Quote: parma

By 2000, about 700 cars were delivered abroad - 50 to Cyprus and Korea, 150 to Kuwait, 400 to the UAE!

An example of a solution to the "shahid-ammunition stowage" problem in the UAE BMP-3 by installing a DVK-30 combat module with a 30-mm autocannon from the Slovak company ZTS Špeciál. It seems that the UAE has recognized the reality and will remake the BMP-3 into an IFV. Experience of combat use in Yemen - see the photo with the remains of the BMP-3 and what can be seen now.
Only the Russian Ministry of Defense and KMZ don’t understand the situation and will continue to saw up this aluminum powder keg for a long time.

[parma]

But the UAE ordered wheeled IFVs with a BMP-3 turret from the Finns and Turks... to be honest, I don't really understand why the Emirates bought the BMP-3! They have nowhere to swim, at the time of the purchase, the first Gulf War and the Soviet war in Afghanistan had just recently ended, showing that heavy Western vehicles have no particular problems on the sand, while light domestic ones have problems with armor protection even against "slipper wearers". The Emirates themselves had an AMX-10P at that time, so they were familiar with the convenience of a ramp. At the same time as the domestic vehicle, the British "Warrior" saw the light of day, and it is difficult to refer to the novelty of the vehicle (although at the time of the purchase, the "Bradley" was only 10 years old. The purchase of "LeClercs" kind of hints that the UAE had no problems with money... in general, as for me, the decision is strange, but thanks to them for supporting our manufacturers

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Wildcat

Why can't it be done then?!

They started talking about the dictate of the military-industrial complex and the lack of will of the Ministry of Defense in the early 90s, and the BMP-3 is proof of this.

[Disant]

Wildcat
Knowing the benefits of jumping from the engine to the ground

There are steps at the stern. The exit is in two streams. height of "jump" from the step - 50 cm, from the roof of the engine - 1m (photo). It is quite feasible for any knees of not advanced age to "jump", and you need to practice getting out of the car a couple of times, and not jump on one leg when landing.

knowing about the precision features of the 30 mm cannon with a movable barrel - well, is it really impossible to fix this in 30 years?

this gun PAIRED with a 100mm gun (photo). Nothing is dangling there.

knowing what a stunning effect 100mm shells produce when they explode on the crew and troops

these ammunition are located in a "tablet" on the bottom of the car, it is advisable to use and is used not in attacks with landing troops, but for shooting by the crew with a ZOP.

There was and is a version of Dragoon with a ramp (2015) - why can't it be made?

costs as much as a tank. weighs as much as a tank. you have comparable data on cross-country ability?
in a year you can make, say, 100 regular BMPs, or 50 BMP-Ms. The choice is obvious at the moment.

[Wildcat]

There are steps on the stern. The exit is in two streams. The height of the "jump" from the step is 50 cm, from the roof of the engine - 1 m (photo). It is quite feasible for any knees of not advanced age to "jump", and you need to practice getting out of the car a couple of times, and not hop on one leg when landing.

A simple question: what is easier: 1) dismounting on the ramp 2) running along the MTO, and either 2.1) jumping from 1 m; or 2.2) "turn to face the stern, grab the handrail with the appropriate hand and find the step with the appropriate foot and dismount accordingly" ? And how do you carry a stretcher with a wounded person, if anything happens?

This gun is PAIRED with a 100mm gun (photo). There is nothing loose there.

What does "dangling" have to do with it? Are you saying that a gun with a moving barrel has the same accuracy as a BMP2, for example?

These ammunition are located in a "tablet" on the bottom of the vehicle

so far everything is logical, but the mines...

It is advisable to use and is used not in attacks with landing troops, but for shooting by a crew with a ZOP.

Is it possible to use an infantry fighting vehicle to get to the dismounting point? And can we use artillery from the ZOP?

costs as much as a tank. weighs as much as a tank. do you have any comparative data on cross-country ability?
in a year you can make, say, 100 regular BMPs, or 50 BMP-Ms. The choice is obvious at the moment.

the choice has been obvious for the last 30 years. But somehow it is not obvious anymore (especially after the official comparisons with Bradley).
P.S. Especially about "in a year you can make, say, 100 regular BMPs, or 50 BMP-Ms". The ramp is so complicated...
By the way - there is no haze!

[Disant]

Wildcat (BMP-3) is a unique vehicle due to its twin gun with ammunition on the bottom and compact engine.
It was this engine that made it possible to create such low layout of the entire machine.
your words about the ramp - what does the ramp and complexity have to do with it? in Dragun there is an undeveloped area massively combat module and engine. Any welder will design a ramp for you from any side and screw it on, if it's important.
I gave you the parameters that are important for consideration: the place in time where we are, the time and quantity, and you are talking about the ramp.

Simple question: what is easier?

my opinion is that a vehicle with a low silhouette is more likely to complete the task undamaged and save the landing party, and what you write/ask about further is secondary and tertiary - who, with which side and with which hand is holding on to which handrail...

so far everything is logical, but here are the mines

what about mines? Mines tear apart any equipment just as well, and you're comparing a 30-ton ramp and a 20-ton BMP-3.

Is it possible to use an infantry fighting vehicle to get to the dismounting point? And can we use artillery from the ZOP?

Arrive as you wish. It will be as the unit commander assesses the situation.
Who would instantly give artillery to an ordinary infantry squad leader? Only the Russian Ministry of Defense with the help of the BMP-3

[Dante Alighieri]

Disant, please google the following phrase: "K-21 Korean BMP" then compare the performance characteristics of the product given in the answer and the performance characteristics of the three, then compare these two vehicles visually. It is also advisable to do a mental exercise and try to imagine these two BMPs without turrets, and then you will understand that the K-21 is the BMP-3, only the BMP-3 of a healthy person who did not pursue excessive firepower (although there were prototypes with a 105 mm cannon), but who preferred to think about the comfort of a simple soldier, guided by the principle of reasonable sufficiency. And the Koreans managed to make acceptable dimensions (the K-21 is 200 mm shorter than the troika, 100 mm wider and 300 mm higher, although it is higher solely due to the turret, which is much larger; if you compare the hulls in their pure form, the differences even in shape are minimal), and an acceptable weight of 26 tons (let me remind you that the troika with additional protection weighs 22,7), and good protection with anti-mine armor, and normal crew placement (of which there are as many as 9 people!!!) with its convenient landing, and EVEN the ability to swim. And all this, I repeat, in the dimensions of the hull of the troika, which the Koreans were clearly inspired by, fortunately there was something to take an example from - 40 BMP-3s were sold to Korea in the 90s to pay off a debt and clearly influenced the creation of a Korean analogue. But here's the question: why were the Koreans able to see all the pros and cons, able to understand and correct the existing shortcomings, while we couldn't after so many years? Isn't it because of the same overflowing with their own greatness? Recently I watched a tour of Zvezda correspondents at Kurganmash, they showed the first engineer. When the presenter asked what technical solutions they would like to glean from the studied Western technology, the answer was - there is nothing there that we have not already surpassed. And that's it, basta. I understand everything - the position obliges, but it was possible to formulate the answer somehow differently, noting, for example, the same more comfortable conditions for the crew, more advanced optics and communications. No, even that did not follow. These people are not going to learn, are not going to draw conclusions from the mistakes they made - they are fine as it is, orders are coming, there is no alternative to them as a supplier and everything is fine with them personally. And how will those who are forced to move around in their products feel? They care exactly to the extent that it affects the volume and cost of orders received. It's just business and nothing personal. If the customer is satisfied with everything, why shouldn't the plant be satisfied? Logical - logical. The time for personal initiative and rationalization proposals has long passed, so is it any wonder when on the same Dragun we see niches for machine guns, although the machine guns themselves have disappeared. And no one cares at all that this is just an extra operation performed by a welder, whose salary is incomparably less than the profits of the owner and top managers of the plant.

[Valnik]

It is a long-standing Russian tradition to criticize one's own and respect imported goods.

[Disant]

Dante (Kirill), hello.

Recently I watched a tour of Zvezda correspondents at Kurganmash, they showed the first engineer. When the host asked what technical solutions you would like to learn from the Western technology you have studied, the answer was - there is nothing there that we have not already surpassed. And that's it, basta.

The engineer answered correctly - briefly and clearly.
We are world leaders in the design of combat armored vehicles and metallurgy, where should they stick their noses?

The K-21 is 200 mm shorter than the troika, 100 mm wider and 300 mm higher, although it is higher solely due to the tower

understand above it is due to the volume of the hull. This is a very large value. The volume behind the armor increases sharply and the level of protection drops sharply.
.
they are wider. our country is big. we constantly transport equipment on railway platforms. in large quantities. the width is standardized during design for a reason. the width of ramps for air transportation is also standardized based on our fleet of aircraft and their number.
.
they have shorter ones. well, they don’t have a 100mm gun protruding beyond the dimensions of the hull.

[ZeeD]

Quote: Dante

please google the following phrase: "K-21 Korean BMP" then compare the performance characteristics of the product given in the answer and the performance characteristics of the three

If it’s not a secret, have the K21’s performance characteristics been confirmed anywhere in operation and combat use?
On paper - no problem, everything really looks beautiful....

[cast iron]

BMP-3 is a unique vehicle

Created by sadists who hated Russian soldiers to transport circus monkeys.

[Cympak]

Quote: cast iron

BMP-3 is a unique vehicle


Created by sadists who hated Russian soldiers to transport circus monkeys.

If we follow this logic, then the BMP-1 was designed by the Marquis de Sade himself :)

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Union of Sadistic (but)Socialist Republics!
It will be exactly in line with the current party line.

[Per se.]

Quote: Wildcat

the choice has been obvious for the last 30 years. But somehow it is not obvious anymore (especially after the official comparisons with Bradley).

What is the obvious "choice"? The States are sitting overseas and, as a rule, use the tactics of an expeditionary corps. The "Bradley" is a machine of a different class, just like the "Abrams" is difficult to compare with the T-72/T-90. If we don't have a heavy IFV or a heavy APC now, why compare the BMP-3 with the "Bradley"... The BMPT was created on a tank base for specialized fire support, and soon, it must be understood, a heavy APC will appear for a specialized transport function for assault groups. The BMPT and heavy APC will be a tandem "BMP".
This is a specialization that allows creating both good protection for the landing force (heavy armored personnel carrier) and powerful fire support (BMPT). It is impossible to cram everything into one without losing anything. A universal, maneuverable vehicle cannot be heavy, the BMP-3 is precisely a universal combat vehicle, the best in its class, which is the whole point of the BMP. It is not the BMP-3's fault that the SVO has been going on for four years, with positional dead ends and frontal assaults, and this is not an indicator that this is what a major war against NATO will be like, especially with the use of nuclear weapons, with raids and marches, with the presence of many water obstacles. Equipment is needed in different ways, especially with competent use for their tasks.

[rostov-dad]

you are absolutely right, when my godfather came back from his own he told me that with the right use the BMP 3 is a great car, maybe that's why it came back whole

[Valnik]

Resourcefulness and dexterity, skill training. No one has cancelled this yet.

[Disant]

This gun is PAIRED with a 100mm gun (photo). There is nothing loose there.
Wildcat
What does "dangling" have to do with it? Are you saying that a gun with a moving barrel has the same accuracy as a BMP2, for example?

perhaps even better - you need to compare the dispersion circles. I posted a photo especially for you - you can clearly see the end fastening of the guns into a single unit. and then the BMP-3 is 5 tons heavier and can more reliably take the recoil from shots

the choice has been obvious for the last 30 years. But somehow it is not obvious anymore (especially after the official comparisons with Bradley).

Yes, no one will officially post any comparisons. Only fake news.
.

[mark1]

Quote: Disant

no one will officially post any comparisons. only fakes

Verily!

[Alexandra]

Quote: Wildcat

What does "dangling" have to do with it? Are you saying that a gun with a moving barrel has the same accuracy as a BMP2, for example?

In a report circulating on the Internet in separate pages, allegedly from the 38th Research Institute of BT of the Ministry of Defense, it is stated that the M2A2 ODS SA (25 mm M242 Bushmaster) cannon of the BMP is twice as accurate as both the 2A2 and 42A2 cannons. The fact is that the front guide (on the 72 mm barrel) on the BMP-100 ensures that the 3A2 does not have any vibrations of the muzzle part of the barrel, and the accuracy of the 72A2 is the same as that of the 72A2 (otherwise the 42A2 would not have been accepted into service along with the BMP-72).

Why does the report allegedly from the 38th Research Institute of Armored Vehicles of the Ministry of Defense not look highly professional? In particular, because it states that the American 25 mm BPOS (as in the text of the document) is twice as good in armor penetration as the 2 mm BPPS round 30UBR3 and recommends developing a 8 mm round with an armor-piercing sabot fin-stabilized projectile (BPOS) for 30 mm automatic cannons.

Firstly, a professional will never write BPOS, especially twice. Professionals know the abbreviation BOPS. Secondly, the 30 mm BOPS 3UBR11 was developed 7-8 years ago, and professionals know this.

