Modernization of BMP-3 based on the experience of Special Operations

31 554 178
Modernization of BMP-3 based on the experience of Special Operations
A batch of BMP-3s sent to the army at the end of 2023.


One of the main combat armored vehicles of the Russian army is the BMP-3. Infantry fighting vehicles of this type are in service with many units and formations, including those involved in the current Special Operation. By now, a great deal of experience has been gained in the operation and combat use of such equipment in real conflict conditions. This information is used for the further development and improvement of the entire BMP-3 fleet.



In the original configuration


The BMP-3 was adopted by our army in the late eighties. At the same time, serial production began, which continues to this day. The pace of serial production of armored vehicles has constantly changed, and in recent years has increased again. According to various sources, the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant can now build at least 1 of these BMPs per year.

The BMP-3 is a tracked armored vehicle with weapons in a rotating turret and a troop compartment inside the hull. With an overall length of 7,2 m, it has a combat weight of 18,7 tons (in basic configuration). The vehicle crew consists of 3 people, and 7 troops are transported in the corresponding places.

The hull and turret have spaced protection made of aluminum alloy ABT-102. The frontal projection protects against 30-mm shells, the remaining elements of the hull - from bullets and fragments. At various times, projects were proposed to equip the BMP-3 with suspended screens, solid and lattice, as well as dynamic and active protection.


Production of BMP-3 in Kurgan

The BMP-3 turret is equipped with a 100-mm 2A70 gun-launcher with the ability to launch missiles, 30-mm cannon 2A72 and 7,62-mm machine gun PKT. There are also two machine guns in the nose of the hull for firing into the front sector. The fire control system ensures firing at any time of day. With the help of cannons and missiles, the armored vehicle can hit targets at ranges of up to 6-6,5 km.

Initially, the BMP-3 was equipped with a 29 hp UTD-450 diesel engine. Thanks to the tracked drive, the vehicle can reach speeds of up to 70 km/h on the highway. It can move across rough terrain and overcome obstacles. There are two stern water jets for moving on water. They provide a speed of up to 10 km/h.

Protection issue


From the very beginning of the Special Operation, Russian BMP-3s and other armored vehicles faced all the threats that their protection was designed to withstand. Infantry fighting vehicles successfully protected their crews and troops from shelling from infantry weapons, some mines, etc.

However, new threats soon emerged that required a response. Thus, back in 2022, the enemy began to widely use light UAVs with ammunition drop devices. In addition, a number of modern anti-tank missile systems were supplied to it from abroad. In 2023, Drones- FPV-class kamikaze.


BMP-3 with a set of additional protective equipment

The first reaction to new threats appeared in the spring-summer of 2022. The equipment in the troops began to be equipped with additional protection modules of home-made design and assembly. In 2023-24, the defense industry took up this issue. Similar factory-made means appeared, the design of which took into account all requirements.

Currently, serial BMP-3s leave the assembly shop with a full set of additional protection equipment. In addition, such modules are mounted on equipment during factory repairs, and are also sent to units to re-equip their existing BMPs.

As part of factory or home-made modernization, the BMP-3 receives various screens for the hull. Armor plates and/or lattice screens are used. They are used to close the frontal and side projection of the hull. A "visor" or "grill" is mounted on the turret - a lattice or mesh dome on a frame.

The hull screens were initially used to protect against anti-tank weapons, and the "visors" were supposed to throw off falling ammunition. Now, both types of attachments provide protection mainly against FPV drones, which are capable of attacking the IFV from any angle.


As reported, the new BMP-3s are sent to the troops with the "Cape" kit. This is a set of covers made of a special multi-layer material that protects against surveillance in different ranges. The probability of detection of such a vehicle by the enemy is sharply reduced. Various electronic warfare systems designed to suppress the control channels of attacking UAVs have also become widespread.

Mobility characteristics


Additional means of protection increase the combat weight of the BMP-3 by several tons. This leads to a reduction in specific power and negatively affects the mobility characteristics. The domestic industry is currently working on this problem and has already presented its solution.

Enterprises from the Rostec state corporation have recently begun upgrading the BMP-3 power plant. An improved version of the UTD-32 diesel engine was developed, taking into account updated requirements for the main characteristics.

In early August 2025, Rostec announced the start of testing the new engine. In the foreseeable future, all necessary tests will be completed, following which the UTD-32T will enter serial production. After that, such engines will be used in the construction of new IFVs and in the modernization of the existing fleet.


It is reported that the UTD-32T engine differs from previous products by having a turbocharger and a fan cooling system. As a result of this upgrade, the engine's power and other parameters have increased. The new characteristics are not officially disclosed, but according to media reports, the power has increased to 660 hp. At the same time, the engine's weight has increased by only 7%.

Replacing the standard UTD-29 with the new UTD-32T will increase the specific power of the armored vehicle in the basic configuration. In the case of the BMP-3, which has a set of additional equipment, the new engine will return the specific power to the required level or even improve it. The running and maneuverability characteristics will change accordingly.

It is still unknown how soon the UTD-32T product will pass all the necessary tests and begin to be installed on armored vehicles. However, the very fact of the appearance of such an engine and the beginning of its testing brings this moment closer. The introduction of the new power plant is a matter of the foreseeable future, although it will require certain efforts.

Firepower


The BMP-3 has a developed weapons system, including barrel and missile systems. The 2A70 and 2A72 guns, 9M117 missiles, and PKT machine guns allow attacking and destroying manpower, unprotected and armored vehicles, and various structures within a radius of hundreds of meters to several kilometers.


Serial IFV undergoing weapons testing

Combat experience shows that the BMP-3 armament system generally meets modern requirements. Its radical reworking with replacement of key components is not currently required and, as far as is known, is not planned.

However, in the past, the industry proposed various options for such a modernization of the BMP-3. These projects provided for the replacement of the entire fighting compartment with modules with other artillery systems. For example, several experimental armored vehicles on the BMP-3 chassis with the AU220M combat module carrying a 57-mm automatic cannon were demonstrated.

Past and Future


The future BMP-3 was created in the eighties taking into account the requirements of that time. The result of the experimental design work was an armored vehicle with a high level of mobility, protection and firepower. In this form, the BMP entered service and was used for several decades.

However, in 2022, infantry fighting vehicles faced new threats, which forced the Russian army and industry to take urgent measures. Thanks to this, several options for upgrading the BMP-3 appeared, affecting all the main elements and systems. Due to this, all the main characteristics were improved and risks were reduced.

Currently, only modernized combat vehicles with additional equipment are coming off the assembly line. Other modernizations with the introduction of new components are expected. All these measures allow maintaining the characteristics at the required level and eliminating its shortcomings. Thanks to this, the army gets the opportunity to effectively solve problems, and also reduces risks for equipment and personnel.
178 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +35
    27 August 2025 05: 41
    The author poured water, without any specifics, unfortunately
    1. +4
      27 August 2025 06: 07
      Yes, indeed. But it is quite possible that the specifics are classified as "secret". It is not clear, though, why write articles from general phrases at all...
      1. +3
        27 August 2025 12: 41
        But it is quite possible that the specifics are classified as "secret"

        For whom is it a secret? Those who wanted to have already studied it in depth and across.
        1. -5
          27 August 2025 13: 52
          Both my words and yours are from the realm of assumptions. I don't have security clearance, and I suppose you don't either... Only I'm just assuming, and judging by your comment, you know everything about everyone...
          1. +3
            28 August 2025 19: 09
            and judging by your comment, you know everything about everyone...

            What do you know? As a result of "gestures of goodwill" When our troops were leaving Kiev and Kherson, a lot of equipment fell into the hands of the VSUs for one reason or another.
            1. +1
              29 August 2025 06: 03
              As far as I understand, work on upgrading the equipment is not stopping, and the departure of our troops that you are talking about was in 2022. Obviously, BMP-3s are now being produced, modernized in comparison with 2022...
              1. +1
                9 September 2025 16: 44
                Quote: Victor Masyuk
                It is obvious that BMP-3s are currently being produced, modernized in comparison with 2022...

                Well yes, the paint scheme has been changed...
    2. +7
      27 August 2025 06: 11
      Quote from Buyan
      The author poured water, without any specifics, unfortunately

      Well, there are enough photos. The factory package is clearly incomplete. In today's times, such a "barbecue" is simply a mockery even for a tank, not to mention an infantry fighting vehicle.
    3. +9
      27 August 2025 13: 26
      A sea of ​​water, as always! I call it "Doshirak Ryabov style": a pile of "noodles" seasoned with all sorts of junk from "bags", and lots and lots of "water"!
    4. +1
      3 September 2025 13: 58
      [Quote] [/ quote]
      Why details for whom?
      So that the enemy knows?
  2. +13
    27 August 2025 06: 20
    The main conclusion from the experience of the SVO regarding the modernization of both the BMP-3 and other armored vehicles should probably be that, in addition to screens and DZ, they should be equipped with powerful means for suppressing and destroying FPV drones.
    An infantry fighting vehicle or a tank is not an air defense system, but within a radius of 100-200 m, their anti-drone air defense system should provide almost 100% protection for both the vehicles and the infantry interacting with these armored vehicles.
    Without a breakthrough in this direction, the effective use of armored vehicles and breakthroughs and envelopments, i.e. maneuverable combat operations, and therefore a relatively rapid defeat of the enemy, is impossible.
    1. +6
      27 August 2025 07: 40
      It would also be good to abandon water navigation - it was never needed during the war - with the abundance of many rivers and streams. The freed-up several tons could be used to strengthen the armor.

      but in general it would be nice to think about a new tank and a new infantry fighting vehicle after the end of the mess.
      1. +6
        27 August 2025 08: 07
        What freed-up several tons are you talking about???
        1. +3
          27 August 2025 09: 18
          Minusators. I have a question for you too. What freed up several tons are we talking about?
          Victims of the exam.
          1. +6
            27 August 2025 10: 45
            Quote: garri-lin
            About some released tons

            I'm not one of the "minus" people, but judging by the context, they mean:
            water pumps, water jet engines, control system for all this equipment.