There are two possibilities here: either the report from the alleged 38th Research Institute of BT of the Ministry of Defense, circulating on the Internet in separate pages, is a banal amateur forgery. Or the authors of this document should be mercilessly fired from the 38th Research Institute of BT of the Ministry of Defense for unprofessionalism. And also go through the entire chain of people who allowed the disclosure of a document marked at least for official use.

[alexoff]

Well, no one from the Research Institute of BT came out and said that it was a fake, I suspect that they should be aware. And our sub-caliber small-caliber ones were apparently developed on an initiative basis and are not purchased.

[Alexandra]

Quote from alexoff

Well, no one from the Scientific Research Institute of BT came out and said that it was a fake, I suspect that they should be aware

In military research institutes, they “come out and talk” only on command from higher management.

And our small-caliber sub-caliber sub-caliber submunitions were apparently developed on an initiative basis and are not being purchased.

3UBR11 is the GRAU index. Consequently, there was a technical task for the R&D work from the relevant Ordering Directorate of the Ministry of Defense.

However, I fully admit that there are people serving in the 38th Research Institute of BT who are simply not aware of the existence of the 3UBR11.

After all, it was only recently that the 38th Research Institute of BT discovered that 3UBR8 rounds are practically inapplicable to 2A42 guns without replacing the muzzle brake:

https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2781472C1/ru

"Method of upgrading the gun of the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-2"

2021-08-17 Federal State Budgetary Institution "38th Research and Testing Institute of Armored Weapons and Equipment" of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

And before that, it turns out that at the 38th Research Institute of BT they were unaware of this for almost three decades.

[alexoff]

In military research institutes, they “come out and talk” only on command from higher management.

in our military establishments, probably a division would have all sorts of PR departments, but they mostly work in silence. A miracle job - you keep quiet and get paid!

Consequently, there was a technical specification for the R&D work from the relevant Ordering Directorate of the Ministry of Defense.

And were they purchased? Our main weapons are just what's left from the USSR, that's what we use. Likewise, what was in the NII, that's what we shot with.

[Alexandra]

Quote from alexoff

in our military establishments, there are probably a division of all sorts of PR departments, but they work mostly in silence.

Sinecure is a well-paid position that provides a stable income and does not require much work. The term itself came to the Russian language from medieval Latin Europe. The phenomenon it describes is much older than the term.

And were they purchased? Our main weapons are just what's left from the USSR, that's what we use. Likewise, what was in the NII, that's what we shot with.

The 3UBR8 "Kerner" cartridge went into production already in the post-Soviet period (Technical conditions IUBZh.773421.002, 1994) and was more or less purchased by the Russian Ministry of Defense, which, however, did not allow the employees of the 38th Research Institute of BT to figure out until 2021 that the introduction of the 3UBR8 cartridge into the ammunition of BBT models armed with a 2A42 cannon requires replacing the standard 2A42 muzzle brake with a muzzle brake of a different design.

It is possible that the 3UBR11 was not purchased by the Russian Ministry of Defense, but professionals should know about its existence and not suggest developing the already developed 30 mm BOPS in their comparative report on IFVs.

Therefore, the counting was done by non-professionals.

P.S. As I understand the patent for 3UBR11:

https://patenton.ru/patent/RU2265791C1

Today marks the 21st anniversary of the filing of the application for this patent.

How many heads of the 38th Research Institute of BT VT and heads of the GABTU have changed during this period. And the cart is still there.

However, this is a standard "tradition" of our Armed Forces - the absence or shortage of artillery shells of any modern design. The Russo-Japanese War was met without modern high-explosive and high-explosive shells for field, coastal and naval artillery. The First World War was met with almost no 76 mm high-explosive grenades, with only shrapnel in the ammunition of 76 mm field and mountain artillery guns. The Great Patriotic War was met with poor 45 mm armor-piercing shells for anti-tank and tank artillery and almost without 76 mm armor-piercing shells, not to mention the absence of armor-piercing shells for 85-122 mm guns. We were constantly lagging behind the best examples of foreign armor-piercing shells in armor penetration. True, with a unique exception that emphasizes the rule - in the early 1960s, the first in the world to adopt APFSDS with detachable sabots of caliber 100 mm and higher were adopted.

So, with the armor-piercing shells for the 30 mm 2A42 and 2A72 automatic cannons, everything is quite traditional. There are outdated and ineffective ones. Not only the troops, but also the 38th Research Institute of BT VT have not heard of shells of a modern design.

I admit that this is how it was.

[alexoff]

the Russian Ministry of Defense was somehow buying

I heard that it was a pilot production and the Ministry of Defense did not purchase them. In general, it is quite difficult to say what the Ministry of Defense purchased other than the dress uniform.
I don't know what's going on at NII, but at another military institute the strategy for developing long-range missiles was actually drawn up by a comrade who came to work there a year before for ideological reasons, and about six months later he was fired because he wanted to develop and produce something, while the management wanted to saw off budgets. I'm fed up, basically.

[Alexandra]

Quote from alexoff

I heard that this was a pilot production and the Ministry of Defense did not purchase them.

Large_handbook_of_sapper_OMON_Zubr_1

https://djvu.online/file/L6Z4LhGcxzkR6

Pp. 64

[alexoff]

The book is good, but in general it doesn't speak about purchases. This can be indicated by news that such and such a plant has established production. Or photos of fighters in BMP-3, demonstrating these shells. Or some other evidence. Or a video of how these old-timers stitch up the nonsense. In general, some fact, and not that it is drawn in the book. The book also contains derivations with the coalition

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote from alexoff

In general, it is quite difficult to say what the Ministry of Defense purchased other than the dress uniform.

A pompous temple with a floor made of fascist caterpillars.

[Posoh941]

The 2a72 used to have serious problems when firing APFSDS rounds. I doubt they fixed it. Maybe that's the reason why they don't buy them.

[alexoff]

I think we need some kind of meme about why something that has no analogues in the world was not purchased by the Russian army. There will be an impressive list of what was not purchased and all of this has some kind of excuse. It's amazing how anything was purchased at all, Shoigu and Taburetkin didn't notice! I imagine what if Prigozhin had traveled to Moscow and dumped documents showing that the money spent on the Armatas was equal to a tank army, that there are already about half a thousand Su-57s judging by the figures, that concrete hangars for the planes have already been built three times one above the other.

[storm]

Well, no one from the Scientific Research Institute of BT came out and said that it was a fake.

And who will go out there, pensioners who accidentally survived, almost 80 years old, or university graduates who are satisfied with a salary of 30 thousand a month and a company computer for playing tanks...

[alexoff]

As I understand it, this is a research institute near Kubinka, which is a patriot together with the park. I think there are bosses there with normal salaries, with medals and so on. This is not some dead institute in the Chita region, where there is no one except two grandfathers, three old ladies and one student.

[Artyom Savin]

go through the entire chain of people who allowed the disclosure of a document marked for official use at a minimum

Shoot!
There is a video on YouTube of LAV25 (with the same gun as the Bradley) shooting at a BTR-70 in Afghanistan. Further directly from R. Marchenko: The target length is 7535 mm. The tabular accuracy of 2A42 single shots with armor-piercing tracer shells at a distance of 1000 m is equal to Vb=0,4 m and Vv=0,4 m, which gives a core with dimensions of 50x1,25 m that can accommodate 1,25% of hits.
It is more difficult to determine the accuracy of this weapon when firing in bursts, but if you ask yourself this question, it is also possible. Dry lines of military Russian language will help us, describing the process of bringing the BMP-2 weapons to normal combat.
If we are to believe these lines, then the accuracy of the 2A42 cannon's burst fire on a heated barrel is considered normal if at a distance of 100 m three out of four short-burst projectiles fall within a 400x400 mm dimension. Up to the distance where the projectile crosses the sound barrier, the growth of the dimension will be linear, accordingly, at 1000 m the accuracy of the 2A42 is normal if at least 75% of the burst projectiles fit into a shield measuring 4,0x4,0 m.
In relation to 1660 m (from which the Briton fired), the dimensions of the normal dispersion of shells in a burst can be estimated as 6,64 x 6,64 m.
Well, now let's return to Bushmaster and his first, sighting burst, without artificial dispersion... 3 shells fell within a dimension of no more than 3,5 x 3,5 m.
The quote is finished, it was written last year, if I remember correctly. If everything is classified, then the only people who will be in the dark are your own population. The partners will get the info.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Artem Savin

The quote is finished, it was written last year, if I remember correctly. If everything is classified, then the only people who will be in the dark are your own population. The partners will get the info.

So do the workers of the 38th Research Institute of BT VT hide the fact that they are very slow in identifying the shortcomings of this very BT and VT during testing? On the contrary. They patent the invention when they finally identify the shortcoming and find the simplest solution to the problem:

https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2781472C1/ru

"Tests have shown that when boring the muzzle brake by 2 mm, the dispersion of the standard 2A42 cannon rounds did not change, and the dispersion of the 3UBR8 subcaliber rounds decreased and meets the requirements for firing accuracy of the samples, which led to the possibility of using cartridges with armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles 3UBR8 in the ammunition for the 2A42 cannon infantry fighting vehicle BMP-2."

Why do we have such epics with “we couldn’t test the second century in time”:

https://military.wikireading.ru/72315

"The timid attempts of the MTC to conduct tests of the high-explosive action of Russian shells in 1897 in the presence of flagships and leading artillery specialists were paralyzed by the General-Admiral's favorite, the head of the GUKIS, Vladimir Pavlovich Verkhovsky, who "proved" that these same experiments no longer had much significance, since all the same - “the shells required for the ships have been manufactured or ordered almost to the full combat set”{228}, and therefore there is no point in wasting the 70 rubles required for testing!"

This means that there is some systemic flaw in the organization of the Armed Forces that has not been corrected for more than a century.

[Artyom Savin]

So do the workers of the 38th Research Institute of BT VT hide the fact that they are very slow in identifying the shortcomings of this very BT and VT during testing? On the contrary. They patent the invention when they finally identify the shortcoming and find the simplest solution to the problem:

It's strange that they remembered this at all. I read about the problems with the 2A42's accuracy and the complete disaster with the 2A72 in some blog where they were discussing tank biathlons. That was when. Well, better late than never, I guess. The Saudis somehow treated the Czechs' impnip for the accuracy of the BMP, they either didn't trust the sellers or they weren't interested in this topic at all.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Artem Savin

It's strange that they remembered this at all. I read about the problems with accuracy of the 2A42 and the complete disaster with the 2A72 in some blog where they analyzed tank biathlons.

In RostislavDDD's blog.

And this too began to be treated almost 30 years after the 2A72 was adopted for service. And not even by specialists from the 38th Research Institute of BT VT:

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/eksperimentalnoe-issledovanie-vliyaniya-izmeneniya-tempa-strelby-na-harakteristiki-rasseivaniya-snaryadov-v-ocheredi

"Experimental study of the influence of changing the rate of fire on the characteristics of the dispersion of shells in a burst"

https://patents.google.com/patent/RU178187U1/ru

"Device for changing the rate of fire of the 2a72 BMD-4M automatic cannon"

https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2659464C1_20180702

"Method of firing from automatic weapons of a combat vehicle"

Let me remind you that the BMP-3 with 2A72 went into production in 1987.

Judging by the video from the SVO, many armored fighting vehicles with 2A72 are still not equipped with devices to reduce the rate of fire in bursts.

https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?edn=tskcgn

"Method for increasing the accuracy of fire of the 2A72 automatic cannon" Omsk Armored Engineering Institute, 2023

"Abstract. The article presents a device that increases the accuracy of fire of the AP 2A72 and the features of its fastening. The reasons for searching for ways to solve the problem of the accuracy of fire of the BTR-82A (AM), equipped with a unified fighting compartment with stabilized cannon and machine gun armament, are indicated."

Of course, I want to write something like: "There was nothing like this under Stalin!" Alas, even under Stalin, if you dig around, something similar happened.

An example off the top of my head, the release during the Great Patriotic War of the Tu-2S, originally developed as a dive bomber, which, due to the propellers spinning up during a dive, made it impossible to dive bomb. The problem was solved already in the spring By the beginning of the 1950s, when those Tu-2Ss were already being written off as obsolete, it was time.

As we can see, even placing Solzhenitsyns in "sharashkas" did not help to completely cure all this.

I don’t even know what to call it correctly - professional idiocy of people whose professional activity is in one way or another connected with the rapid identification and elimination of such design and technical deficiencies in weapons and military equipment, weapons and ammunition?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Wildcat

What does "dangling" have to do with it? Are you saying that a gun with a moving barrel has the same accuracy as a BMP2, for example?

But to compensate for this, the BMP-3 was equipped with a front mount for the 2A72 barrel.
All the problems with the 2A72 began when they decided to install it alone, without a front mount. As a result, the rate of fire had to be reduced.

Quote: Wildcat

Is it possible to use an infantry fighting vehicle to get to the dismounting point? And can we use artillery from the ZOP?

It is possible. In theory and according to the Charter.
And in practice - connection just was or is about to be, proofreader somewhere, the infantry commander gives target designation in a very peculiar way, and the application for OP creeps from the squad to the battery through the division. And it creeps not because of bureaucracy, but because the Red Army is strong, but communication will destroy it. And all the time while it crawls, the infantry lies under fire. And the enemy's reserves are crawling away or the defenders are crawling away to a new line of defense.
In general, it is easier to give a squad its own big gun than to establish communication and interaction.
By the way, this concerns not only motorized riflemen. Tankers sawed up the BMPT for themselves only to avoid establishing interaction with infantry. I remember Murza described in detail the problems of communication between the motorized riflemen and the attached tank.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Alexey RA

Tankers created the BMPT for themselves only to avoid having to interact with the infantry.

I'll add my two cents, but in the end we got a machine that only revealed itself in a full-fledged conflict - not only is it very durable, but also has great potential for modernization and development. As a result, we have - ersatz solutions, which on the one hand are a patch, and on the other - new opportunities.

[VlK]

but did it open up? Or are these separate reviews from the PR department of the manufacturing plant?
Conceptually, it is still either a vehicle to support the attack of a tank company to suppress individual anti-tank guided missiles and grenade launchers from the 80s, or a vehicle to accompany columns during possible ambushes in mountainous and wooded areas from the experience of Afghanistan and Chechnya.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: VlK

but did it open up? Or are these separate reviews from the PR department of the manufacturing plant?

If you do not believe the manufacturer, then there are interviews with crew members online + there is obvious production of new machines + for 3+ years, more or less seriously damaged and the much-loved Osint (but even more unreliable) confirmed only 1 machine + there are shots of use and reviews from neighbors. He who seeks will find.

Actually, the slight but constant growth in the number of these vehicles already shows that it has clearly proven itself. Otherwise, they would have been removed from production long ago in favor of regular MBTs.

So the nature of its use has not changed much - if earlier they planned to work on firing points, now they use it to support both IFVs and MBTs.
And considering that a more or less similar machine was developed after 2015 in China and Israel (the latter both for themselves and for export) and was quite widely implemented in Algeria, the class is far from unique. And then, similar in concept, but in pure form ersatz constantly generate various conflicts.

But there is potential: at a minimum, the ATGM can be supplemented with anti-aircraft ammunition, and the module - with OLS. And we will get a vehicle-defender for the same MBT. Again, such a concept was proposed and discussed in the near-military press, also not now, but back in the late 2000s.

[VlK]

honestly? I don't really believe it. Against the background of a chronic shortage of equipment at LBS, as war correspondents write, any armored vehicle will be welcome there, they will find a place to use it. Which, however, does not indicate any successful or unsuccessful concept. Especially if you remember how persistently manufacturers, along with the Terminator, have been pushing their other models in the press for years, like the Octopus and Derivation, and the army, it seems, is pushing them away with all its might.
In Algeria, as far as I know, this is our variation of the Terminator in the amount of 300 units. It seems that in China and Israel this has gone beyond projects and promising developments on paper and models?
In our case, he was late for the assault on Mariupol. And now, judging by the video, it is not barbecues that reach the enemy strongholds, but entire armored sheds. What's the point of putting one on the Terminator, practically nullifying its firepower? And what's the point of pouring small-caliber cannons on concrete walls in the city, releasing ammunition somewhere there "for suppression" and risking a critical hit every minute? There, we need an assault tank with a howitzer instead of a cannon, and ONE 30 mm cannon in an independent dual-role gun instead of two on the turret like on the T, and a reconfigured armor system + some kind of active defense against drones, then it will replace both the MBT and its support vehicle in one person, I think.

[Evgeny64]

Well, let's be objective, before this war, everything was fifty-fifty with the "Bradley". All the shortcomings have only surfaced now. And the most important thing is that the "Bradley" turned out to be "more durable" not in itself (since the cumulative charge is guaranteed to disable any IFV), but in terms of personnel protection. Here the ramp played a role (by the way, there are a lot of cases when it jams) - it allows you to quickly leave the IFV and load stretchers, etc., even if the ramp is not working. But before that, everyone was quite happy to ride "on armor" (I myself am one), although it was forbidden, but without drones it was quite an option.
Yes, the approaches were wrong, but this is now clear. What if the next war changes everything again? Drones are suppressed to "zero", we will have to land and swim? Although this is no longer important.
The question is, everyone developed as they thought necessary and best. Now, during the war, we need to produce what is on the conveyor belt, and not experiment. There is no sofa there, even "Loaves" are welcome there.
The T-34 was also obsolete by the end of the war, but it was considered inappropriate to put the more advanced T-44 into production. The same goes for aircraft, etc.
While the war is going on, we need to produce what already works.
The main thing is to understand and draw conclusions so as not to repeat mistakes after the war... Although who knows what the next war will be like, maybe self-burrowing, underground-moving, light-green turtles will be needed there? And we will again be unprepared
Just like everyone else, by the way.

[Askold65]

Quote: Disant

there are steps on the stern. exit - in two streams. the height of the "jump" from the step is 50 cm, from the roof of the engine - 1 m (photo). quite feasible for any knees of not advanced age for the "jump"

You somehow missed two more paratroopers sitting in the control compartment, who need to climb out of the hatch onto the roof and jump down...under enemy fire.

Quote: Disant

these ammunition are in a "tablet" on the bottom of the vehicle, it is advisable to use and is used not in attacks with landing troops

When an AT missile lands from above or from the side, in the area of ​​the ammunition stowage, the cumulative jet will penetrate (and does penetrate) the bulletproof armor along with the "tablet" - just "on the way"....

Quote: Disant

......and for shooting by a crew with a ZOP.

For this, there must be specialized vehicles with increased ammunition ("Nona", "Vena", "Khosta"); the BMP has other tasks - transporting troops and fighting tank-hazardous targets.

The Dragoon has an undeveloped combat module and engine.

There is a mastered module "Berezhok". It has anti-tank missiles "cooler", and not 100-mm "Arkan"... There is also an automatic grenade launcher.
But in my opinion, it would be better to have a module with a 40-45 mm cannon and a large-caliber machine gun paired with it.

my opinion is that a vehicle with a low silhouette has a higher chance of completing its mission undamaged and saving the troops,

There is another opinion - that the landing force will be better protected by reinforced armor and I agree with it....

Who would instantly give artillery to an ordinary infantry squad leader? Only the Russian Ministry of Defense with the help of the BMP-3

The infantry commander must have a radio for communication with the attached artillery from the combat tactical group (mortars and heavy artillery) and tanks.....

[Comrade I]

An infantry commander must have a radio for communication...

How does the joke go? It's better to invent an all-terrain vehicle than to make normal roads? The army version: it's better to give the motorized riflemen a sub-tank-sub-IFV than to establish communications, coordination, or, in short, to make and implement a combat information and control system.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Askold65

You somehow missed two more paratroopers sitting in the control compartment, who need to climb out of the hatch onto the roof and jump down...under enemy fire.

Two paratroopers are not always placed in front; depending on the tasks, they can also be in the main section of the landing force.
https://topwar.ru/31103-vzglyad-iz-za-broni-bmp-3-poka-rano-otpravlyat-na-pokoy.html

[Dmitry_Likhoded]

It doesn't matter at all who sits where, since everyone rides on top of the armor.

[Cympak]

Quote: Askold65

You somehow missed two more paratroopers sitting in the control compartment, who need to climb out of the hatch onto the roof and jump down...under enemy fire.

The article says that there is a passage from the control compartment to the troop compartment. But in practice, these two fighters are seated depending on how the attack is conducted:
If the attack involves dismounting, they sit opposite the aisles on additional seats 29 and 31 on the diagram. If mixing is not assumed, they take their places behind the course machine guns in the control compartment on seats 24, 26 on the diagram.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Askold65

The infantry commander must have a radio for communication with the attached artillery from the combat tactical group (mortars and heavy artillery) and tanks.....

He must have a tablet: he tapped it and transmitted the coordinates. Because he would only confuse the artillerymen with his verbal information over the radio.
However, there was another option - an artillery UAV flies over the battle formations, conducting reconnaissance and adjusting fire. If I remember correctly, Murz described it this way: first, the artillery finishes off the previously exposed firing points, then the infantry goes. If anything happens, the infantry falls down, and the artillery starts working again on the exposed OT.

[Askold65]

Quote: Alexey RA

He must have a tablet: he tapped it and transmitted the coordinates.

Only the Ukrainian Armed Forces operating via Starlink satellites have tablets on their LBS. For ours, this is (yet?) an unaffordable luxury......

Quote: Alexey RA

Because if he broadcasts verbal information over the radio, he will only confuse the artillerymen.

You see, radios have been used in wars and armed conflicts for artillery correction and aircraft guidance for decades. And somehow they managed without tablets. But still, such a radio and laser sighting device should be available to assigned artillery correction specialists and aircraft controllers in the unit.

Quote: Alexey RA

However, there was another option - an artillery UAV flies over the battle formations, conducting reconnaissance and adjusting fire.

UAVs are good, of course, but someone also needs to know the situation on the ground, otherwise it is very easy to confuse from the air where ours are and where not ours, and then the shells can fly on the heads of those for whom they were not intended...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Askold65

You see, radios have been used in wars and armed conflicts to adjust artillery and guide aircraft for decades.

Motorized rifle commanders? Or trained spotters?
It would be better to assign spotters to the infantry - they will indicate the target for the artillery more quickly and accurately.

[Askold65]

Quote: Alexey RA

Motorized rifle commanders? Or trained spotters?

That's what I wrote:

But still, the presence of such a radio and laser targeting device should be available to the assigned artillery spotters and air controllers in the unit.

Motorized rifle commanders must focus on commanding units on the ground and giving requests to artillery spotters, who "...will more quickly and accurately indicate the target for artillery."

[VlK]

and if the spotter is killed or wounded, then what should the motorized rifle commander do?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: VlK

and if the spotter is killed or wounded, then what should the motorized rifle commander do?

Are you suggesting that the commander of the MSO/MSV also be taught the specifics of target designation and artillery fire adjustment using radio communications?

[VlK]

Well, the tablet solves this problem, doesn't it? You point your finger, the information goes into the system, and other, specially trained people or algorithms process it. It's easier to issue two (five, ten...) tablets than to assign so many artillery spotters to a unit, isn't it?
Although it seems that in the States there haven’t been any particular problems with calling for support from a commander via radio since WWII?

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Disant

costs as much as a tank. weighs as much as a tank. do you have any comparative data on cross-country ability?

Rather, the launch into series production will lead to an increase in price to the level of "like a tank" and a decrease in production volumes from, IMHO, 1000 per year to, well, 100. Which is not so good during a full-fledged conflict. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Wildcat

But the question is different.

And they also ran into the option of being able to swim. Nobody needs that at all. In three years of SVO, as far as I know, there was one attempt to swim, but it never worked out.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: qqqq

And they also ran into the option of being able to swim. Nobody needs that at all. In three years of SVO, as far as I know, there was one attempt to swim, but it never worked out.

Maybe I should remind you about Krynki?

Ukrainian equipment losses in Krynki from the beginning of this campaign in October 2023 to June 14, 2024 amounted to 58 units

[Cympak]

Maybe I should remind you about Krynki?

Ukrainian equipment losses in Krynki from the beginning of this campaign in October 2023 to June 14, 2024 amounted to 58 units

And what do BMP and Krynki have to do with it? There, the landings were carried out on motorboats, not on BMP and APC. The destroyed equipment is usually rubber boats.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Cympak

The destroyed equipment is usually rubber boats.

Since when did they start calling rubber boats armored vehicles? Have the critics gone completely mad?

Floating equipment is actively used by both sides in the NVO.

[shocktrooper]

Actively used - yeah, but there's a nuance. Well, if that's the case, then it wouldn't be hard for you to at least bring a couple of videos of this equipment being transported, and not trudging through the fields? Look, you say there are as many as 58 units in the jugs, and not a single video of them being transported? Probably, in addition to buoyancy, the Soviet miracle engineers also made an invisibility cap.

[abc_alex]

Quote: shocktrooper

Look, you say there are as many as 58 units in the jugs, and not a single video of how they are transported?

Yeah. Internet hamster psychology: didn't post it, so it didn't happen. :) :) :)

[shocktrooper]

No, that's called confirming your statements. You can write anything in text, paper will cover everything. Oh, and yes, I'll give you a hint especially for those gifted in an alternative way, "losses in Krynki" also include all the equipment that was destroyed on the right bank of the Dnieper near Krynki.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: shocktrooper

Well, if that's the case, then it wouldn't be difficult for you to at least bring a couple of videos of this equipment being transported, and not trudging through the mud in the fields?

Easy. This video was filmed right there:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05kuoEg6Cw)

But I have never come across a more stupid excuse than calling armored vehicles a motorboat. CIPSO or something? Are you walking around in a flock and worrying about the losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces? It's okay, get used to it!