            I don't know how much all this weighs together, but it is obvious that for the same weight, volume or money, other elements for more frequently used functions than water navigation can be installed on the BMP. By the way, maintenance time and the hassle for the technical personnel also play a role. Yes
            1. +1
              27 August 2025 11: 06
              Everything connected with movement on water weighs a couple of hundred kilograms and costs pennies. There is a primitive system. Simple and reliable as Swiss chocolate.
              1. +3
                27 August 2025 11: 17
                Quote: garri-lin
                a couple of hundred kilograms and costs pennies

                Maybe so, I haven't seen any precise data. But it's better to get rid of even hundreds of kilos and kopecks if they don't bring any benefit, but bring harm (an idea to swim across a water obstacle with an unprepared bank, and not on a perfectly sealed vehicle, may come into a bad head).

                But the main complaint about the watercraft is not the presence of useless systems, but the impossibility of strengthening the armor, which would greatly help in terms of resistance to drone attacks. Since, with strengthened armor, the requirement for watercraft is impossible to fulfill. sad
                1. 0
                  27 August 2025 12: 11
                  More than 10 years ago, a set of add-on armor was presented that will greatly increase protection from cumulative shells and, due to the filling with porous materials, also has positive buoyancy. BMP 3 can easily surpass Bradley in protection and at the same time retain its weapons and ability to swim. The only question is the price.
                  1. +4
                    27 August 2025 12: 23
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    a set of add-on armor that will greatly increase protection against cumulative shells

                    Normal steel armor and normal DZ on it greatly increase protection against HEAT, the rest is from the evil one, a waste of money. Yes

                    And most importantly, why go to such lengths, spend a ton of money for the sake of a meager increase in protection, etc., in the spirit of stretching an owl onto a globe, just for the sake of preserving the function of water navigation, which is useless in the current conditions?
                    1. -3
                      27 August 2025 13: 22
                      It is possible to equip absolutely all existing BMP 3 with these kits. The decision on production should have been made two years ago.
                      It is easier to make a set of DZ with screens than the required number of new infantry fighting vehicles.
                      1. +5
                        27 August 2025 14: 12
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Lighter DZ kit with screens

                        Of course, it is much easier, but the quality of protection of the BMP with such kits is much lower than with steel armor and DZ. And these are the lives of our soldiers, and in general - the ability to perform a combat mission. And the experience of the SVO shows that BMPs have practically ceased to be used for delivering infantry directly to the LBS due to extremely weak protection. The installation of such kits will not improve the situation dramatically.

                        Ideally, it would be necessary to build new IFVs, albeit in smaller quantities, but with normal protection and without amphibious capabilities. But those already built can be modernized using similar methods. request
                      2. +1
                        27 August 2025 15: 30
                        Quote: Netl
                        And the experience of the SVO shows that IFVs have practically ceased to be used for delivering infantry directly to LBS due to their extremely weak protection.

                        So they were replaced by motorcycles?
                      3. +6
                        27 August 2025 15: 41
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        That's why they were replaced by motorcycles.

                        Exactly! Speed, visual maneuverability, and in the case of electric cycles, acoustic stealth also provide good protection against drones. Either decent armor with ERA or the above.

                        And the BMP-3 is neither this nor that sad
                      4. -3
                        27 August 2025 20: 08
                        So this is dynamic protection and screens. And also widely spaced. And it increases the level of protection quite high.
                      5. -1
                        28 August 2025 09: 09
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        So this is dynamic protection and screens

                        That's right, but due to the requirement to ensure legality, there are restrictions on the weight and types of materials used.
                        Of course, it turns out better than doing nothing, but the protection is much worse than if there were no such restrictions.

                        Plus, aluminum armor does not allow for the installation of sufficiently powerful ERA, so here too we get a shameful ersatz. sad
                      6. +2
                        28 August 2025 09: 41
                        What do you mean by ERA of sufficient power? Transfer the BMP to the tank weight category?
                      7. 0
                        28 August 2025 09: 53
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Convert BMP to tank weight category

                        Heavy infantry fighting vehicles as one of the options.

                        But, in principle, even medium-sized vehicles (a properly upgraded Kurganets or something similar) with the installation of DZ would already provide a significantly higher level of protection than the most modernized BMP-3. request
                      8. +1
                        28 August 2025 14: 42
                        That's the point, Russia needs heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), BTRs. Kurganets, or even better, Armata T 15.
                        But we also need light, mass-produced and many. There are not enough BMP 3s as it is. And it is better to modernize them by installing a specialized DZ than to switch to producing new models.
                        By the way, according to the developers, the new DZ developed on the basis of Kaktus copes with its task quite well. And if you add anti-drone mesh screens, the protection will fully correspond to the threats.
                      9. +1
                        28 August 2025 16: 53
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But we also need light, mass and multi-purpose ones.

                        In today's conditions, light ones are something like bugs that can compete in speed with a drone. And preferably on a hybrid or electric drive, so that the enemy's acoustic reconnaissance does not immediately notice them. Such ones are really capable of delivering fighters to the front.

                        But the role of the BMP-3 is unclear. There are few of them because they were burned en masse by drones. But even where they exist, they are practically not used in combat because they are extremely vulnerable. There were videos of people trying to shoot them from closed positions, but in this quality they are inferior to the tank in everything. And the tank's survivability is incomparably higher and the gun does much more damage.

                        It is impossible to transport soldiers in the BMP-3 now, since drones are already operating 30 km from the LBS, and the BMP-3 has neither stealth, nor speed, nor protection, and is also very noisy.
                        For what purpose can they be used at all in the current conditions?
                      10. 0
                        28 August 2025 16: 59
                        SVO is the last war??
                        So, once we win, peace will come to the whole world?
                        These are just the beginning. But the berries can be very large.
                      11. -2
                        28 August 2025 17: 15
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        SVO is the last war??

                        It's hard to predict, but knowing the history of mankind, most likely not.
                        But it is already clear that the SVO successfully used a method to easily and cheaply destroy mass armor like the BMP-3. And no one will forget this method.

                        Future wars require completely different machines. For now, it seems like either heavy, super-protected or very fast, super-maneuverable. Perhaps in the future, the situation will change, but for now, there are no other options in sight. request
                      12. +1
                        28 August 2025 17: 31
                        Easy and cheap in positional warfare. For which neither the Union nor Russia ever prepared. The equipment was created for blitzkriegs, dashes to the English Channel and trips across the earth scorched by the atom.
                        Maneuver and only maneuver. Super armor can be penetrated and will always be penetrated.
                        Light mobile vehicles are needed and the BMP 3 is suitable for this role. Even if it is not ideal. We should not replace what we have. We should supplement it with what is needed.
                        Where is the KAZ??? But it solves the drone problem. Put 3 KAZ on the BMP and it will be able to attack and use weapons from non-closed positions.
                        In the realities of the SVO, it is necessary to accelerate the development of military equipment. To practice new developments.
                      13. +1
                        29 August 2025 08: 07
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        It needs to be supplemented with what is needed.

                        So, the whole point is that now you need either super-speed and maneuverability or super-protection. There is no way to move the BMP-3 to super-speed, and you can add steel armor like the Bradley, but the requirement for buoyancy gets in the way request

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Where is KAZ??? But it solves the drone problem

                        It doesn't solve it. Right now - it doesn't solve it at all, they write that they can't solve the problem if the attacking object is significantly slower than the ATGM. But even if they solve it, there is still no solution to a simultaneous coordinated attack. And there is no light in sight yet. sad

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        In the realities of the Central Military District, it is necessary to accelerate the development of military equipment.

                        That's what's happening, but you don't like that this development doesn't lead to a maneuver war in the spirit of WW2. Here, by the way, the reason is rather in the sharply increased awareness (it's not possible to suddenly redeploy a tank army). And in tactical terms, this means that the enemy sees any unit of armor from the moment it appears, and the quantity no longer decides anything request
                      14. 0
                        29 August 2025 10: 16
                        And Bradleys don't burn?
                        They burn. Yes, they are more durable. Yes, the layout.
                        I'm just trying to say that the BMP 3 can be brought to a similar level of armor. The kits were developed a long time ago and were modernized based on the situation in the SVO. The weight increases slightly. The protection is significant. Only the troops don't have it.
                        Well, no need for fairy tales. The APS sees everything. Selecting dangerous targets from harmless ones is a software issue, not a hardware issue. And a coordinated salvo at several targets is also a software issue. Have military engineers forgotten how to program?
                        More than 5 years ago, Afganit worked on BOPS. Can you imagine how fast it is? Drones are tens of times slower. Even if there were a dozen of them, it would not be difficult for the KAZ to track them.
                        Yes, development is moving towards not the 2nd world war but the XNUMXst world war. Trench clinch. And stalemate.
                        Armor is definitely inferior to weapons. And betting ONLY on armor is a loss.
                        Maneuver was and remains a priority. Equipment needs to have a balance between armor and maneuver.
                      15. +4
                        29 August 2025 10: 39
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The BMP 3 can also be upgraded to a similar level of armor

                        That's the thing, it's not similar, but lower. And the reason is that Bradley also used to have a buoyancy requirement, but then it was removed. Therefore, the developers were able to hang steel armor on top and use other design solutions, which significantly increased protection. But our developers do not have such an opportunity, they have to stretch the owl, for the sake of maintaining the damn buoyancy.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Well, no need for fairy tales. KAZ sees everything.

                        I would like not to talk about "fairy tales", but simply to see a working APS that effectively repels a swarm of drones. If only someone in the world would release one. The question would be closed. But that is not the case. sad

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Maneuver was and remains a priority.

                        Maybe. But the maneuver in the current conditions will most likely be implemented in a completely different way. Not by a crowd of armored vehicles, but by a crowd of mass, small and cheap drones (both ground and air) and communications for them. Mass BMPs, APCs are not needed at all, and heavy ones - in small quantities for pinpoint assault actions, where the situation allows.