[shocktrooper]

Well, you're not trying at all. It doesn't matter that this video is from training, where it is really possible to cross a small lake in safe conditions, especially when both the exit and the entrance are arranged in advance. I still haven't seen a video of the use of watercraft in COMBAT conditions.
Well, as for losses - you don't need to worry about the Ukrainians, after all, it's not them who are supplied with equipment that is designed to the detriment of protection for the sake of this very diving into the training ground puddles.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: shocktrooper

It doesn't matter that this video is from training, where it is really possible to cross a small lake in safe conditions at the training ground.

Filmed near Kherson, the same time, the same Dnieper. And the main difference from your favorite fairy-tale cast-iron armored personnel carriers is that this machine will get to the other bank and will fight there until they burn it. Which they proved. And your cast-iron miracle will be immediately abandoned on this bank, for uselessness.

[Ivan F]

"that this machine will get to the other side and fight there" - this machine will go to the bottom, with everyone in it. Drones sink speedboats like nothing else - those same Krynki, and there is nothing to say about this trough on the water. And if there is at least some chance from the boat, then here you will go to the bottom without options, like the Americans in their technical vehicle in the swamp.
It seems that people have no thought process at all - they burn the equipment when it is moving at maximum speed on land, but there will always be a gifted person who will climb into the water on it, where it barely moves, in order to become a first-class target.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Ivan F

- This car will go to the bottom, with everyone in it.

In order for a car to sink, it needs to be drowned. It's hard to argue with sectarians, especially those of the "flat earth" variety.

There is a major landing operation, the Ukrainian Armed Forces destroyed a whole brigade there, there are obvious losses in equipment which the enemy admits. No, say the sectarians. This did not happen because it cannot happen!

Ask the Ministry of Defense if you are so crazy.

[Ivan F]

"In order for a car to go to the bottom, it needs to be sunk" - and they will sink it. You have to be a complete moose to just watch it float. That's why you posted a hard-to-find photo from the Ukrainian Armed Forces' exercises. Because in real combat, no one does such nonsense and doesn't sail anywhere. Only boats and motorboats.
These are real Krynki, not ridiculous photos from a summer vacation during training, with fish. And you have to be really stupid to swim there on a BMP. And judging by everything, you would swim

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Ivan F

In real BDs, no one does such nonsense and doesn't go anywhere.

Yeah, yeah. The steamship is iron, that's why it can't sail!

[Ivan F]

Well, "Moscow" can't anymore. But the stupid won't understand this, it's probably still floating, it's made of iron.

[Ivan F]

"There is a major landing operation going on, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have wiped out an entire brigade there," - that's what happens when someone wants to swim.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Ivan F

This is what happens when someone wants to swim.

These are also real Krynki.
The first photo shows a PTS-2 and a reinforced Bucephalus attached to the body. They were destroyed. The second photo shows another PTS-2 and an HMMWV burning on the shore near Krynki. The especially stupid can be reminded that the Ukrainians admitted losing 58 units of equipment in this operation.

[shocktrooper]

That's the thing, it won't get there. Even omitting the obvious about the fact that it's much harder to burn a slowly floating trough than a nimble motorboat, look at the standards for the quality of the shore so that your vehicles get to the shore and don't get stuck in the thickets near the shore and mud (by the way, remember the crossing over the Seversky Donets, a small river, far from the Dnieper, did buoyancy help there much?). Well, and anticipating obvious questions - compare the specific pressure of the same PTS-2 and BMP, their speed, and then think about what will happen to them near the shore (taking into account that you yourself dropped two burned PTS-2).

[Saxahorse]

Quote: shocktrooper

That's the point, it won't get there. Even omitting the obvious about the fact that it's much harder to burn a slowly floating trough than a nimble motorboat.

That is, you still stubbornly refuse to notice the even more obvious fact that dozens of units of equipment "got there". According to you, it is much easier to get ashore with a PTS-2 weighing 40 tons than with a BMP-2 weighing 15 tons. That is why they started calling you sectarians. Complete disregard for facts is one faith.

By the way, 2024 boats were sunk in January-February 118 alone. And most importantly, hooligans in boats are of little use for further advancement. Yes, they swam 100 meters across the river and that's it, the only way forward is on foot. Unlike infantry with armored vehicle support, the offensive potential of bare infantry is extremely limited. That's why our Ministry of Defense woke up only when it realized that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were transferring armored vehicles to the left bank; before that, it quite rightly considered this fuss to be complete nonsense.

[shocktrooper]

Excuse me, but have you tried reading beyond the first sentence? This isn't even funny anymore, it's a blatant distortion. Go reread my comment and then respond.
Well, and especially for those gifted in an alternative way, I'll give you another hint - 58 units - this is taking into account the equipment on the opposite bank, you will never be able to show me these 58 on the flights of Krynki from drones, of which, by the way, there were quite a lot.
Well, and a final remark - if Krynki showed anything, it was how easy it is to "strangle" any bridgehead in the absence of overwhelming fire superiority.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: shocktrooper

You will never be able to show me these 58 on the drone flights of Krynki,

Are you still acting like fools?

The phrase "battles for Krynki" is usually used to describe battles for the left bank from Golaya Prystan to Novaya Kakhovka. It's about 70 km long and 10-20 km wide. And don't talk about overflights, there were regularly destroyed boxes there, though from above it's hard to tell which ones are ours and which are Ukrainian.

Now he wants Tsushima, now the Battle of Kursk... He needs to be more modest!

[shocktrooper]

Well, that is, you won't show it. Actually, what was expected, a swing for a ruble, a blow for a kopeck. With this, the discussion can be finished due to the opponent's lack of any argumentation.
And yes, who there considers Kakhovka or the Kherson islands to be "battles for Krynki" - that's a question for your sources, these are all different places, something like "Ugledar and Toretsk are all Avdiivka".

[sas711]

Yes, that's right. The ability to swim in the BMP in particular and in the technology in general was not useful - it's a relic of the Soviet times, when it seemed necessary. Actually, I want to ask the generals - where are the modern models that clanged their tracks on Red Square at parades?

[abc_alex]

Quote: sas711

The ability to swim was of no use to the BMP in particular and the technology in general - it is a relic of Soviet times, when it seemed necessary.

Let me remind you that amphibious capability was not a dream dreamed up by engineers when they were hungover. It was a requirement of the military. And specifically of those military who fought. And they could experience first-hand what it was like to cross a water obstacle without floating equipment.

Quote: sas711

Actually, I would like to ask the generals - where are the modern models that clanged their tracks across Red Square during parades?

And are you sure that questions about, for example, Kurganets should be addressed to the generals? And not to the developer? If I remember correctly, this was planned as a light tracked platform, on which many things would be done. And so far they haven't even finished the BMP. Such a huge fool, which is "like the Americans". Almost 3,5 meters high, 7 meters long. If you want - you won't miss. And this is despite the fact that now drone operators even pick out Hummers. With the prize 4 ATGMs on the head. I wonder if the person who came up with this arrangement had to fire this ATGM after being hit by, say, a 12,7 mm bullet? You know, the Kornet is not cast from a piece of steel and is not designed to withstand bullets. If damaged, it can hit right at launch, "without moving from the spot".
You know, sometimes a new model becomes obsolete before it is put into production. The practice of the SVO has shown that all Western "wonder weapons" turned out to be of little use in combat. Including passenger armored sheds weighing 30 tons. When they are not up against bearded men in slippers, but an army of a technologically advanced state, all their outstanding properties suddenly disappear somewhere. It seems that the Kurganets, which was clearly based on the Bradley and Puma, has suffered the same fate. Along with the entire class of heavy IFVs. The attempt to make an armed armored bus predictably turned out to be futile. Even tanks with dynamic armor burn from modern weapons. What nonsense. Perhaps it is for the best that neither the Kurganets nor the Armata went into production as IFVs? Maybe it would be better to make a full-fledged assault vehicle for the infantry WITHOUT a landing force and a heavy armored personnel carrier with a complex of all-round active protection? And not to follow the US in all their technical tricks? And Martin the Sucker is a master of tricks.
Remember how they praised the MRAP. Who and what didn't praise it. So what? Where is this miracle of American engineering? It was abandoned in Afghanistan as unnecessary.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Interesting logic... I am not aware that BMPs were floating, and therefore it is a fact... Ignorance is not a fact, it is a conjecture.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Wildcat

knowing about the precision features of the 30 mm cannon with a movable barrel - well, is it really impossible to fix this in 30 years?

Can you provide a link to complaints from BMP-3 gunners about the accuracy of the 30mm 2A72 cannon?

[cold wind]

Quote: Wildcat

reluctance to redesign the basic design of the Object 685 light tank

So the result was a good light tank, but a bad IFV.

[Arigin]

It can't be fixed, but it is possible to design a completely new model.
The Dragoon has all the same disadvantages: protection, weapons - no difference.

[Disant]

Arigin, stop comparing a heavy cruiser of the "Star Destroyer" type with a light class corvette! The galaxy will not forgive you for this.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Wildcat

knowing that 100 mm ATGMs are of little use against modern tanks "head-on"; knowing about the accuracy features of a 30 mm gun with a moving barrel - well, is it really impossible to fix this in 30 years?

For example, how? Stick a couple of ATGMs on the outside of the armor? To the delight of snipers. Have you ever wondered why the developers of domestic heavy ATGMs built a whole machine to hide the missiles behind the armor? Are 100-mm ATGMs bad for you in the front against tanks? And what ID and O will come out on an IFV or BMD in the front of a tank? Why?
Is the accuracy of the 30mm gun bad? What is it bad for? For shooting at 5 kilometers? What should it be replaced with? For what?
The SVO fighters, on the contrary, have no complaints about the Bakhchi's armament, precisely because of its versatility. The BMP-3 has its drawbacks, but its armament has certainly never been among them.

Or do you think that "we should do it like the Americans"? A launcher on the head? At a height of 4 meters?

[Disant]

abc_alex(Alexey), I agree, those who like to have the b/c bolted on top have already enticed us, and to have the river - over the bridge
but

have no complaints about the Bakhchi's armament, precisely because of its versatility. The BMP-3 has its drawbacks, but its armament has certainly never been among them.

there are shells standing upright around the melon patch - that's a minus (BMD-3), While BMP-3 has its own loading mechanism - the b/k is in a tablet on the floor.
maybe now they started to mold BMP3+Bakhcha, I don't know. if so, then this is a deterioration of the design

[Mister who]

You are a humorist, they gathered right at the front to use it head-on against a tank)) it was not designed for this. Rather, it is simply used for other purposes, written off at the front as unnecessary in the future.

[fiberboard]

The gun should be changed, a 45 mm automatic or a 57 mm. And the 100 mm can be removed. How much longer can we chase buoyancy? It's high time to remove this requirement and increase the armor. A cross between a snake and a hedgehog will not lead to anything good. It's either buoyancy or armor protection. As a former NO, I'm for the latter.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: fiberboard

The gun should be changed, to a 45 mm automatic or a 57 mm one.

There are currently three guns to choose from: 30 mm 2A72, 100 mm and two 57. And it looks like we'll see that the 60 mm gun based on the S-57 will be the better choice - good range (suitable for ZOP), good accuracy, etc.

[fiberboard]

2A42? Is there nothing worthwhile in the 37 and 45 mm calibers?

[Blackgrifon]

No. Based on the S-60, there is a new module and the "Epoch" module with a 57 mm cannon - a relative of the LSHO-57.

[Cympak]

The 57mm 2A91 BM AU220M has too large ammunition, a small ammo count, and a large recoil impulse. You won't be able to shoot much. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the 57mm 2A94 BMP with moderate ballistics.
Theoretically, the fleet had a 45-mm autocannon in a 4-barrel anti-aircraft machine gun SM-20-ZIF

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Cympak

You can't shoot much.

Yes, there is such a minus. The Kinzhal module holds 80 shots. But it has a good range and a fairly developed range of ammunition. Plus, you can try to install an automatic grenade launcher on the module.

Quote: Cympak

Theoretically, the fleet had a 45-mm autocannon in a 4-barrel anti-aircraft machine gun SM-20-ZIF

I wonder if they still produce a BC for it?

[Cympak]

The range on the ground is usually limited by the terrain, on average, the horizon is already further than 2-3 km, in addition, it is necessary to take into account the range of optical devices, a night light - 3-5 km, a daylight up to 8. But to hit a moving target at a distance of over 5 km, you need to have a lot of luck.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

And sit without an ATGM like idiots.
Again, the 100mm high-explosive shell is quite rich in explosives and a good help to the infantry.

[Inj Meh]

In principle, buoyancy can be left for the BMP3 in the base, but standard add-on modules of additional armor/armoring of the factory design can be provided (which should be better than homemade ones, in theory, coupled with the factory suspension reinforcement and track widening and replacement of the rear doors with a lattice ramp below the level of the doors and a solid one along the width and height of the doors).

It remains to find someone who needs this other than those directly fighting on the front line.

In this case, the buoyancy of the final product will disappear by itself.

And it will restore itself by folding/removing additional armor, when it is necessary to bypass and envelop the enemy while overcoming a water obstacle.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Because if the landing force is riding on armor, then it is not an infantry fighting vehicle.

This alone is more than enough to discuss the BMP-3.

It is about as necessary as a fighter jet with powerful weapons - only it can't fly, it only drives.

[Per se.]

Quote from tsvetahaki

Because if the landing force is riding on armor, then it is not an infantry fighting vehicle.
This alone is more than enough to discuss the BMP-3.

The landing on armor is not for the reason that they insist on here. No one will go into an attack on armor, and it is possible to criticize our equipment in this either due to ignorance of the topic, or in terms of provocation.
In the photo, our special forces are on an armored personnel carrier, and the Americans, and for this there are completely different reasons than those that are persistently put forward by those who dream of a mobile "bomb shelter" that will never exist. All equipment is burning, and from under any armor you will have to crawl out into the light of day to fight.

[Dmitry_Likhoded]

Damn, just look at the numerous videos of our assault groups' attacks. Everyone is sitting on the armor. No one is climbing inside.

[Disant]

Dmitry_Likhoded(Dmitry Damn, watch the numerous videos

give me a link or a picture. will you find it? let's discuss:
Why don't they climb, is it an infantry fighting vehicle or a tank or a mtlb, what number of horsepower is it designed for?

[Dmitry_Likhoded]

Look for yourself. I'm not going to look for dozens of videos for you. On any equipment, they sit on the outside. Because you won't be able to get out from the inside if you get shot down. Another reason is that the fighters sitting on top can monitor the sky around them in search of a drone.

[Disant]

I'm not going to search for dozens of videos for you.

what are you not going to look for?11!!
how the landing party climbs ON the tank,
How do troops ride on MTLB from above?
.

Damn, just look at it

Dmitry, go ahead and show me, and don’t just move your hands around in the air.
just to shit on a great car. How much longer can this go on? I don't know, I haven't seen it, but I condemn it(((

[Dmitry_Likhoded]

Unlike you, I've ridden in a BMP-3 and met Bradley. And I didn't hire myself out as your maid, so look for one yourself.

[Cympak]

Quote from tsvetahaki

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Because if the landing force is riding on armor, then it is not an infantry fighting vehicle.

This alone is more than enough to discuss the BMP-3.

It is about as necessary as a fighter jet with powerful weapons - only it can't fly, it only drives.

The landing force rides on the BMP-3 armor for several reasons:
- better awareness and ability to detect an enemy, drone and immediately open fire on it
- the ability to quickly leave a damaged vehicle
- the ability to transport additional paratroopers in addition to those placed in the troop compartment.
- prejudices and war stories about a mass grave inside the landing compartment as a result of the arrival of cumulative ammunition and a mine explosion
Disadvantages of riding armor:
- receiving shrapnel wounds and contusions from exploding high-explosive shells
- extreme vulnerability to cluster and shrapnel munitions

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It’s a pity that the military comrades seem to have forgotten about body armor when developing the requirements for the project.

Nobody forgot anything. This BMP was designed 50 years ago, when motorized riflemen did not have any bulletproof vests. Therefore, the BMP-3 fully complies with the technical requirements of those times.
Over the last 34 years, they have created the expensive Kurganets, which the state cannot afford.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi

Nobody forgot anything. This BMP was designed 50 years ago, when motorized riflemen did not have any bulletproof vests. Therefore, the BMP-3 fully complies with the technical requirements of those times.

Don't disgrace yourself, okay? Even if we count 3 as the year of the beginning of the development of the BMP-1977, and in fact 1983, and the first army combat vehicle was adopted in 1978, then the Americans had combat vehicles since the beginning of the Vietnam War!!!

[Per se.]

It's not about body armor or years of production. For example, "Bradley" began to enter service in 1981, and "Abrams" in the 1980s. It's high time to review the landing load, in terms of reducing the number of landing troops by 2-3 people. This will optimize the comfort of placement and reduce possible losses in the event of a vehicle with undismounted infantry being destroyed.
Interestingly, this is not the first article about the BMP-3, and the accompanying slander in the comments, and even throughout the article. Everyone wants a semblance of the "Maus", which would become a true mass grave. The Yankees have Hummers, ATVs and buggies, and the "slipper" militants manage to take cities in pickups. Maybe it's not just about the thick armor, but about the tactics of using equipment that is created for its tasks?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Per se.

Interestingly, this is not the first article about the BMP-3, and the accompanying slandering in the comments, and even throughout the article.

Unfortunately, SVO is not the first year either. And the results show who was able to create an IFV with a reserve for the future (which has arrived), and who was not. Even if the IFV is a good light tank, in fact.

Quote: Per se.

Maybe it’s not just about thick armor, but about the tactics of using equipment that is created for its tasks?

The troika is not up to the task of an INFANTRY combat vehicle.

[Per se.]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The troika is not up to the task of an INFANTRY combat vehicle.

Where do you get these conclusions from, Vladimir?

MOSCOW, September 13 – RIA Novosti. Russian servicemen participating in the special military operation in Ukraine speak well of the additional protection that all BMP-3s are now equipped with, Roman Khromov, Deputy Executive Director for State Defense Order and Military-Technical Cooperation at Kurganmashzavod (part of the High-Precision Systems holding company of the Rostec state corporation), told RIA Novosti.
«
"The military notes the BMP-3's weapons system, its mobility, ease of use, and maintainability. They speak well of the additional protection that is now being received. There are also reports of shortcomings, but not of a global nature," Khromov said.

One more thing, on topic.

A Russian serviceman participating in a special operation (SVO) assessed the Kurgan BMP-3 and called it a "gun". The soldier told about this in a story on the Russia-1 TV channel. The report was published on the official telegram channel of Kurganmashzavod.

"The BMP-3 is a good machine, a 'gun'. Two guns, three machine guns. Off-road it goes at 70 kilometers per hour," a fighter with the call sign "Cat" told the TV channel. The report indicated that the combat qualities of the vehicle, which is produced by the Kurgan defense plant, are appreciated on the front lines.

Earlier, URA.RU reported that the reconnaissance company commander assessed the armor of the Kurgan BMP-3 when it was blown up by tank mines. The military correspondent from Donetsk considers the Kurgan equipment to be the best on the front.

Don't listen to the "World of Tanks" players, you can't "upgrade" anything without sacrificing something. The BMP-3 is a good vehicle, the best in its class. And don't fall for the nonsense about the "Bradley" being better.

[sas711]

Why is it nonsense? Our guys tested it at the Bradley proving ground and compared it with the three, info from them.

[Per se.]

Quote: sas711

Our guys tested it at the Bradley test site and compared it with the three-piece, info from them.

From whom, "from them"?
"The 'report' claims, in particular, that the Bradley is better armed, more comfortable and safer for the crew than the BMP-3.

- I doubt the veracity of this report, - the expert told MK. - It does not look like it was written by specialists from a military research institute. The "report" on the Bradley tests looks more like some kind of fabrication, organized by people far removed from military technology.

Such documents are usually published under the "Secret" classification. For example, the same test results of our captured American M-60 tank were declassified only 20 years after it fell into our hands in the early 1970s.

Now, regarding the merits of the Bradley, as outlined in the report. For example, in terms of operational characteristics, which are supposedly better than those of our BMP-3. I can say that there are no complaints about the BMP-3 at all. The United Arab Emirates have been using them for about thirty years and have no complaints.

The case in the Emirates was especially indicative. Then the French decided to demonstrate the repairability of their equipment. They were able to dismantle the power plant in 15 minutes. It was beautiful. However, I asked: what if only the generator does not work? I was told that the entire engine would have to be taken to a repair shop in order to, say, disconnect the same generator from the gearbox. Such intervention would be required even if, for example, the brushes in the generator need to be changed. This is not the case in the BMP-3, where it can be solved in a few minutes of repair.
- The Bradley weighs 32 tons and weighs almost as much as the T-34 tank. Of course, it has good armor protection. But again, take into account the weight of the combat vehicle, and it, for example, has a negative impact on cross-country ability. If you imagine moving across rough terrain in the spring thaw, the Bradley will simply get stuck in the mud.

If we are talking about protection, there were cases in Iraq when even a 12,7 mm Utes machine gun hit the onboard gearbox of an American infantry fighting vehicle. So, we cannot draw any final conclusions here."
Nobody has cancelled the information war, so listen, we don't need aircraft carriers, which all significant fleets of the world have, including the US, but we do need American "Bradleys", which the Yankees themselves mocked. Now this "guano" that the Ukrainian Armed Forces got is almost being passed off as a miracle of God, a dream of idiots.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Per se.

I doubt the veracity of this report, the expert told MK.

I don't even know what to answer you, because the experts of MK, ura.ru and RIA Novosti, they are such experts, and they won't lie a word. Not to mention photos and videos from the front line...
And if the "commanding fathers" don't lie, then they won't lie at all.

[Per se.]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

After all, the experts from MK, Ura.ru and RIA Novosti are experts, and they won’t lie a word.

Ask our frontline fighters. As for the Bradley, there is a Stanislav Krapivnik, a former US Army captain who is well acquainted with the Bradley. Whether you believe him or not is up to you.
The Russian infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3 has an advantage over the German Marder and the American M2 Bradley. This is the conclusion reached by military expert of the Army Standard magazine Stanislav Krapivnik. "Bradley" (weight 33 tons) with a height of 3,1 meters. At the same time, the American BMP has a high center of gravity due to the size of the turret, so the vehicle risks turning over.
"Of the three candidates, the BMP-3 proves to be the most effective vehicle, combining a low profile and high maneuverability with a high level of armament. The Marder is also maneuverable, but carries light weapons. The Bradley is second in armament, it poses a serious threat, although it is not agile and is limited in maneuverability, and its high profile reduces its chances of survival," the expert believes.

In any case, these are machines of different classes. I repeat, we must not forget about the enemy propaganda, so to speak - "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes in "Bradley". Amen...

[tlauicol]

Only Krapivnik wrote this opus two years ago. He was in a hurry, now he would have to rewrite it.
Practice is the criterion of truth!

[Dirty Liar]

I was in a hurry, now I would have to rewrite it.

It wouldn't have been necessary. At least he wrote accurately about the center of gravity.
https://vk.com/video350145251_456253637
And this is not an isolated case.

[tlauicol]

Quote from: DirtyLiar

I was in a hurry, now I would have to rewrite it.

It wouldn't have been necessary. At least he wrote accurately about the center of gravity.
https://vk.com/video350145251_456253637
And this is not an isolated case.

Detonated by a mine. No tracks. Dropped from a trailer. If BMP 3 had been blown up, there would have been no BMP.

[Dirty Liar]

That's not a blowout. That's a sharp turn. There are several videos of similar incidents where Bradleys just fall over on their side when turning sharply at speed.

[tlauicol]

Where is the guslya?

Quote from: DirtyLiar

That's not a blowout. That's a sharp turn. There are several videos of similar incidents where Bradleys just fall over on their side when turning sharply at speed.

[Dirty Liar]

Where are the traces of the landmine explosion? On the road and on the BMP itself?
The guslya could easily fly off with such a sharp turn and somersault.
P.S. And, I haven’t seen a mine explosion that would turn over a 30-ton vehicle.
PPS There's also a "handsome guy" approaching her, already aware of what happened. Apparently, the crew came and told her.

[tlauicol]

A funnel and a guslya at the site of the explosion. And then it was dropped

[Disant]

sas711
(Sergey) Our guys tested it at the Bradley test site

what are ours?
I can also highlight fonts in yellow

[Cympak]

Quote: Per se.

. And don't fall for the nonsense about "Bradley" being better.

If you add additional armor with DZ and Kevlar lining to the BMP-3 (like on the Bradley), include a 30mm 2A72 BPS/BOPS in the ammo pack (like on the Bradley), add a panoramic view for the commander (like on the Bradley), move the ATGM to the turret (like on the Bradley), and modify the fire control system to fire a 100mm 2A70 with a ZOP, then the BMP-3 will definitely be better than the Bradley.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Cympak

Quote: Per se.

. And don't fall for the nonsense about "Bradley" being better.

If you add additional armor with DZ and Kevlar lining to the BMP-3 (like on the Bradley), include a 30mm 2A72 BPS/BOPS in the ammo pack (like on the Bradley), add a panoramic view for the commander (like on the Bradley), move the ATGM to the turret (like on the Bradley), and modify the fire control system to fire a 100mm 2A70 with a ZOP, then the BMP-3 will definitely be better than the Bradley.

There will remain questions about the accuracy of the 30mm cannon, the placement of troops, the ease of landing, the placement of the main ammunition, repairability, maintenance, the ballistics of the gun, etc.
It's easier to design a new car

[cast iron]

In terms of convenience for a person, it will remain as flawed as it was. Even with additional armor.

[Disant]

cast iron
For convenience for a person it will remain as flawed as it was.

- There is a toilet in the three-room apartment. And what is your name?
- puppy!
- Nice to meet you.