                        By the way, there is already experience that the mass use of drones by Rubicon has radically changed the situation on the battlefield.
                      16. 0
                        29 August 2025 12: 33
                        Steel armor is the least effective against a cumulative jet. Distance and materials of different densities are much more effective. And additional protection for the BMP 3 is based on this principle.
                        An effectively functioning KAZ???
                        Today this is such a strategically important parameter that it will not be declassified.
                        And Russia, which needs it, can do it piecemeal. Judging by the level of corruption, it's high time to switch from executions to gallows. For clarity. But the cart is still there.
                        The territory is considered occupied only when Simple Infantryman Vanya sits quietly and smokes.
                        That's Our Earth then. It's always been like that and it always will be like that. So drones are the vanguard. And if infantry is needed, then infantry maneuver is also needed. And consequently, the means of their delivery. And in any case, a target that is inconvenient to hit is better than one that can withstand a blow.
                      17. +1
                        29 August 2025 14: 17
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Steel armor is the least effective against a cumulative jet. Distance

                        Steel armor is more effective against a cumulative jet than aluminum of the same mass, check on the Internet. Aluminum gives a slight advantage only against high-explosive fragmentation damage. (When these IFVs were designed, it was believed that they should withstand inaccurate howitzer fire).
                        As for the spread, the cumulative jet retains its effectiveness at a distance of up to 10 charge diameters. Now, imagine if you can spread it by, say, a meter. And what will prevent the enemy in this case from using a cumulative BP with diameters of, say, 15 cm (the carrying capacity of drones has long allowed this).

                        In addition, steel armor gives another important plus! It allows you to hang more DZ and not break inside from its use. And high-quality DZ against cumulative - very important.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Today this is such a strategically important parameter that it will not be declassified.

                        Yes, one tank with an effective APS could provide a breakthrough of 10 kilometers deep (and this is a rare success in these days). After all, the Ukrainian Nazis often hold their defenses only on drones. If not ours, then the Ukrainians themselves would immediately declassify the tank that can easily shoot down drones on the fly. The entire telegram from all sides would be raging from these films. But there is no data, which means there is no such APS. sad

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And consequently the means of their delivery. And in any case, a target that is difficult to hit is better than one that can withstand a blow.

                        Everything you write is correct. And we discussed this above. An inconvenient target is something like a bug or even less. And the BMP-3 is simply super convenient, especially if at least partially the ammunition for the gun is loaded. request
                      18. 0
                        30 August 2025 12: 55
                        Armor is armor. Steel, aluminum or composite. Against a cumulative charge, it is ONLY the BASIS of ERA and screens. The sides of the BMP 3 are strong enough to install both ERA and screens on them.
                        There is no information because it is not on the SVO. Russia will say I have it and they will ask why not on the BM. And what to answer if the country is not up to the mark in industry and finance.
                        The Outskirts definitely don't have it. In the West, if there is, they clearly won't shout. It's strategically important.
                        So the Bradley is a convenient target. And the tank is a convenient target. It's just that some things are more convenient and some are less convenient. And at the same time, some things can accomplish their task and some things do it with difficulty.
                        I repeat. It is quite possible to increase the level of protection of the BMP 3 to the level of the Bradley. This will increase the survivability of the vehicle. And it will not overweight the vehicle. That is, the vehicle will remain quite mobile. Pros without cons.
                        But we need to work on TBMP and TBTR. But the point in them is questionable because they cannot be compared with a tank in terms of armor and will be a priority target.
                      19. +1
                        31 August 2025 14: 09
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Against the cumulative it is ONLY THE BASIS OF DZ

                        Resistance to a cumulative jet depends on the melting point of the material. The worst is aluminum, better is steel, even better - ceramic inserts. But as a base for the DZ, steel is better with the same mass, since it allows you to place more explosives in the DZ without the risk of damaging your armor.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        the country is not up to par in terms of industry and finance

                        There are posts above with convincing evidence that the loss of a squad of fighters is much more expensive than an IFV in terms of finances alone. If we talk about tanks, for which the APS is more important, then 1 tank with an effective APS will cost at least 10 without APS. Since ours practically cannot use them now, they do not reach LBS because of drones. And the cost of APS is about 30% of the cost of the tank. In terms of money, the gain would be huge, the problem is the lack of a normal APS.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        In the West, if there is, they obviously won't shout

                        Israel would have shown. They have the best technologies on the subject. And yet, on the contrary, there were examples of how Merkavas were burned by drones that were incomparably more primitive than those of the Ukrainian Nazis. By the way, the Merkava is closer to a heavy armored personnel carrier than to a tank. Yes

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But we need to work on the TBMP and TBTR

                        I agree with this, but I think that in the future their niche will be narrow, even in case of successful implementation. And for the masses, very cheap small platforms are needed. The BTR-3 should be stopped being produced. There is no benefit and none is expected, and resources need to be freed up. Yes
                      20. 0
                        31 August 2025 15: 41
                        The amount of explosives in the ERA does not matter. The new generation is completely without explosives. The main thing there is the movement of the plate with an angle relative to the axis of the cumulative jet. So the opinion about the strength of the main armor for the sake of using ERA is somewhat far-fetched.
                        The industry cannot handle mass production. KAZ. Enormous funds are needed to modernize entire industries.
                        Israel loves to brag. But they have stirred up a hornet's nest now. And it is highly likely that what has been happening in Israel for the last year is only the beginning. So perhaps they have an ace up their sleeve.
                        Moreover, their Trophy was initially a very flexible system.
                        Merkava is closer to a pillbox. Although it can carry troops inside.
                        Yes, the heavies will have a narrow niche of application. But they were needed yesterday. Just like Derivation. As a mass self-propelled mortar for 120 mm with a smart sight. And much more.
                        BMP 3 is an element of the system. But in fact, the troops do not have even half of the elements of that system. Of course, an incompletely assembled mechanism will not work.
                      21. 0
                        27 August 2025 22: 35
                        on the contrary, all BMPs have turned into armored personnel carriers and only the BMP-3 performs its function when it fires from a cannon from closed positions

                        normal protection in our time is from 30 tons, naturally you can forget about overcoming water obstacles with such a weight
                        but such an IFV will not be in service with the Russian army in principle, there is no money for it, even the BMP-3 is expensive, but the BMP-2 is a different matter
              2. +1
                27 August 2025 12: 14
                From the forest to the pine, and to the naked... Well, to each his own. And they didn't think about the restrictions imposed on "floating" equipment. Besides, these two water jets and those snails that are installed on watercraft are two very different things (as they used to say in Odessa). And the total weight of all the equipment, most likely, is a ton, or even more. And you don't take into account the gain in production technology in case of abandoning the floating? And the free volumes in the fighting (landing) compartment are also nonsense?
                So there is more than one meaning in abandoning this function (at least)
                1. +1
                  27 August 2025 12: 59
                  Quote: Roman_VH
                  And the total weight of all the equipment most likely amounts to a ton, or even more.
                  Look at the BMP-3 diagram. The engine compartment with water jets is circled in red. The engine weighing 850 kg takes up most of the compartment.
                  What needs to be removed to get tons of winnings?
                  1. +1
                    27 August 2025 13: 47
                    So you're talking about "tons" again. In my post I wrote about a possible TON.
                  2. 0
                    27 August 2025 18: 56
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    Look at the BMP-3 diagram. The engine compartment with water jets is circled in red. The engine weighing 850 kg takes up most of the compartment.
                    What needs to be removed to get tons of winnings?

                    There is a simpler approach to the issue. This engine placement (extremely inconvenient for landing troops) is determined by the ability to float. The "weight distribution" is simpler.
                    In general, the BMP-3 has outlived its usefulness. The future belongs to other vehicles.
                2. -1
                  27 August 2025 13: 25
                  Well, actually, they've already answered here.
                  Russia needs a heavy IFV and APC. Ideally on the Armata platform. The one with the T 15. But there is no need to give up the light ones. Especially if TECHNICALLY and TECHNOLOGICALLY they can be made better
                  1. 0
                    27 August 2025 13: 49
                    I saw these cars live at the parade rehearsal in 15. They inspired confidence with their power. But accountants won over common sense. As always
                    1. +1
                      27 August 2025 14: 02
                      Yeah. You can't argue with that. Finances decide everything.
                      1. +1
                        27 August 2025 16: 00
                        I wonder, what's the minus in the previous post? Or are these the same accountants? :))
                      2. 0
                        27 August 2025 20: 10
                        It's not me. There are a lot of minus-voters here. And the site administration doesn't want to make it so that you can only put a minus with an explanation of the reason.
        2. 0
          9 September 2025 16: 48
          Quote: garri-lin
          What freed-up several tons are you talking about???

          Well, how about that? Uranium oars, lead life jackets, osmium coating against rust a centimeter thick, a golden water rudder, a dinghy for supplying the BMP in a floating state...
    2. 0
      27 August 2025 08: 58
      Quote: Alekseev
      The main conclusion from the experience of the SVO regarding the modernization of both the BMP-3,


      The main conclusion should be the complete cessation of production of the BMP-3, as a completely failed and completely unusable model of military equipment.
      A car with ideas from the 50s and 60s and the same level of implementation.
      Take captured Bradleys and make your own new IFVs based on their concepts, their experience, their implementations.
      1. -1
        27 August 2025 10: 50
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Take captured Bradleys and make your own new IFVs

        The problem is that Bradley is a little better in drone wars, but still not great.
        Now the question is, is armored vehicles needed at all?
        1. -2
          27 August 2025 12: 18
          Quote: Netl
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Take captured Bradleys and make your own new IFVs

          The problem is that Bradley is a little better in drone wars, but still not great.
          Now the question is, is armored vehicles needed at all?


          Bradley is much better, many times over.
          Once every 5-10.
          There are only a few torn Bradleys.
          Also very little has been captured.
          That is, Bradley normally recovers after being hit by drones. At least 5-6 drones are normal for hitting Bradley, but not for destroying it.
          This is an indicator.

          With the BMP-3, things are much worse.
          1-2 drones are usually enough for total annihilation.
          1. +6
            27 August 2025 14: 27
            Quote: SovAr238A
            minimum 5-6 drones is normal to defeat Bradley

            I don’t know the source of these and other figures given, it’s unlikely to be reliable.
            But even so. Let's assume that 10 drones are enough to damage Bradley.

            In terms of money, drones cost less than Bradleys - by many orders of magnitude. Technically, it is not a problem to produce 10 drones for one BMP. It is clear that the Ukrainians got Bradleys for free, but if they build them themselves, then it is a very dubious idea in the current conditions. request
            1. +9
              27 August 2025 15: 41
              Quote: Netl

              In terms of money, drones cost less than Bradleys - by many orders of magnitude. Technically, it is not a problem to produce 10 drones for one BMP. It is clear that the Ukrainians got Bradleys for free, but if they build them themselves, then it is a very dubious idea in the current conditions. request


              All right.
              let's settle for money.

              The production of the BMP-3, according to 2019 prices, cost 85 million rubles.

              Samara region
              25000 children per year is the average birth rate.
              In 2018, there were approximately 420 thousand people in kindergartens and schools.
              In the preschool and school education system alone in the Samara region there were 51 thousand people. Of these, there were only 20 thousand teachers and educators. Let's not forget the ratio.
              About 70 thousand is medical support for childhood. From maternity hospitals, polyclinics, children's hospitals, pioneer camps. With all the accompanying positions. From an electrician, accountant, janitor, driver driving the head of the polyclinic and not only, to all sorts of health ministries with ambulance services.

              Let the total be 120000 people.
              Plus all sorts of government spending on youth ministries and other heresies and non-heresies, clubs, libraries, sections.
              And buildings that need energy, heat, repairs - which in total per square meter can come out to an average of 5 thousand per month. It is necessary to build new hospitals and schools, with multi-billion dollar costs.
              I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount that the state indirectly spends on one abstract child is approximately 100 thousand rubles per month.
              Not counting maternity capital.
              This is an average of 24 million rubles.
              The state directly and indirectly spent 20 million rubles on each person who lived to be 24. A huge wad of money.

              Now put 10 of these packs of money into a BMP-3 = you get almost 240 million rubles.
              But in reality there are many more, because they still need to be prepared for the army.
              Don’t you think that 240 million rubles for “meat” doesn’t compare to 85 million “for hardware”?

              That "meat" is much more expensive and takes much longer to grow?
              Maybe that's why we should do it like Bradley?
              It does not annihilate itself. Saving money.
              The crew protects - saving money.
              1. +2
                27 August 2025 15: 52
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Approximately 70 thousand is medical support for children

                If you think so, money, then the calculation is incorrect. Those who are fighting now are in most cases born in the USSR.

                But overall I agree with you, losing people because of low-quality armor is unacceptable. The problem is different, you are suggesting to replace one bad thing with another - also bad.

                But in reality, both sides now very rarely use armor to deliver infantry to the front. And Bradley is also almost never seen in new footage. Infantry moves either on foot or on something small, fast and quiet. So the reality itself at the front shows the non-survival of classic IFVs.

                So far, no one has used heavy IFVs with tank-level protection. There are options here. And there is no point in making an analogue of Bradley, IMHO. request
              2. +1
                27 August 2025 19: 17
                Quote: SovAr238A
                All right.
                let's settle for money.

                Wow!!! It's not often you see such a pragmatic and sensible approach to the topic laughing!
                But seriously... even when I was studying at the Department of Healthcare Organization in 1995, it was already proven that healthcare (medicine) is the most profitable industry in the country. Maintaining the health and working capacity of the population pays off the state a hundredfold (approximately three times) from the costs you listed above.
                I completely agree with you, PEOPLE ARE THE MAIN VALUE.
                It's a pity I can only give one +.
              3. 0
                27 August 2025 22: 46
                Bradley in Ukraine is not a BMP but just a heavy armored personnel carrier, like M113 only with a gun, it carries infantry to the LBS and back without ATGMs and ammunition for the gun in the troop compartment
                serial production and operation of such a 30-ton armored personnel carrier for the Russian army is very expensive and therefore it will not be in service
                At the 2025 Victory Parade they showed a modernized BMP-2, this is your future, a light and therefore cheap BMP
        2. 0
          9 September 2025 16: 50
          Quote: Netl
          Now the question is, is armored vehicles needed at all?

          definitely needed. It's not the Bradley that needs to be copied, but the Americans' methodical approach to protecting the BMP. It's not always possible to disable it with the first hit. It's also obvious that maneuverability shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of protection.
      2. +5
        27 August 2025 11: 55
        Bradley is a so-so option. The Swedish BMP is much better. It is more protected and has higher firepower. And simpler. The most interesting thing is that the CV90 is a BMP-2 brought to perfection. This is the direction they should have gone in, not to build a three-wheeler that has no analogues in the world.
        1. 0
          27 August 2025 12: 24
          Last but not least, the survivability of BMPs and APCs depends on their mobility on the battlefield. You can strengthen the armor protection of the BMP and get a clumsy vehicle that gets stuck on black soil, which will increase losses. And tanks burn from drones, so powerful armor is not a panacea here.
          1. +1
            27 August 2025 13: 00
            You are right - tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, both ours and foreign ones, burn from drones. But there is a nuance - Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles do not explode from the detonation of ammunition immediately after a shell hits. Unlike our equipment. Accordingly, their crew and troops have time to escape. And ours very often do not. And the advantage of our equipment in mobility is not a plus for those fighting on it.
            Only the English Challengers are blown to pieces; their ammunition arrangement is similar to ours.
          2. -1
            27 August 2025 18: 18
            The war is fought if not on the roads, then in agricultural fields. Where wheeled vehicles work just fine. And the speed is so-so, if you can lay a minefield in minutes. And for the BMP-3, even an anti-personnel mine would be enough.
            1. +2
              27 August 2025 18: 43
              Quote: Vlad2012
              And for the BMP-3, even an anti-personnel mine will be enough.
              Provide a link to the source of information about the threat of anti-personnel mines for the BMP-3
              1. +1
                27 August 2025 19: 02
                Read about the use of BMP-1, BMP-2 in Afghanistan. If the BMP-2 has an 8 mm steel bottom, then the BMP-3 has 10 mm AMG-6. Which is equivalent at best.
                1. +2
                  27 August 2025 19: 07
                  Quote: Vlad2012
                  Read about the use of BMP-1, BMP-2 in Afghanistan. If the BMP-2 has an 8 mm steel bottom, then the BMP-3 has 10 mm AMG-6. Which is equivalent at best.

                  Will there be links about the danger of infantry mines for the BMP-3?
                  1. -4
                    27 August 2025 19: 15
                    Try to find arguments against it yourself. Or pay me a salary.
                    1. 0
                      27 August 2025 23: 58
                      Quote: Vlad2012
                      Try to find arguments against it yourself. Or pay me a salary.
                      Clear,
                      regarding the threat of anti-personnel mines to the BMP-3 chassis, there was no evidence empty chatter.
                      The most common anti-personnel mine in Ukraine today is the PFM-1 "Lepestok", where the mass of liquid explosive (VS-6D) is 37 grams. These 37 grams are like a pellet for an elephant for the steel track of an infantry fighting vehicle (any, by the way).
                      1. 0
                        28 August 2025 09: 38
                        And the second and third or fourth and tenth most common? ) They saw them in garages and on their knees, and that's in addition to foreign deliveries. A banal piece of explosive with a "Jonik" weighing more than 160 grams? And if God forbid, half a kilo or a kilo? for the bottom and the landing party.
                      2. +2
                        28 August 2025 11: 40
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: Vlad2012
                        Try to find arguments against it yourself. Or pay me a salary.
                        Clear,
                        regarding the threat of anti-personnel mines to the BMP-3 chassis, there was no evidence empty chatter.
                        The most common anti-personnel mine in Ukraine today is the PFM-1 "Lepestok", where the mass of liquid explosive (VS-6D) is 37 grams. These 37 grams are like a pellet for an elephant for the steel track of an infantry fighting vehicle (any, by the way).


                        Study the Soviet material.
                        Bulletin of armored vehicles. 1978. No. 1
                        P. P. KOCHEGAROV
                        MINE RESISTANCE OF IFV DURING EXPLOSIONS ON ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES

                        Quotes
                        Tests have shown that the BMP track can withstand the explosion of high-explosive anti-tank mines with a charge weight of up to 0,16 kg. As the charge weight increases, the probability of the track being broken and the vehicle losing its mobility as a result increases (Fig. 1). The track is the weakest element of the BMP in terms of mine resistance.
                        When fragmentation mines explode under the chassis, damage is caused mainly by the action of the shock wave. And since fragmentation antitank mines have a larger charge mass than high-explosive ones, the degree of damage they cause is also aggravated. Thus, when an M18A1 mine exploded under the roller and the middle of the track of the BMP, the support roller was disabled, the track was broken, and the shock absorber rod and balance beam received residual deformation. Fragmentation mines pose the greatest danger when they explode under the bottom of the vehicle. If the bottom is insufficiently strong, it can be pierced through, which, in particular, was noted in the BMP when an M18A1 mine exploded. The area of ​​the rupture of the bottom was 185 × 630 mm. The shrapnel pierced the engine block-crankcase (hole 200 × 70 mm). Other engine components were also destroyed, leading to its failure. To restore the car, a major overhaul was required.


                        So the PPM is dangerous for the BMP.
                        And what you call "empty chatter" means only your personal, isolated opinion. It is formed only by what only you have seen.
                        As they say: when living on a desert island, a hollow tree is more beautiful than Claudia Schiffer...
                      3. -1
                        28 August 2025 11: 44
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        what you call "empty chatter" means only your personal, individual opinion. It is formed only by what only you have seen

                        It's funny. Someone from the couch is arguing with a tanker. I'll be watching the continuation with interest... although, if I were the tanker, I wouldn't answer.

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        37 grams for a steel track of an infantry fighting vehicle (and any one at that) is like a pellet for an elephant

                        I will subscribe, perhaps Yes
                      4. +1
                        28 August 2025 11: 55
                        Quote: Paranoid62
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        what you call "empty chatter" means only your personal, individual opinion. It is formed only by what only you have seen

                        It's funny. Someone from the couch is arguing with a tanker. I'll be watching the continuation with interest... although, if I were the tanker, I wouldn't answer.

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        37 grams for a steel track of an infantry fighting vehicle (and any one at that) is like a pellet for an elephant

                        I will subscribe, perhaps Yes


                        Funny.
                        I see a lot of "narrow specialists" who live only by what they have seen themselves.
                        They completely ignore the experience and words of the department professors and “parallel specialists”.
                        Because they believe only their own eyes.
                        This usually doesn't end very well.
                      5. -1
                        28 August 2025 12: 02
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        I see a lot of "narrow specialists" who live only by what they have seen themselves.