[cast iron]

There is a toilet in the three-room apartment. What is your name?

- Just right to wash away circus monkey lovers on the go.
- My name is correct. You don't need to know that.
- In the BMP-3, clinical cretins correctly came up with a push/butt instead of a normal seat. For amateurs like you.

[Mairos]

What else could a fighter say in an interview with a major media outlet? If he had given serious criticism, he would have simply been "slapped in the face", and the interview would not have been published. In general, in the current reality, battlefield equipment should be well protected and, as far as possible, cheap. And there is no need to talk about a nuclear war with NATO, a low silhouette (drones don't give a damn about it) and deep breakthroughs and envelopments. About all-conquering electronic warfare, which will suppress enemy drones - also. Tanks - turtles survive better))

[Dmitry_Likhoded]

Bradley turned out to be much more durable than BMP-3. Much better in many characteristics. I had to meet it.

[cast iron]

In official media, it is impossible for a serviceman to criticize the BMP-3. This is discrediting the army and jail. And for both the serviceman and the journalists. Therefore, you can keep the official laudatory reviews to yourself. And the soldiers who were blown to pieces by a mine will not leave any laudatory reviews on camera.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Don't disgrace yourself, huh? Even if we count 3 as the year of the beginning of the development of the BMP-1977, and in fact 1983, and the first army BZ was accepted in 1978

The first Soviet serial combined arms body armor 6B2 was accepted into service in 1981 - 4 years after the start of development of the BMP-3.
There was a 6B1 bulletproof vest from 1957 - it did not go into production, but was planned for production during the war.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexey RA

The first Soviet serial combined arms body armor 6B2 was accepted into service in 1981 - 4 years after the start of development of the BMP-3.

Well, it wasn't accepted, but it was used.
The first series of new 6B2 bulletproof vests was urgently sent to Afghanistan. This bulletproof vest was created in 1978 at the Research Institute of Steel.

It is noteworthy that due to the serious nature of the task, the final tactical and technical requirements for the prospective IFV were formulated and signed by the Ministry of Defense. only in 1983 year

[Cympak]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The first series of new 6B2 body armor was urgently sent to Afghanistan.

The flak jacket was sent, but it was not worn. Often used as improvised protection for truck cabins, soldiers tried not to wear it for various reasons:
- it was very hot in the bulletproof vest in the summer
- the bulletproof vest restricted movement
- additional weight in mountain raids, instead of body armor they preferred to take additional ammunition
- military myths, if you put on a bulletproof vest, you will definitely be killed, body armor is useless - it does not protect from a bullet...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And in the end, Bradley as an IFV copes quite well, but the BMP-3 does not. Because if the landing force rides ON the armor, then it is not an IFV.

Look at the photo. Comparison of the sizes of the BMP-1 and Bradley. The BMP-1 is as low as a cart, you can ride inside or outside. Now let's look at the Bradley: there is nowhere to sit on top, and if you do jump from its height onto the ground, and even in a bulletproof vest with ammunition for the weapon, then broken legs are guaranteed. So they only ride inside, since they have no choice where to sit.

[VlK]

why sit on top of her (Bradley)?
And the second question - when exactly should one sit, on the march, counting on the mine danger and the possibility of ambushes, or when the armored group at full speed throws an assault group to the target of attack?

[cast iron]

You sit in the BMP-1 for half an hour. When your back starts to hurt, you'll immediately want to sit on the roof.

[VlK]

and in Bradley? They compare the three-room apartment with it, right?

[cast iron]

And in Bradley it's almost the same as in M113. There's PLENTY of space inside.

[VlK]

Well, here's the answer, I guess.
It is high time for our customers and designers to start filtering the requirements for the designed equipment by the degree of importance, and not trying to "shove the unshoveable", that is, everything into one with acceptable characteristics. Moreover, the requirements corresponding to modern combat, and not hypothetical forecasts and theoretical models, as was the case in the post-war period, due to the lack of direct participation of motorized riflemen and tank crews in major military conflicts.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It’s a pity that the military comrades seem to have forgotten about body armor when developing the requirements for the project.

When designing Kurganets, we remembered
In the photo, "Kurganets-25" is on the left, BMP-3 is on the right

[Hole puncher]

- the maximum possible volume of habitable compartments for the crew and troops, the possibility of communication between them;

But it is impossible to use this volume as efficiently as possible. Carrying in the wounded on stretchers or transporting any cargo is extremely problematic.

- activation of airborne fire in the forward sector;

And is the landing force capable of conducting aimed fire in the forward sector? At least detecting the target, not to mention aimed fire on the move? It's impossible - then what the hell is it for?

- optimization of the relative position of the center of mass, the middle of the supporting surface and the center of displacement of the machine;

You can't argue with that, but it doesn't compensate for the downsides.

- the highest possible level of armor protection and thermal camouflage.

Why is it maximum? Compared to what? And regarding thermal visibility, by 1990 the quality of thermal imagers had already reached such a level that the location of the exhaust system had no effect.
Bottom line: the author of this misunderstanding tried in every way to advertise his defective product.

[Cympak]

Quote: Puncher

Carry the wounded in on stretchers.

Why are you all talking about the wounded?
Two wounded men on stretchers are placed in the passages above the engine compartment and closed with hatch doors from above.

[cast iron]

First, you drag these wounded ones up to a meter high. And they don't fit there in length. The length is not enough to stretch out to their full height.

[Cympak]

Quote: cast iron

First, you drag these wounded ones up to a meter high. And they don't fit there in length. The length is not enough to stretch out to their full height.

The meter height is the arms bent at the elbows at the level of the diaphragm - chest depending on the height. The length of the passage is not enough, the head will be in the landing compartment, it is easier to monitor the condition of the wounded
The ramp is undoubtedly more convenient for loading the wounded, but there are no insurmountable obstacles in the BMP-3 either.

[cast iron]

Instead of overcoming obstacles artificially created by cretins, it would be better to listen to the needs of the soldier and create a CONVENIENT vehicle. Let's be honest. The BMP-3 is exactly like this because some cretins took a light experimental titanium tank as the basis for the BMP. They didn't give a damn about landing. Buoyancy and trim on the water were more important to them. This vehicle is somehow suitable for the marines. But not for the ground army. That is why the "stupid" Americans created a separate floating armored personnel carrier for landing from the sea. It is impossible to create a universal armored vehicle for all occasions. It will turn out equally bad for all tasks.

[Cympak]

Quote: Puncher

And is the landing force capable of conducting aimed fire in the forward sector? At least detecting the target, not to mention aimed fire on the move? It's impossible - then what the hell is it for?

Here is what Boris Korotkov, an officer who actually served and mastered all IFVs from BMP-3 to BMP-1, writes in his article "A View from Behind the Armor. It is too early to retire the BMP-3"

I don’t know whether there are other IFVs now that have such a comfortable opportunity to fire small arms through the side embrasures or not, but the fact that this opportunity of the BMP-3 is head and shoulders above that of the BMP-1 and BMP-2 is certain.

I remember how to do the exercise of shooting from small arms from the airborne unit of the BMP-1. It was a miracle if it succeeded in a narrow glazed sector to precisely release a line at a target dancing in front of my eyes - I already mentioned the driving characteristics of the BMP-1 and BMP-2.

When installing the machine gun in the BMP-3 embrasure for the first time, I was surprised that there was no window for aiming and observing the target. It turned out that in this vehicle, the soldier does not need to aim by pressing against the machine gun; for this purpose, there is a sighting mark in the TNPO shooter's viewing device, which moves in the direction in which the motorized rifleman's weapon turns. A five-minute exercise on the move, and the crosshair of the sighting mark in the circle began to hold firmly on the selected object. The combination of double torsion bars, rear centering and placement of the landing force in the area of ​​the vehicle's center of mass ensures effective fire without the need to simultaneously hold both the weapon and the target in the field of view on the same line with the eye.

[Alex 1970]

Ehe heh ...
"Unparalleled in the world" in individual products is indeed a lot, but with such an approach as ours their appearance in the troops is unlikely. But to threaten the enemy with a conventional hazelnut, that's our everything

[BAI]

Well, they can't write in a Soviet magazine that an unsuccessful machine has been accepted into service and is being produced. Obviously, the article was a response to "criticism from the localities."

[Cympak]

In 3, the BMP-1991 was the newest vehicle and, compared to the BMP-1 and BMP-2, it certainly had advantages, at least in theory, since the practice had not yet been worked out.
There were very few of them in the troops, there was no experience of military use, they were taking care of them in the units, they had not yet taken part in armed conflicts. There was no "criticism from the field", everyone in the army was waiting for the new BMP-3. No one in 1991 considered it unsuccessful. It is like they are waiting for the Kurganets and Dragun/Manul now.

[Andrey VOV]

A detailed presentation of the technical side, details, all that, a lot of words and a lot of yues and in the end one paragraph, which is already clear that the BMP 3 is a little better than the BMP 2 and that's it...

[tlauicol]

Meanwhile, the guys at the front are quietly cursing in a telegram, realizing that they will have to continue to sit in the BMP 3, and “thank” the turbopatriots, designers, and the Ministry of Defense for this.
They've already started fixing the 30mm cannon on the BMP 2, even though it's better than the XNUMX.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Tlauicol

Meanwhile, the guys at the front are quietly cursing in a telegram, realizing that they will have to continue to sit in the BMP 3, and “thank” the turbopatriots, designers, and the Ministry of Defense for this.
They've already started fixing the 30mm cannon on the BMP 2, even though it's better than the XNUMX.

As a rule, the BMP-3 is criticized by theorists (who have seen it only in pictures), while those who fought in the war mostly give positive reviews.

[Ermak_415]

from those who fought, mostly positive reviews

Well of course, the reviews are mostly positive due to the lack of alternatives.
Let them fight with the same Bradley and Marder.
Oh, and don't forget to filter out "unpositive" reviews.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Ermak_415

Oh, and don't forget to filter out "unpositive" reviews.

From what I see here, mostly those who speak in defense of the BMP-3 are downvoted. Moreover, the downvotes are given without any arguments, just a downvote.

[Cympak]

The BMP-3 is a huge step forward in terms of protection, firepower, and habitability for landing troops compared to the BMP-1 and BMP-2. The main problem with the BMP-3 is that it has been stalled for decades. While the Americans were rolling out more and more new modifications, our jingoistic patriots were bursting with pride for yet another unparalleled vehicle. And the proposed improvements (KAZ, DZ Kaktus, commander's panorama, front layout, etc.) were not implemented, but remained only as mock-ups that were taken to exhibitions. Everyone was thinking about how to sell it to someone at a higher price, but we "won't have a war", but it turned out a little differently...
Plus a bunch of other requirements from "past wars": buoyancy, about -50, about "a grenade launcher's dream" (how many Bradleys and M-113s were shot with grenade launchers?)
Now a new positional dead end is obvious, like in the First World War, only now it is not machine guns and barbed wire, but attack and reconnaissance drones. Therefore, both Armata and Kurganets are already obsolete until the issue of their protection from penny kamikaze drones is resolved. And it makes no difference whether they have a ramp or what their vertical clearance is

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Here a good half, if not the majority, represent the interests of the enemy. And it is vitally important for them to eliminate such a formidable enemy as the BMP-3.
And for the most part they are amateurs. They do not mention the main drawback, namely the price, at which the "Treshka" approaches the T-90 in its cost.

[Cympak]

Quote: Tlauicol

Meanwhile, the guys at the front are quietly cursing in a telegram, realizing that they will have to continue to sit in the BMP 3

Can you provide specific negative reviews from the "guys on the front line"?
I've seen mostly positive reviews. I remember people asking for wider hatches.

[Graz]

ammunition must be carried out into an unmanned tower, or module, whatever you want to call it, but the landing force in the BMP should not sit on the shells

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Graz

ammunition must be carried out into an unmanned tower, or module, whatever you want to call it, but the landing force in the BMP should not sit on the shells

In the BMPT, the weapons are moved out from under the armor - in articles, in comments, they criticize the fact that the weapons are not covered by armor. But if they were moved out and covered by armor - the weight would be like that of the "Merkava"

[Cympak]

Quote: Bad_gr

In the BMPT, the weapons are moved out from under the armor

This is not true. The 30mm cannon ammo is under the armor in the fighting compartment.

[garri-lin]

It is possible to replace the folding steps and swing doors on the ramp on the BMP 3 without major re-engineering.
DZ and additional armor on the sides with POSITIVE BUOYANCY have been around for a long time now.
The DUM with 12,7 can be added with the PU at the vehicle commander and senior landing party. Another pair of eyes for review are added.
It's a good car and gradual modernization will allow it to remain good.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Per se.

Quote from tsvetahaki

Because if the landing force is riding on armor, then it is not an infantry fighting vehicle.
This alone is more than enough to discuss the BMP-3.

All equipment is on fire, and you will have to crawl out from under any armor into the light of day to fight.

That's true. Only one burns well, the other one burns poorly. The same goes for landing. But there were also questions about the ease of maintenance, repair, operation, etc.