                        Attention, the key here is - you saw it yourself. With your own eyes, repeatedly Yes

                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        They completely ignore the experience and words of the department professors, "parallel specialists"

                        Exactly. What the teachers say there depends greatly on the conditions in which the tests were conducted.

                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        Because they believe only their own eyes

                        So exactly Yes

                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        This usually doesn't end very well.

                        So far everything is fine. I've been living here for a long time, I'm already used to it. request
                      6. 0
                        28 August 2025 12: 21
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        And what you call "empty chatter" means only yours
                        "empty chatter" is what I call unsubstantiated information. The opinion you express should be supported by references to the source of information, and not send the person who doubts it to look for the information himself.
                        By the way, unlike old anti-personnel mines, all modern ones use a minimum of explosives, since they began to think that there is no need to tear off both legs of a person, it is enough to damage only the foot and the warrior is no longer a fighter, therefore now there is a minimum of explosives in an anti-personnel mine. And to damage the BMP-1-2 track, it requires 160 grams or more. And a lot depends on the location of the explosion on the track.
                      7. +1
                        28 August 2025 15: 32
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        And what you call "empty chatter" means only yours
                        "empty chatter" is what I call unsubstantiated information. The opinion you express should be supported by references to the source of information, and not send the person who doubts it to look for the information himself.
                        By the way, unlike old anti-personnel mines, all modern ones use a minimum of explosives, since they began to think that there is no need to tear off both legs of a person, it is enough to damage only the foot and the warrior is no longer a fighter, therefore now there is a minimum of explosives in an anti-personnel mine. And to damage the BMP-1-2 track, it requires 160 grams or more. And a lot depends on the location of the explosion on the track.


                        Well, you shouldn't stop only at PFM petals.
                        They are not the only ones.PPM.
                        As far as I know, Claymores with their 700 grams of explosives still exist and are even present and used by the Ukrainian side.
                        PMN with 200 grams is still there.
                        There are also OZMs.
                        There are also MONs.

                        There is a sapper channel on TG with a not very harmonious name, we will simply call it FET... and there they twisted in their hands such a quantity of mines of factory and personal manufacture that it is amazing. And all this is in Ukraine.
                      8. +2
                        28 August 2025 16: 00
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        As far as I know, Claymores with their 700 grams of explosives still exist and are even present and used by the Ukrainian side.
                        PMN with 200 grams is still there.
                        There are also OZMs.
                        There are also MONs.

                        thanks for the info
        2. -1
          27 August 2025 15: 10
          Quote: belost79
          Bradley is a so-so option. The Swedish BMP is much better. It is more protected and has higher firepower. And simpler. The most interesting thing is that the CV90 is a BMP-2 brought to perfection. This is the direction they should have gone in, not to build a three-wheeler that has no analogues in the world.

          Well, the BMP-2 should not be attached to the Swedish IFV.
          They are completely different.
          Someone wrote 15 years ago that the CV90 is a BMP-2 brought to perfection.
          So this incorrect thesis is repeated.
          They're just different cars in every way.
        3. 0
          27 August 2025 23: 02
          where is sv-90 a bmp-2???

          Beginning in February 2011, in order to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle wear in the army, and accordingly, reduce the cost of its operation, it is planned to dismantle add-on armor from all previously delivered CV 90.35 IFVs. At the same time, vehicles that continue to arrive from the manufacturer are also supplied without add-on armor. Add-on armor kits weighing six tons per vehicle are stored[6].

          without add-on armor, the SV 90 is about on par with the BMP-3 in terms of protection, maybe even worse; it’s impossible to get reasonable protection with such a huge hull and turret
      3. -3
        27 August 2025 11: 58
        The order for the production of BMP-3 is already ten years in advance
        1. -3
          27 August 2025 12: 25
          Quote: Nastia Makarova
          The order for the production of BMP-3 is already ten years in advance
          So it has proven itself well.
          1. +1
            27 August 2025 19: 22
            Quote: Bad_gr
            So it has proven itself well.

            Not at all necessary. It's just easier to produce and you don't have to worry about new models and modernizing production for them.
  3. +1
    27 August 2025 06: 30
    a set for dropping a grenade into a hatch, camouflage, and that's it.
    Protection against drones - %%30.
  4. +3
    27 August 2025 06: 51
    "In the foreseeable future, all necessary tests will be completed, following which the UTD-32T will enter serial production."
    i.e. everything is still the same, the engine is old and in the middle of the body?
    It was the fourth year of the war.
    1. -3
      27 August 2025 07: 36
      Quote: Shiry Prapor
      i.e. everything is still the same, the engine is old and in the middle of the body?

      Is UTD-32 old or bad?
      Or is the ensign not "Copenhagen"? wink
      On our T-90 we have a diesel engine from the 40s, based on the model from the 40s of the last century, but in terms of price and quality it corresponds to its intended purpose as a tank diesel engine.
      And there are many who want to remake it because it's not worth doing or to get profit. But modernizations are not always done wisely, and that's why they are expensive and ineffective.
      1. 0
        27 August 2025 08: 49
        Does it comply? No one would take on TDF or GTD if it did.
        1. +2
          27 August 2025 10: 06
          Quote: anclevalico
          Does it comply? No one would undertake TDF or GTD if it did.

          What came out of TDF is known. GTD is also not for the sinful earth, but more for heaven.
          But what exactly do the B-92, B-84 and other engines from the old B-2 family not correspond to, based on your experience of operating these diesel engines?
          I had to deal with TDF to a greater extent. Maybe that's why I'm so angry at them and those who came up with the idea of ​​shoving 2-stroke, extremely forced diesels into tanks. I had to deal with GTE too, but much less. But its price and kerosene (or DT) consumption are impressive. right away.
          Nevertheless, not only on MBT, but also on SPGs, engineering equipment and many other places, the "children and grandchildren" of the B-2 are widely used. So what is so bad about them, specifically? Or were all these models adopted by fools. Although these engines also have disadvantages, they are not so significant and allow them to be successfully used on many types of equipment.
          Of course, the Armata needs a more modern engine, but while the war is going on, there is no time to change the production process that has been set up to the point of automation.
          1. 0
            27 August 2025 23: 32
            TDF and GTD appeared due to the impossibility of squeezing more than 46 horsepower out of the V-1000
            first there was a GTD, then a TDF on the T-80UD, there was an attempt with an X-shaped 2V-16, it didn't take off even on the Armata)))
            the main problem with four-stroke diesel engines with a power of 1000 horsepower at that time was the cooling system, with a fan system, the radiators should be much larger, like on the same Armata, but they will not fit into small MTO T-72,80,90, or an ejector
            gtd and dtf have no problems with the cooling system and they fit in the mto of domestic tanks
    2. +2
      27 August 2025 13: 16
      Quote: Shiry Prapor
      i.e. everything is still the same, the engine is old and in the middle of the body?
      Not in the middle of the hull, but in the stern, to balance the car.
      Can you name an engine that, like the UTD engines, has a crankshaft that rests not on liners but on roller bearings and that is guaranteed to run for another 15 minutes after the oil has been completely drained from the engine?
  5. +3
    27 August 2025 07: 35
    I expected that the course AGSs would be delivered using technical solutions from Terminator.

    They say that up to 40% of targets are hit by the AGS course missiles.

    It's probably harder to fit into narrower fenders.
    1. 0
      27 August 2025 08: 03
      I think it is possible to make lattice screens for protection against drones that are collapsible, like a collapsible frame on hinges covered with a mesh of metal rings connected to each other like chain mail,
      1. +1
        27 August 2025 10: 04
        Quote: agond
        I think it is possible to make lattice screens for protection against drones that are collapsible, like a collapsible frame on hinges covered with a mesh of metal rings connected to each other like chain mail,


        I didn't understand the remark in the context of the AGS.

        The minus is not mine (apparently the one who downvoted didn't understand the remark either)

        If the hinge rings are intended to increase the overall cross-country ability, then theoretically the problem can be solved by a design such as spring-loaded hollow dreadlock cables and/or spring-loaded hollow long tubes/fittings like hedgehog/porcupine needles.

        The idea is not exactly mine, because in some form it is already being used (my free retelling with additions, as I would do it.)

        A net that extends beyond the horizontal dimensions of the equipment will cling very strongly to obstacles.
        1. -1
          27 August 2025 16: 42
          Quote: Eng Mech
          A net that extends beyond the horizontal dimensions of the equipment will cling very strongly to obstacles.

          This is not so critical if measures are taken. You can put a strong knife in front of the net according to the dimensions to protect it from breaking. For example, use such net protectors instead of bulldozer blades.
          1. 0
            28 August 2025 07: 51
            Quote: ycuce234-san
            Quote: Eng Mech
            A net that extends beyond the horizontal dimensions of the equipment will cling very strongly to obstacles.

            This is not so critical if measures are taken. You can put a strong knife in front of the net according to the dimensions to protect it from breaking. For example, use such net protectors instead of bulldozer blades.


            I can't really imagine how to cut a log or a concrete fence support with protruding reinforcement on the go.

            The minus is not mine.
            1. +1
              28 August 2025 10: 11
              Concrete is fragile, as are logs. Excavators, for example, can carefully break poles with a bucket or a special attachment. But we don't even need this - a protective structure on such obstacles will play the role of a regular shock-absorbing bullbar and will protect the mesh from being torn. In fact, on light armored vehicles, such a bullbar is needed - a frame according to the dimensions of the mesh protection, hidden from the obstacle behind it at some distance, carried forward of the vehicle. It does not interfere with movement and fire, destroys small obstacles and works as a bumper on large ones.
              In reality, nets rarely encounter massive obstacles, and damage to them is caused by all sorts of roots, bushes, branches, reinforcement and wires, since there are countless of them, and these "spider webs" can be cleaned efficiently by a regular frame structure with sharpened cutting strips along the perimeter.
              1. 0
                28 August 2025 10: 18
                Quote: ycuce234-san
                Concrete is fragile, as are logs. Excavators, for example, can carefully break poles with a bucket or a special attachment. But we don't even need this - a protective structure on such obstacles will play the role of a regular shock-absorbing bullbar and will protect the mesh from being torn. In fact, on light armored vehicles, such a bullbar is needed - a frame according to the dimensions of the mesh protection, hidden from the obstacle behind it at some distance, carried forward of the vehicle. It does not interfere with movement and fire, destroys small obstacles and works as a bumper on large ones.
                In reality, nets rarely encounter massive obstacles, and damage to them is caused by all sorts of roots, bushes, branches, reinforcement and wires, since there are countless of them, and these "spider webs" can be cleaned efficiently by a regular frame structure with sharpened cutting strips along the perimeter.


                Well, so be it.
        2. 0
          28 August 2025 08: 25
          Quote: Ing Mech
          Quote: agond
          I think it is possible to make lattice screens for protection against drones that are collapsible, like a collapsible frame on hinges covered with a mesh of metal rings connected to each other like chain mail,


          I didn't understand the remark in the context of the AGS.

          The minus is not mine (apparently the one who downvoted didn't understand the remark either)

          If the hinge rings are intended to increase the overall cross-country ability, then theoretically the problem can be solved by a design such as spring-loaded hollow dreadlock cables and/or spring-loaded hollow long tubes/fittings like hedgehog/porcupine needles.

          The idea is not exactly mine, because in some form it is already being used (my free retelling with additions, as I would do it.)

          A net that extends beyond the horizontal dimensions of the equipment will cling very strongly to obstacles.


          By the way.

          Of course, I'm not a radio engineer at all, but.

          Using, for example, existing solutions for mounting and using long flexible communication antennas on military equipment, it is possible to:

          1. Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters.
          2. (Theoretically) select the mode of use of the KAZ kits and smoke grenades while under the protection of the "hedgehog"
          3. If these are antennas, then theoretically it is possible to make some kind of phased array analogue, including for directional suppression of drones.

          This is how inflamed the brain of one individual sub-engineer can be!
          1. +1
            28 August 2025 08: 32
            Quote: Eng Mech
            Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters

            Great idea. Now please explain:

            1. How will the crew get into the hedgehog?
            2. How to transport a hedgehog on a train (a hedgehog is clearly oversized).
            3. How a hedgehog can get through a forest, or a passage between buildings (the width of an infantry fighting vehicle, not the width of a hedgehog).

            I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?
            1. 0
              28 August 2025 09: 47
              Quote: Paranoid62
              Quote: Eng Mech
              Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters

              Great idea. Now please explain:

              1. How will the crew get into the hedgehog?
              2. How to transport a hedgehog on a train (a hedgehog is clearly oversized).
              3. How a hedgehog can get through a forest, or a passage between buildings (the width of an infantry fighting vehicle, not the width of a hedgehog).

              I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?


              Thank you.
              Excellent points.
              I hope that within the framework of the comments I will not have to draw a design and provide calculations of "strength of materials"

              1. It all depends on the density of the antennas. Closer to the ends, you can provide additional "branches" that increase the density of needles at large radii from the machine.

              It is possible to provide for several rows of antennas that can be moved and installed in a checkerboard pattern.

              If there is a checkerboard pattern in some places, then theoretically this does not prevent the hatches from opening perpendicular to the plane of the armor.

              (Again, it is not necessary to attach everything to the armor, i.e. it can be and most likely should be a pseudo barbecue with access elements)

              2. So modern barbecues are not very big. Naturally, it means a replaceable set of "hedgehog"

              3. Even modern braziers do not allow this. The essence of a brazier/screens/grilles is to move the activation of an attacking munition away from the armor. That is, a brazier, etc. is nothing more than a set of "armor separation" beyond the dimensions of the protected vehicle.

              In the case of rigid mounting, this significantly worsens the overall cross-country ability.

              Solutions with antennas mounted on swivel joints are nothing more than maintaining the overall cross-country ability of the vehicle without dismantling the antennas.

              Of course, I do not claim any kind of constructive work at the level of expressing thoughts out loud.

              I would be grateful for further input (😁of course, questions on the merits)
            2. 0
              29 August 2025 06: 16
              Quote: Paranoid62

              I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?


              By the way, I wasn't making fun of you.

              A competent opponent is a rare thing.

              Feel free to throw in some!

              If I don’t have to draw or calculate anything too much, I’ll definitely answer.

              Thank you.
              1. 0
                29 August 2025 06: 51
                I wonder if the design will be much more complicated by a set of forced movement of the "hedgehog's needles".

                In theory, this should reduce the required density of "needles" (in combination with end branches) and make it difficult for drones to accurately penetrate between the "needles" of stationary equipment.
              2. +1
                29 August 2025 10: 41
                Quote: Eng Mech
                By the way, I wasn't making fun of you.

                Me too for now. But I'll start now. winked

                If an adult mouse
                take and, holding carefully,
                stuff it with needles
                You will get a hedgehog.

                If this hedgehog,
                holding his nose so he couldn't breathe,
                Where it's deeper, throw it into the river -
                You will get a ruff.

                If this ruff,
                with his head in a vice,
                Pull the tail with your hands -
                You will receive a terrific.

                If this is a terrible
                having prepared two knives...
                However, he will probably die...
                But the idea is good!
                1. -1
                  29 August 2025 11: 19
                  Quote: Paranoid62
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  By the way, I wasn't making fun of you.

                  Me too for now. But I'll start now. winked

                  If an adult mouse
                  take and, holding carefully,
                  stuff it with needles
                  You will get a hedgehog.

                  If this hedgehog,
                  holding his nose so he couldn't breathe,
                  Where it's deeper, throw it into the river -
                  You will get a ruff.

                  If this ruff,
                  with his head in a vice,
                  Pull the tail with your hands -
                  You will receive a terrific.

                  If this is a terrible
                  having prepared two knives...
                  However, he will probably die...
                  But the idea is good!


                  Excellent poem!

                  Thank you for lifting my spirits. 😀

                2. -1
                  29 August 2025 11: 30
                  Quote: Paranoid62
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  By the way, I wasn't making fun of you.

                  Me too for now. But I'll start now. winked

                  If an adult mouse
                  take and, holding carefully,
                  stuff it with needles
                  You will get a hedgehog.

                  If this hedgehog,
                  holding his nose so he couldn't breathe,
                  Where it's deeper, throw it into the river -
                  You will get a ruff.

                  If this ruff,
                  with his head in a vice,
                  Pull the tail with your hands -
                  You will receive a terrific.

                  If this is a terrible
                  having prepared two knives...
                  However, he will probably die...
                  But the idea is good!


                  By the way, about hedgehogs, snakes and other bears

                  It is not necessary to offer a picture from a well-known mattress film.

                  Thank you for the humor in the form of poetry.
                3. -1
                  11 September 2025 03: 29
                  Quote: Paranoid62
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  By the way, I wasn't making fun of you.

                  Me too for now. But I'll start now. winked

                  If an adult mouse
                  take and, holding carefully,
                  stuff it with needles
                  You will get a hedgehog.

                  If this hedgehog,
                  holding his nose so he couldn't breathe,
                  Where it's deeper, throw it into the river -
                  You will get a ruff.

                  If this ruff,
                  with his head in a vice,
                  Pull the tail with your hands -
                  You will receive a terrific.

                  If this is a terrible
                  having prepared two knives...
                  However, he will probably die...
                  But the idea is good!


                  By the way, I was thinking that not everyone is required to be equally well versed in poetry, biology, and antennas (and even these are usually mutually exclusive areas of competence)

                  For those who:
                  "
                  He was strong in "poetry"
                  Yes, I'm not strong in the "saddle" (in this case, the antenna)
                  "
                  A paraphrase of the song, and the picture below is a spring-loaded antenna attachment unit for WWII equipment.
                  1. 0
                    11 September 2025 13: 10
                    It is indeed very difficult to find a competent opponent.

                    Mostly some kind of pseudo-poets, bullshitters, and silent minusologists.

                    For those who can think a little abstractly...

                    The film “Captain Alatriste” (at the end, if I’m not mistaken, a frame from the film is shown in the second picture) can demonstrate the work of a living analogue of the “hedgehog” type passive protection with a living analogue of the APS.

                    "
                    You may not be a poet
                    But I have to be a minusologist
                    "
                    So win!

                    Thank you.
            3. -1
              2 November 2025 14: 52
              Quote: Paranoid62
              Quote: Eng Mech
              Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters

              Great idea. Now please explain:

              1. How will the crew get into the hedgehog?
              2. How to transport a hedgehog on a train (a hedgehog is clearly oversized).
              3. How a hedgehog can get through a forest, or a passage between buildings (the width of an infantry fighting vehicle, not the width of a hedgehog).

              I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?


              But the men don’t even know!!!
              What's not according to Feng Shui?

              It's so flattering when poems are dedicated to my humble ideas.

              I'm waiting for your ode to BronyaOduvan in the style of
              "lonely steel cactus
              on the flooded
              . sun
              . field! "

              Thank you, “our everything”!
              1. 0
                23 November 2025 02: 28
                Quote: Ing Mech
                .

                I'm waiting for your ode to BronyaOduvan in the style of
                "lonely steel cactus
                on the flooded
                . sun
                . field! "

                Thank you, “our everything”!



                What did I tell you!?
                I hope they will appear in metal, and not just in the form of a patent.

                https://topcor.ru/66160-tank-oduvanchik-v-rf-pridumali-novyj-sposob-zaschity-boevoj-tehniki.html
              2. 0
                19 January 2026 07: 50
                Quote: Ing Mech
                Quote: Paranoid62
                Quote: Eng Mech
                Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters

                Great idea. Now please explain:

                1. How will the crew get into the hedgehog?
                2. How to transport a hedgehog on a train (a hedgehog is clearly oversized).
                3. How a hedgehog can get through a forest, or a passage between buildings (the width of an infantry fighting vehicle, not the width of a hedgehog).

                I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?


                But the men don’t even know!!!
                What's not according to Feng Shui?

                It's so flattering when poems are dedicated to my humble ideas.

                I'm waiting for your ode to BronyaOduvan in the style of
                "lonely steel cactus
                on the flooded
                . SunBlast
                . field! "

                Thank you, “our everything”!