[Dmitry Eon]

The Algerians once had their eye on the BMP3 for a long time, but then, to be on the safe side, they ordered the modernization of 800 units! BMP2 to the level of BMP2M "Berezhok" and they were right, 20 years have passed since then. Ours "brainwashed" the industry with contradictory requirements, as a result Neither a bird in the hand (BMP2M) nor a crane in the bush (Kurganets)...

[belost79]

I know about this vehicle only from the words of a participant of the 2nd Chechen campaign. They had several BMP-3. He said that they were completely beyond repair, and if there was any damage to the hull - it was all over. The armor was made of aluminum alloy, ordinary welding was impossible. Only with special equipment, but where is it in a war? And there is nothing in the rear workshops.
There were no questions about the placement of the landing force - everyone rode in armor. The Czechs had no drones or artillery.

[Rooivalk]

The champion in malfunctions, unfinished work and breakdowns among the armored vehicles of the ground forces.

[Cympak]

Quote: Rooivalk

The champion in malfunctions, unfinished work and breakdowns among the armored vehicles of the ground forces.

Here, a lot still depends on the operators. The combat capabilities of the equipment are increasing, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. They tried to solve this problem by involving the employees of the manufacturing plants in the repair. But this solution showed itself to be less than ideal during the SVO. A new approach to this problem is needed: a combination of a factory warranty and major repairs and professional maintenance and competent operation in the army.
- Why don't the soldiers have night vision devices?
- If you give a conscript a night vision device, he will definitely lose it, and the officer will have to answer...

[Rooivalk]

First: You are right. Second: this is to Kurganmashzavod - the quality of the BMP-3 does not stand up to any criticism. In addition to the design flaws - very sloppy assembly.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cympak

A new approach to this problem is needed: a combination of factory warranty and major repairs, professional maintenance and proper operation in the army.
- Why don't the soldiers have night vision devices?
- If you give a conscript a night vision device, he will definitely lose it, and the officer will have to answer...

If I remember correctly, at the beginning of the SVO there were shots of Ukrainians gutting our command vehicle, left behind during the retreat. In general, the bravura reports about the steady growth of technical equipment of the infantry were partly true - it was just that this was not handed out to hands.

[Glory1974]

absolutely not repairable, and if there is any damage to the hull - it's all over. The armor is made of aluminum alloy, ordinary welding is impossible. Only with special equipment, and where is that in a war?

On all armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc., the armor is welded with special equipment. Here, the BMP-3 is no different from the others.

[belost79]

"On all armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc., the armor is welded with special equipment. In this regard, the BMP-3 is no different from the others."
At the repair plant, yes. But in the field, when it is necessary, roughly speaking, to weld a crack or a hole, or a seam that has come apart, they restore it with the simplest equipment.

[Disant]

belost79
I know about this vehicle only from the words of a participant in the 2nd Chechen campaign. They had several BMP-3. He said that it was absolutely not repairable,

so if there are no spare parts - of course there is nothing to cannibalize! and the nuts are the same!

Aluminum alloy armor, normal welding is impossible. Only with special equipment, but where is it in a war?

now for your own bmp-3s have been coming with a steel hull for about a year and a half. weld to your heart's content

[zxc15682]

Judging from the article BMP-3. It is a tank, a big gun, floats and flies, can carry troops, but not in war. I believe that for police functions it is ideal.

[zxc15682]

Who would chase a criminal element in a BMW if they had a UAZ?

[Ermak_415]

it is ideal for police functions

What about the exercises and parades?
But seriously, for all sorts of peacekeeping missions somewhere in Angola or Paraguay
where there is no particular threat.

[Rooivalk]

Look at the photos and videos from yours. Not a single NORMAL infantryman rides inside this trough. All - on the armor. A good light tank, unsuitable as an IFV.

[Cympak]

Quote: Rooivalk

Look at the photos and videos from yours. Not a single NORMAL infantryman rides inside this trough.

Depending on the situation, they drive differently. Often one BMP-3 is packed with 10 paratroopers, some in the troop compartment, some in the passages above the MTO.

[Disant]

Rooivalk(Vasya Pupkin)
Check out photos and videos from your

Pupkin, where are you forcing everyone to look? What are you forcing everyone to think up? Attach photos and videos - we'll appreciate your creativity

[Rooivalk]

You'll find it yourself. If you have something to do it with.

[Eug]

The heavy infantry fighting vehicle (TBMP-64, BMPV-64) has long been made at 115 BTRZ in Kharkov. In terms of protection, it is comparable to the T-64.
It was rejected due to high operating costs.

[cast iron]

The heavy infantry fighting vehicle (TBMP-64, BMPV-64) has long been made at 115 BTRZ in Kharkov.

Maybe it's enough to broadcast nonsense. What's in the photo are MODELS. They have no relation to reality. No BMP was created in Kharkov.

[Bad_gr]

A special feature of the conveyor is the location of the ammunition nests at an angle of 3° to the plane of the gun pumping, which made it possible, for a given length of ammunition, to reduce the conveyor sweep zone and increase the dimensions of the passage between the fighting compartment and the sides of the vehicle.

[VlK]

As a result, the once accepted concept of conducting military operations - a dashing breakthrough of tank and mechanized units through terrain contaminated by a tactical nuclear strike, followed by an exit to operational space in the direction of the English Channel - was never realized, and the equipment designed for it continues to be actively produced, that's the whole conclusion...

[huggi]

Looks like an excuse for a bad vehicle. If you remove the parts about the landing force from the text, you get a description of a decent light tank.

[Vladimir-TTT]

I read the article and read the comments.
And I had this question:
How does the enemy use Bradley? How do they maximize its advantages?
What are the main actions - transport in the near rear, overcoming the gray zone, with the landing force inside, going directly into the attack?

[nikanikolich]

Who needs floating turtles? In the current realities of warfare, a floating tank is a minus rather than a plus. I don't remember the BMP's swimming function being used during battles in the North-Eastern Military District.

[Nred]

Another attempt to wash the BMP 3. Well, it's a lousy car, let's be honest. And the nonsense became the best BMP in the world. And after the end of the SVO, it will bite off part of our market. Since in 4 years of the SVO we couldn't roll out anything like that, that's the whole story.
And the fact that Bradley says it better is something everyone says in their own. I watched a whole interview where they explained in detail why our people ride on "king mangals", and Ukrainian in Bradleys. The percentage of Bradleys destroyed together with the landing force is negligible. It can withstand hits from antitank guided missiles, drones and mines, while the landing force and crew survive in 98% of cases. What else do you need from an infantry fighting vehicle?

[Vladimir-TTT]

Quote: NRed

I watched a whole interview where they explained in detail why our guys ride on "king grills" and the Ukrainians are in delirium.

Where to look?

Quote: NRed

It can withstand hits from anti-tank guided missiles, drones and mines, while the troops and crew survive in 98% of cases. What else do you need from an infantry fighting vehicle?

Our tanks can't withstand this - we have to "marble" the entire thing - but they have infantry fighting vehicles.
Maybe our tank builders should use their experience as a basis?

[Disant]

Why try to convince a person who knows about the 98 percent and calls the USSR a scoop?

[Come in large numbers]

How we miss here the story of the scoundrel Serdyukov and the heroic 10 years of rule of the next minister. Parades, biathlons and a lot of trinkets like 10 years of military traffic police...

[geologist]

It may be a matter of differences in environment and mentality, in my opinion. We grew up in cramped apartments. Our cities and towns have narrow streets. We ourselves are shorter on average and are not used to complaining about inconveniences. Americans are fatter - full-size, and the streets of their towns are very wide, their cars are big and comfortable. After driving to my mother-in-law's in a "Zhiguli" for 330 km, even at 30 years old I could not straighten my back. Our designers simply cannot design something spacious due to the habits of limited space, which is generally surprising for the largest country on the planet. My dad built his garage for a Volga 5 * 8 m with a gate 3,5 m wide, which looked like a monster compared to the garages of the neighbors, which were probably built with motorcycles with a sidecar or hunchbacked Zaporozhets. The cramped conditions of our personal garages do not surprise anyone, but for some reason our infantry fighting vehicles surprise with their cramped conditions, and yet they are designed by people who have been accustomed to cramped conditions since childhood.

[cast iron]

You're stretching an owl onto a globe. The bulk of frame-panel residential buildings in the US have small rooms. It's not about mentality. In the USSR, they tried to reduce the armor volume as much as possible in order to reduce the weight of the car. And most likely, this was dictated by the imperfection of the poor weak internal combustion engines and transmissions. Well, and a side benefit - it's hard to hit the silhouette with a cannon. Only sweat for the last 50 years ATGMs don't give a damn about the silhouette. And the internal combustion engines have more or less been pulled up in power. But the tradition remains.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Cramped two-seater truck cabins came from the USA. And we didn't dare to go against the bad foreign tradition. And you are right about garages. But this has nothing to do with technology.

[Muzzle]

Well, what can I say, the parades are over and we need to fight. All these cacti, etc., etc. have proven only one thing, alas, only the absurdity of the approach and short-sightedness. So much time has passed, and there is still no turret for a tank that can somehow cope with at least RPG-7 shots. There are no anti-mine trawls for light and medium vehicles, not to mention increasing anti-mine protection in principle, for all types of old equipment. One of the most important conditions is not met for IFVs in principle - this is the safe transportation of personnel to the front line. And so they boasted, there are no analogues, it turns out they were fooling people and that's all. Now you can even look at what they officially produce for turret roofs as protection, to understand how far from understanding the factories are from war.
1. The first mistake is that they give the opportunity to examine the FPV-shniks, where the weakened zones are. The cape should initially be stretched so that there are no visible gaps between the DZ or the mesh
2. Use geometry, for grids and gratings it's trivial. Well, you can't just attach them at a distance from the body, you need to make an obtuse angle or a herringbone when attaching the gratings from the bottom to the top, the bigger the angle, the better. The gratings will look like everything is exactly in an inverted trapezoid, the transport was placed. This is necessary so that when flying at 90 degrees to such protection, the drone does not hit the armor parallel, but a funnel stream goes up from the armor. Of course, the drone will not cling to the propellers, but a chance will appear even for this, so that it touches the screen gratings with them before the penetrating charge.
3. At the top, it is necessary to make pins on a semicircle so that the Javelin missile is pierced by them, not allowing the stream to form in the funnel as usual. And again, everything on top should be stretched with fabric, the enemy should not see the pins or installed DZ. On top, it is always necessary to install additional fabric above the DZ tent from the drops, so that they roll down it if there is a delay.
4. New types of rubber should be made, so that it is both dense and at most elastic from grenade drops, so that grenades bounce off it with a delay. There is already a video of a BMP-2 with rubber screens, this topic should be developed.
The BMP-3 is only pleasing in its mobility - its speed backwards is 20 km - beyond that it is a dead end for positional warfare and wars using guided munitions.

[ln_ln]

blaming its designers for laziness and unwillingness to redesign the basic design of the light tank “Object 685”, the developments of which were used during the creation of the BMP-3.

688 looks like 685 only in the photo.
The 685 had a completely different MTO with a 2V06 engine.
This article is taken from the issue of "BTT Bulletin", entirely dedicated to the BMP-3.
There are still many articles on all the solutions in the car.
The vehicle was developed according to the technical specifications, which required a single vehicle for motorized riflemen, airborne forces and marines.
Hello "unifiers"!
The first vehicles had an electric mechanism for changing ground clearance for loading into an aircraft; later, the Airborne Forces insisted on their BMD-3, which is lighter.
And seaworthiness was for MP.
In the end, it was not possible to save money; in 1991, the car was more expensive than a tank (which one - I did not specify).
The ballistics of the 100 mm OPU were raised later, but at first, as our teacher said, the projectile flew to the maximum range of 17 km in a minute, in pure form “fire and forget”.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

As I can see, he is quite the ballistics expert. The maximum firing range of the 2A70 was initially 3,5 km. With the advent of the "Vishnya" projectile, the range increased to 6,5 km.

[ln_ln]

As I can see, he's quite the ballistics expert.

I won’t argue about the range, it was 1991, but I remember the “minute” clearly.

[MCmaximus]

Again, a lot depends on buoyancy. From this point of view, the designers chose everything possible. But... The protection suffered. Yes, and with such weight requirements it couldn't be any other way.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This is not the point, the problem is in the financial and tax system, which does not allow maintaining reserve capacities. There is a version of the same BMP-3 with a steel non-floating hull. But there is no capacity for parallel production of both modifications. Optimizers optimized everything they could reach.

[Dometer]

Looking at the BMP-3 layout, there is a desire to lengthen the MTO, but free up the passages (to the floor level). Let's even assume that it will be necessary to move the drive sprockets and the gearbox forward (as in German tanks of the Great Patriotic War). But either a narrow in-line engine or some kind of two-row (not V-shaped) will be needed. But our tank engines are designed and developed slowly - 2 engines (V2 and UTD) in 100 years (two-stroke - do not count!). So the designers are racking their brains not about the optimal layout, but on which side to attach the rest of the vehicle to the existing engine.