                Now that even the French have started crunching on buns, it's high time to think about the process of increasing the technological sophistication and speed of the Armored Dandelionization of BT, through the division of labor and standardization of elements.
                1. 0
                  20 January 2026 04: 40
                  Quote: Ing Mech
                  Quote: Ing Mech
                  Quote: Paranoid62
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  Create a "hedgehog" instead of a barbecue, to which no drone will be able to get within a few meters

                  Great idea. Now please explain:

                  1. How will the crew get into the hedgehog?
                  2. How to transport a hedgehog on a train (a hedgehog is clearly oversized).
                  3. How a hedgehog can get through a forest, or a passage between buildings (the width of an infantry fighting vehicle, not the width of a hedgehog).

                  I can throw in some more, by analogy, but that's enough for now. So what?


                  But the men don’t even know!!!
                  What's not according to Feng Shui?

                  It's so flattering when poems are dedicated to my humble ideas.

                  I'm waiting for your ode to BronyaOduvan in the style of
                  "lonely steel cactus
                  on the flooded
                  . SunBlast
                  . field! "

                  Thank you, “our everything”!


                  Now that even the French have started crunching on buns, it's high time to think about the process of increasing the technological sophistication and speed of the Armored Dandelionization of BT, through the division of labor and standardization of elements.


                  If everyone is happy with the openwork pentagonal pyramid of equilateral triangles on the roof, then in principle, you can get by with just standard equilateral triangles.

                  The only thing is that the size of the side of the triangle may be different for different techniques.
  6. +3
    27 August 2025 08: 09
    Not that.
    There are many developed additional protection kits. Where are they? In advertising brochures?
    1. +1
      27 August 2025 18: 57
      Quote: garri-lin
      There are many developed additional protection kits.
      What's the point of it? If you want protection, double (at least) the weight of the BMP. Everything else (screens, ERA blocks) is of little use with such a thickness of the main armor (well, ERA will reduce the armor penetration of the cumulative jet by 10 times - the main armor is thinner anyway).
      1. -2
        27 August 2025 20: 14
        Modern cumulative ammunition penetrates the frontal armor of a tank. An infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier with all-round protection against cumulative ammunition will surpass the infamous Maus.
        The principle of reasonable sufficiency has not been cancelled. And the combination of spaced screens and DZ works quite satisfactorily.
  7. +3
    27 August 2025 09: 12
    The problem is in the layout of the troop compartment, as it was, and remains! And all because of the placement of the engine.
    The weapons system has already outlived its usefulness. There is an excellent modernization of the 3-ka - MANUL, what prevents its production? Of course, why change anything in production - it is easier to continue to mold outdated equipment, limiting ourselves to assembling a "collective farm" barbecue!
    1. 0
      27 August 2025 23: 35
      don't touch the engine, it's where it should be
  8. +4
    27 August 2025 09: 26
    Based on the results of the SVO, it is necessary to stop the production of this machine and produce something like the same Americans or Jews.
    1. -4
      27 August 2025 12: 00
      The order for the production of BMP-3 is already ten years in advance
  9. -2
    27 August 2025 11: 05
    Why does an infantry fighting vehicle need a ramp? A ramp is for weaklings.
  10. 0
    27 August 2025 11: 17
    Arabs are converting BMP-3 into an armored personnel carrier.
  11. +6
    27 August 2025 11: 23
    Combat experience shows that the BMP-3 weapons system as a whole meets modern requirements.


    And that's why the shells for the 100mm cannon are often completely unloaded?
    1. -2
      27 August 2025 23: 36
      Do tanks and self-propelled guns also unload shells?)))
      1. +2
        28 August 2025 11: 43
        Quote: bushmaster
        Do tanks and self-propelled guns also unload shells?)))


        And the tanks too.
  12. +4
    27 August 2025 11: 46
    "It was created in the eighties" - then the UD-29 corresponded to the times.
    In the early 90s, there was an opportunity to buy licenses from *Steyer" and Daimler, but... They left, I suppose, "the toad strangled them"
    The Chinese and Belarusians did not talk to their "toad". As a result, their engines are superior to ours. We delayed until the last minute, and now we are rushing to develop new ones, and they were needed yesterday.
  13. +5
    27 August 2025 12: 22
    Here is a very wonderful article:
    https://topwar.ru/127950-bmp-3m-dragun-smozhet-prevzoyti-inostrannye-analogi.html?ysclid=metqpqjteo95520257
    From it we can learn that:
    BMP-3M "Dragoon" with UTD-32T engine is ready for serial production.

    That is, in 2017, the BMP-3M variant with this engine was supposedly ready for serial production, but in 2025, this engine is not even on the regular BMP-3.
    Next:
    The infantry fighting vehicle variant is equipped with a new turbocharged diesel engine with a capacity of 816 hp. Previous variants of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles were equipped with engines with a capacity of 500 to 660 hp, respectively. The new four-stroke multi-fuel diesel engine UTD-32T

    In 2015, the UTD-32T had a capacity of 816 hp, and a 660 hp engine was already installed on the BMP-3, but now, judging by the article, the 660 hp engine is only planned for serial installation.
    1. 0
      27 August 2025 16: 33
      Well, that's nothing, most of the weapons from those great Shoigov times are not even remembered today.
  14. +1
    27 August 2025 12: 29
    BMP - armor, armor, armor, and all types of additional / protection, weapons by types and purposes of the tasks performed - TZ from the customer, engine forward, infantry back - a normal ramp for the infantry to exit, delivery of supplies and all sorts of junk - to ensure ease of loading and unloading, transformation of des / detachments, the main thing!!! prompt removal of the wounded and the possibility of placing them during evacuation!!! throw the floating far into the depths of history, floating light / armored vehicles whatever you like for all types of reconnaissance and other specialists scurrying around the enemy's rear, the legendary PT 76 old man and walked not weakly on the sea and ran quickly on mother earth, only did not carry a landing force on itself
    1. +1
      27 August 2025 23: 39
      First, bring the money for the creation and serial production of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and then demand it
      BMP-3 is the maximum that the Ministry of Defense can afford financially
  15. +3
    27 August 2025 13: 11
    And where "Manul" is, all the experience is there.
    "Eyelashes" made of ropes are needed at the corners and as a cap on top.
    And so... strengthen the suspension (they will load it like adults)
    1. -1
      27 August 2025 13: 23
      Quote: Brenneke
      And where "Manul" is, all the experience is there.
      Apparently, in the same place as the BMP-1-2, with the same layout. They used the accumulated experience of operating equipment with different layouts and left on the conveyor only what had proven itself well (BMP-3).
      1. +3
        27 August 2025 13: 34
        So it turns out that a ramp for quickly leaving the vehicle is not needed? Mine protection....
        Wonderful))) world experience... we don't see it. It turns out to be some kind of AvtoVAZ.
  16. 0
    27 August 2025 13: 27
    Quote: Bad_
    Not in the middle of the hull, but in the stern, to balance the car.
    Can you name an engine that, like the UTD engines, has a crankshaft that rests not on liners but on roller bearings and that is guaranteed to run for another 15 minutes after the oil has been completely drained from the engine?

    "New" in the sense of the same UTD, only with a turbocharger snail, sarcasm sometimes not everyone understands. . And on tracked vehicles, the hull weight distribution is not as relevant as on a single-drive vehicle. But the stern is free for personnel to exit and in the frontal projection the crew is additionally covered by the engine and gearbox.
    1. -1
      27 August 2025 13: 36
      Quote: Shiry Prapor
      And on tracked vehicles, the weight distribution of the hull is not as important as on a single-drive vehicle. But the rear is free for personnel to exit.
      Have you ever ridden in the troop compartment of the BMP-1-2 (front engine)? On the march, in the troop compartment, there is constant rocking up and down, not every vestibular apparatus can withstand this. The BMP-3 does not have such problems, the troop with the crew sits in the center of the vehicle, the most comfortable place.

      Quote: Shiry Prapor
      and in the frontal projection the crew is additionally covered by the engine and gearbox.
      From the history of the BMP-3, the engine was moved to the rear so that it would serve as a counterweight to the heavy frontal armor, which protects much better than an engine with an aluminum cylinder block.
      1. -1
        27 August 2025 14: 52
        Wow. Not once since 2022 have I seen or heard of troops sitting inside an infantry fighting vehicle. Why is that?
        1. 0
          27 August 2025 15: 41
          Quote: Dmitry_Likhoded
          Wow. Not once since 2022 have I seen or heard of troops sitting inside an infantry fighting vehicle. Why is that?
          It all depends on the threats. If you run over a mine or are attacked by a drone, the one sitting on the armor has a better chance of surviving. If the main threat was from small arms or shrapnel, everyone would sit inside.
          1. 0
            27 August 2025 16: 05
            Oh, come on. That's not true at all. Mortars and cluster munitions haven't been cancelled, nor have small arms, but everyone is still sitting on top. There were videos of a drone hitting a bunch of people sitting on top of an armored vehicle. As well as a video of a mechanic driving a BMW right under small arms fire and killing everyone sitting on top in a minute.
            The thing is that if something happens, you won't be able to get out from inside. And it's problematic to fit in there in modern gear. All because of the low silhouette, cramped troop compartment and inconvenient hatches.
            1. 0
              27 August 2025 23: 48
              people didn't see the drone didn't have time to jump
              those running out from the stern would have been killed by the rifle in exactly the same way, but why didn’t the landing party want to lift the hatches and sit over the engine?
              in case of what?
              They sit at the top so they can jump off immediately and so that the BMP immediately steps on the gas, otherwise an RPG will fly in
      2. 0
        27 August 2025 16: 24
        There are no ideal design solutions. Each accepted one is always a compromise between one thing and another. What I drove and what needs to be done to keep the crew from vomiting will remain only in this forum squabble. And Kurganmashzavod will churn out what the customer-MO has agreed upon. Our guys won't see their own nonsense in this war, alas. Maybe by the next one they'll churn out ideal Kurgans with vertical takeoff.
        And that's only if they receive P on time.
      3. 0
        27 August 2025 16: 33
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Have you ever ridden in the troop compartment of the BMP-1-2 (front engine)? On the march, in the troop compartment, there is constant rocking up and down, not every vestibular apparatus can withstand this. The BMP-3 does not have such problems, the troop with the crew sits in the center of the vehicle, the most comfortable place.