[Anatoly Shpalin]

has a lot of advantages, among which a special place is occupied by very good armor

In principle, you don't need to read any further.

[air wolf]

Yes, it's a normal BMP, move the engine forward and add composite armor, and it will be fine.

[Sergey_K]

Author! 100mm rifled?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Rifled! What did you expect if shells from the T-54/55 tank gun are used?

[Dimax]

Merkava at its minimum - BMP-light tank, an interesting concept, except that it is not implemented very successfully...

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The BMP-3 has no advantages in modern warfare; it is inferior to all the vehicles that are in service with countries around the world.

[26_Sergey_26]

Yes, when you look at the unique Russian weapons, praised by the Zvezda TV channel, you understand what kind of wankers accepted all this into service.
In terms of convenience and protection, our creation should not be compared with the Bradley, but with the M113, and this comparison will not be entirely in our favor.
It should also be noted about the 100 mm gun that shells are not loaded into it when transporting infantry. Or they try not to do this, so m113.
And I wish those who took this into service to perform a personal feat while inside this machine. It is desirable that they all be in one machine in the middle of a minefield with a full set of ammunition.
But to be honest, each weapon has its own tactics of use, taking into account its strengths and weaknesses. The main thing is to draw the right conclusions based on the results of use and develop superior advanced weapons. Will we have anything to modernize and develop?

[Sevan]

"Of course, the material is written in "dry language" and is not filled with colorful epithets..." And thank God! How nice it is to read a report written in a businesslike professional language without verbal flourishes and banter, which unfortunately appears everywhere on VO.

[Alexander]

In my opinion, one of the main disadvantages of the BMP-3 is the vertical side walls of the hull!

[Grossvater]

The Troika, in my amateur opinion, is a great vehicle, but it is not an IFV, it is more of a light tank with the ability to transport a certain number of infantrymen. That is how it should be viewed.
As for travel on armored vehicles, both on units and on deuces and on armored personnel carriers, if you believe the reports from the LBS, they travel more on armored vehicles.
How I see the situation developing from my sofa:
1. Development of a new armored personnel carrier, possibly based on the M113 design, a box on gusli, only with anti-drone weapons. These are the vehicles that should transport infantry to the battlefield;
2. It is possible to develop a light tank based on the troika, with armor reinforced due to the loss of buoyancy. However, how and with what modern armored vehicles should be protected is not yet very clear. If they find a way to deal with drones, then old schemes with priority of frontal armor can be used. If not, then due to the reserve of hull volume and armor protection area, a multi-layer structure should be built. Here the troika is very promising.
It all depends on what remains the primary anti-personnel weapon.
Well, if we talk about the danger of ammunition detonation, then this is an inevitable price for the presence and power of this ammunition. After all, during the World Wars, it was battleships and aircraft carriers that burned and exploded, not timber carriers. .
P.S. Looking at the infantrymen sitting on the armor, for some reason I immediately remember the good old BTR 40 and 152...

[Maxwrx]

1. The very concept of transporting infantry with explosive cargo (shells) is criminal. They wanted to combine everything in one - what they got is that during an assault many BMPs do not carry the main caliber.
2. A 100mm rocket is not enough to penetrate tanks, not to mention shells. It is necessary to reduce the caliber and add normal ATGMs.
3. The vehicle was designed to reach the English Channel in a short time. Now, as the front moves slowly (for all armies), such forced marches are not needed. Therefore, the concept of water navigation is outdated. Therefore, the engine can be in the front, the ramp in the back. The aluminum body can be replaced with steel
4. The dimensions and squatness of the vehicles are no longer as important as before. The main damage is caused by drones, anti-tank missiles, and mines.

In general, the machine is outdated. No modernization will fix the situation. It is necessary to improve the Kurganets, which was shown 10 years (!) ago and about the deliveries of which no one has heard, or to develop a new one, taking into account the experience of the war.
On BMP-3
1. Now stop releasing with a 100mm cannon and switch to 30mm berezhok/boomerang/epoch modules and if possible, a derivation with a 57mm cannon. To confidently hit Bradleys, etc. They are also lighter, cheaper and most importantly safer!
2. Remove everything related to watercraft. Water cannons, pumps, etc.
3. Add add-on armor.

[VlK]

kmk the value of 100 mm is in the high explosive fragmentation action of the projectile, and not the caliber of the missile launched through it, duels of armored vehicles are now rare, and support for your infantry in suppressing firing points is quite in demand. No caliber 30-45-57 mm will provide such power of ammunition, and it is only for direct fire even theoretically. And what is the point in miniaturization, if you make a purely fire support vehicle from a three?
I wonder what effect a 100mm rocket has when it hits a modern tank with all its bells and whistles without penetrating it. Will it be disabled, even if not destroyed?

[Grossvater]

Especially if you take into account the howitzer ballistics of the 100-gun three-barreled rifle.

[Maxwrx]

Have you heard that 100mm ammunition is NOT carried? What's the point of the caliber's power if people are afraid to take it with them?

[VlK]

the point is to use the vehicle purely for fire support, without landing troops. At least half of the comments here are about the unfortunate combination of the functions of an ops and battlefield transport in the three.

[Cympak]

Perhaps it is worth reconsidering the very concept of using motorized riflemen. Replace the tank + IFV combination with a tank + BMPT + TBTR for heavy brigades, and a light tank + APC for medium brigades.
Another asymmetrical variant: a two-link IFV: the first link is armed (BMPT), the second link is for transporting troops with a short range of autonomous movement. Something similar is the Vityaz IFV for Arctic brigades.
Tactics for a two-link machine
Advancing towards the enemy in a chain.
At the dismounting line, the landing compartment is detached and the landing force is mixed. The first compartment autonomously provides fire support.
If the first compartment is damaged, you can move to the second landing compartment and try to evacuate (the reserve of independent movement on batteries is 5-10 km)

[Dometer]

Nowadays, it is not a fantasy to make a combat vehicle autonomous, and if we proceed from practical considerations (and not sculpt future design concepts), combat vehicles could have long been equipped with autonomous control elements activated in cases of a particular situation. For example, if an armored personnel carrier is hit from an ambush, then the crew, leaving the armored vehicle, could activate the autonomous operation of the combat module (to the side, or more precisely) at the location of the enemy (in the "don't spare the barrel resource" mode).
If we proceed from the capabilities of autonomous control, we can make an unarmed armored personnel carrier, the vanguard of which is a small autonomous tracked tankette. The tankette will be controlled (better - "make adjustments to the automatic control") by operators from the armored personnel carrier. (The vehicles do not crawl far apart and there are no problems with loss of communication). On the march, it is possible to provide for the tankette to "slide" onto the roof of the armored personnel carrier (into a specially designated lair). And in difficult road conditions, the tankette will drag behind, and help the armored personnel carrier overcome impassability (pushes).
Thus, the machines are “coupled”, but with the possibility of more flexible “configuration”.

[Grossvater]

Quote: MaxWRX

The main damage is caused by drones and anti-tank missiles

Once, a brilliant author and historian of armored vehicles, Mikhail Baryatinsky, without thinking a bit, in a book dedicated, if I am not mistaken, to the Abrams, let fly the idea that with modern means of destruction, reducing the size of the target no longer has the same significance.
With all due respect to Mikhail Borisovich, it should be acknowledged that he was mistaken here. For ANY means of destruction there is a concept: "Circular probable deviation". Accordingly, the smaller the target, the less likely it is to be hit. By the way, the influence on the vulnerability of the "ground screen" also takes place.

[Cympak]

If the target is attacked from above (Spike, Javelin, Akkeron, NLAW), then the area of ​​the side projection no longer plays a big role, the main thing is the area of ​​the roof.

[Grossvater]

Of course, but a small lateral projection firstly reduces the visibility of the target, as well as the efficiency of the guidance systems, and secondly limits the range of attack means. Therefore, it cannot be said that reducing the lateral projection does not affect anything at all.

[Maxwrx]

Of course, the smaller the better. But drones and anti-tank missiles hit accurately. Mine doesn't care at all. Quo for guns, artillery. More armor, visibility, and convenience are better than small dimensions.

[Mister who]

Hello, what are you talking about, the main advantage is air delivery, high maneuverability, the ability to carry a tank as a temporary firing point to cover the landing, what other or converted combat vehicle can you fit into a transporter??? the technology of an outdated concept of war, now there is no need for them, but let's move away from this, they were intended for landing, landing (not riding) of landing troops at the LBS and cover, now name a foreign analogue that can do the same, oops, but there is none, the order is correct. This was already an outdated concept of warfare, they were intended for rapid response and closing a particularly dangerous situation at the front or taking a special target. Do not confuse with transporters at the front.

[Grossvater]

I would formulate it this way: an outdated vehicle in concept, which, due to its high firepower, was successfully re-qualified from a transport-combat vehicle to a combat-transport vehicle. In fact, it is a good light tank capable of delivering five infantrymen where needed, if necessary. It seems that the development of infantry combat equipment will go in that direction.
By the way, the ability to float, which determined the large internal volume, reduced the vulnerability of the vehicle to cumulative weapons. The deadly, in a small volume, pressure jump when penetrating the armor is not so pronounced.

[Cympak]

Quote: Grossvater

The deadly, small-volume pressure jump when penetrating armor is no longer so pronounced.

This is a misconception. There is no pressure jump when a cumulative jet penetrates armor. There are fragments from the elements of the jet itself, broken-off armor, and a narrow SHOCK WAVE from the jet itself. Which, in a large volume, really does fade faster and is less reflected from internal surfaces.
For light armored vehicles, a breach of armor by a cumulative or high-explosive munition is more dangerous, in this case there are more fragments and the shock wave is much more powerful. An effective way to protect against a breach can be multilayer armor with the resolution of armor plates, the use of fillers between the armor, for example, polyurethane foam.

[Dometer]

This is a misconception. There is no pressure jump when a cumulative jet penetrates armor.

I think the origins of this "myth" are the cumulative ammunition of the Second World War. Their armor penetration was approximately equal to the caliber of the shell, and the armor was penetrated by a stream of gas, not a copper needle. The hole was large (if it penetrated), and a shock wave flowed through this hole.

[AlexisT]

With five hundred horsepower, it would be possible to safely hang another 10 tons of armor, taking into account, of course, the modification of the chassis and the strengthening of the supporting elements of the vehicle’s hull.

[Dometer]

Strengthen the transmission, the engine cooling system, the fuel supply, widen the tracks... and the whole layout will start crawling.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Cympak

Which, in large volumes, really fades faster and is less reflected from internal surfaces.

Apparently I just expressed myself incorrectly. Thanks for the comment.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Cympak

If the target is attacked from above (Spike, Javelin, Akkeron, NLAW), then the area of ​​the side projection no longer plays a big role, the main thing is the area of ​​the roof.

Still, it's not quite so. Initially, the missile flies above the ground and only just before hitting the target does it make a hill and dive towards the target. The small area of ​​the side surface significantly complicates the work of all this color music. Well, and, as I already wrote, significantly reduces the effectiveness of simple and cheap types of anti-tank weapons. Including newfangled drones.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Dometer

The hole was large (if it penetrated), and a shock wave flowed through this hole.

One of my mechanics came up with the following classification: if it's natural, it's a hole. If it's artificial, it's an opening. He still hasn't decided what to do with the anus, though. . It's a pity the theory was sound. .
To be fair, the hole from the godmother during WWII was also no more than cm in diameter.
In general, I won’t judge, but the fact is that in Vietnam, American bazookas did not make much of an impression on the PT-76.

[zxc15682]

Anal opening = a hole of natural origin. Wow... definitely a plug!!! And for the animal world, the anal passage!!! Or an exit.

[Inj Meh]

Personally, from the depths of my own amateurism:

I would take the BMP3, turn it backwards, i.e., in the collapse of the power plant, I would seat a crew of 2 (theoretically, three fit).

I would leave the basic model lightly armored with the ability to swim without additional armor. = landing version.

I would sharpen the entire rear and central space for various standard (in terms of fastening, connectors and dimensions) modules (with varying degrees of armoring), replaceable in the field using self-loading.

I would develop standard factory kits of add-on armor/armoring. (For the non-floating variant, including the landing variant already landed on the beachhead).

I would widen the tracks and strengthen the suspension and make the rear tension rollers (maybe even the last pair) with the ability to lower/raise and use them as support rollers (like the Wiesel). That is, in total 6-8 support rollers per side.

It is possible to obtain a noble modular platform with a chassis size of 15-30t (from the depth of my amateurism) = it is also MTLB and BMP and BTR and other different degrees of spaced armor (armored payload module - basic lightly armored hull - set of add-on armor/armoring)

[smart ass]

Bmp3 is a great light tank, but the BMP is bad

[staer-62]

The main advantages of all produced light equipment that the military boasted about were buoyancy and landing. And this is still the main condition. The fact that not a single one was dropped into battle and not a single one floated is not important.