        Well, well! Have you ever tried to climb in and out of the BMP-3 troop compartment through its "doors", and in full gear? When you do, then we'll talk about comfort.
        1. 0
          27 August 2025 17: 18
          Quote: moreman78
          Well, well! Have you ever tried to climb in and out of the BMP-3 troop compartment through its "doors", and in full gear? When you do, then we'll talk about comfort.
          It was already mentioned in the thread that soldiers prefer to ride on the armor, and not inside the BMP and APC, and it turns out that jumping from the roof of the APC to the ground is not a problem, but getting out of the BMP-3 with one step is a problem?
          1. 0
            27 August 2025 18: 25
            The problem is both. But in one case, hitting a mine is much more dangerous.
  17. -1
    27 August 2025 13: 43
    BMP3 is the best in the world...self-propelled rifled mortar, but not an IFV.
    1. -1
      27 August 2025 23: 49
      BMP is about infantry fire support, and BTR is about infantry transportation, these are different priorities, if anything
      1. 0
        28 August 2025 07: 42
        It would have been enough to leave the 30mm cannon as on the BMP2. At one time, the Algerians wanted to buy a three-piece, but they chose the BMP2-M "Berezhok", purchased about 800 modernization kits and did not lose. And a 30mm cannon for direct support and an AGS for closed positions and a much more powerful ATGM Kornet
        1. 0
          29 August 2025 21: 15
          30mm is already considered the caliber of an armored personnel carrier, even the Striker has already been fitted with a 30mm cannon
          Since the Second World War, tanks have had 76mm "butts" for firing off-road weapons to hit infantry and guns in trenches, ditches and other fortifications. The BMP-3 is finally an analogue of such tanks.
          Americans still can't throw 105mm offs into a light tank, which, according to the task, should not hit armored vehicles, but first of all infantry and fortifications, a 25mm Bradley gun is nothing
      2. 0
        28 August 2025 11: 50
        Quote: bushmaster
        BMP is about infantry fire support, and BTR is about infantry transportation, these are different priorities, if anything


        Priorities?
        Sure?
        Why then is there a troop compartment in the BMP?

        And if on the basis of each BMP they usually also make an armored reconnaissance vehicle, in which there are practically no troops, but there are equipment operators, of whom there are 2-3 people, and you can throw them out and that's it...
        1. 0
          29 August 2025 21: 02
          The BMP either pulls infantry into positions that have already been stormed, or lands infantry, which then goes on the attack and provides support with cannon fire
          what is now flying up to the forest plantations, throwing out the infantry and rolling back to the rear, is not an infantry fighting vehicle, it is an armored personnel carrier
  18. +1
    27 August 2025 17: 03
    Someone explain to me why the engineers at the plant where the BMP-3 is made cannot understand that the net should cover not just the turret, but the entire upper projection and all the side armored vehicles!!!

    What they call protection is a fig leaf.

    Let your "protected" BMP-3 be attacked by a FPV UAV crew from the SVO and you will immediately see where the weak points are in your defense.
    1. 0
      28 August 2025 10: 22
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Someone explain to me why the engineers at the plant where the BMP-3 is made cannot understand that the net should cover not just the turret, but the entire upper projection and all the side armored vehicles!!!


      It is impossible to completely close the upper projection due to the need for technological maintenance, operation and firing. Full coverage of the BMP (like a box) leads to a narrowing of the firing area, but allows you to do the above. As you can see in the photo in the article, all-round protection is installed with cover from above of the turret. At the very top point, electronic warfare is installed. As I understand it, the Ministry of Defense emphasizes the work of electronic warfare in conditions of drone attacks.
  19. +2
    27 August 2025 17: 10
    The "belly" of this car is unfortunately weak and flat. It is located low above the ground. If you hit a mine, that's it - the trip is over. For the 80s, it was a great car, but for today - ?
    1. 0
      27 August 2025 23: 52
      Anti-tank mines didn't exist in the 80s?
      The ground clearance of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle is 450 mm.
      standard ground clearance like everyone else, BMP-1 has 370mm
  20. 0
    27 August 2025 18: 23
    If the chassis load capacity is 6 tons, and they have already been selected, then you won’t be able to increase the armor protection of the BMP-3 much
  21. +3
    27 August 2025 18: 55
    In fact, the fundamental problem of our IFVs cannot be corrected by modernization packages - it is that the hull is based on aluminum alloys. Even adding a bunch of layers of new armor (giving up a very situational situation with the formation of water obstacles while swimming), we cannot change the base, which is still made of aluminum. This means that if a shell penetrates additional armor packages, then most likely it will also penetrate the aluminum hull.
    I won't even mention that the BMP suspension was hardly designed for a chassis that was several tons heavier due to the steel, dynamic and anti-cumulative armor kits.
    In fact, the only adequate way to solve the problem is to create a completely new IFV with a steel chassis based on the T-90 chassis units and assemblies. But this is not only the best solution, but also the most time-consuming and resource-intensive. So this solution is more for the future.
    Technically, this has already been done - the entire "Armata" family, both tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled guns, are created on a single chassis. Only the Armata is visible at our parades.
    1. 0
      27 August 2025 23: 55
      The Bradley has an aluminum body, like the M113, which increases protection compared to steel while weighing less.
      and where is this armata with its whole family?
      Even Western countries can't afford an infantry fighting vehicle with the same level of protection as a general aviation vehicle.
      1. 0
        4 September 2025 21: 25
        bushmaster
        You are wrong, the Bundeswehr and Hungary are already purchasing heavy infantry fighting vehicles...
        1. 0
          4 September 2025 21: 37
          What's the point that by the end of the 80s the USSR had over 30 thousand tanks of 6 models from T-55 to T-80 in service, and soldiers in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other "hot spots" rode on the armor of "cardboard" infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers because it was safer...
          At the same time, the US Army had eight thousand Abrams and they started producing well-protected Bradley IFVs, not another 8 thousand tanks...
          1. 0
            5 September 2025 23: 40
            The Soviet and NATO armies were preparing for war in Europe, not for war with partisans
            the american army in vietnam was also not ready for a local conflict using cardboard m113, the 20-ton bradley infantry fighting vehicles they created were also not famous for their armor
            Bradley will only receive protection from 30mm shells in 1988
            the ussr couldn't afford a bradley, it was too expensive, and the bmp needed a lot for the whole union and with a reserve
            The US didn't need Abrams and Bradleys in principle, they were created exclusively for the anti-tank barrier in Europe and that's all, otherwise they are very expensive toys that are difficult to move around the world
            the us does not need to produce another 8 thousand tanks, because in europe there are also german, british and french tanks, as well as smaller tanks from other countries
            1. +1
              6 September 2025 23: 46
              the ussr couldn't afford a bradley, it was too expensive, and the bmp needed a lot for the whole union and with a reserve


              The USSR could afford to produce heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on the MBT, but even then, no one in the Kremlin cared about the infantryman Lekha from a working or peasant family, even at that time, the children of the "elite" did not go to the army and did not drive an infantry fighting vehicle without armor.
              fought....
              1. +1
                7 September 2025 06: 09
                a convenient excuse, but no, there were never any heavy infantry fighting vehicles in the USSR
                expensive to produce, expensive to operate, expensive to repair, and in general there is a tank that should pave the way for the BMP
                as an exception there is bmo-t and that's it
        2. 0
          5 September 2025 23: 19
          The fact that the BMP weighs 40 tons does not mean that in terms of armor protection it is equal to the early T-72, for this a NATO BMP should weigh at least 55-60 tons
  22. 0
    27 August 2025 18: 58
    Replacing the standard UTD-29 with the new UTD-32T will increase the specific power of the armored vehicle in the basic configuration
    Will the chassis handle the new power?
  23. +1
    27 August 2025 21: 03
    Apart from the new engine, it's the same old car.
    Where is at least Dragoon or Manul?
    1. -1
      27 August 2025 23: 56
      the same balls only in profile, that's why nowhere
  24. +3
    27 August 2025 21: 10
    Currently, only modernized combat vehicles with additional equipment are coming off the assembly line. Other modernizations with the introduction of new components are expected. All these measures allow maintaining the characteristics at the required level and getting rid of its shortcomings.

    A set of general phrases, no specifics.
  25. +2
    28 August 2025 12: 16
    Thanks to the caterpillar drive, the vehicle can reach speeds of up to 70 km/h on the highway.

    I would never have thought that thanks to the caterpillar drive you can reach such a speed...on wheels the speed would probably be lower laughing
  26. +1
    29 August 2025 13: 29
    Author, in the end, what happened to the car, tell me?
  27. VlK
    +1
    29 August 2025 14: 12
    they write - today there are two main threats to armored vehicles on the LBS - drones and mines. There is no reliable solution for the first yet, for the second, most likely, no modernization of the BMP-3 will be enough - a new platform is needed. Which, obviously, now, with a deficit of budgets, production capacities and personnel, no one will do, this had to be done in peacetime. They did, but instead of a cheap mass product, they got a complex, expensive and unfinished one. So, most likely, for now they will make do with minimal modernization, if possible, not greatly reducing the volume of manufactured products.
    Well, and traditionally - life itself dictates the division of the transportation and fire support functions, for the first, it is obviously some kind of light armored tracked vehicle with a spacious troop compartment and convenient entry and exit, relatively high resistance to mine blasts, as cheap and repairable as possible, with weapons without any fire support functions, only for self-defense (including from FPV drones). That is, a light tracked armored personnel carrier. And on the same base, a light fire support vehicle of the platoon-company level, without a troop compartment, with armor reinforced for this reason, and with the ability to factory-install various weapons modules. And no universal pepelats for all occasions (including landing and overcoming water obstacles by swimming) at an astronomical price.
    1. 0
      7 September 2025 16: 36
      Quote: VlK
      life itself already dictates the division of the functions of transportation and fire support.


      Strictly speaking, most likely, the question still comes down to the number of troops per unit of equipment.

      BMPs did not just appear out of nowhere, but as a logical development of the desires of the military, who constantly wanted to add firepower to the APC.


      There is even something like a comic book about the development of infantry unit transportation means:

      "running" after the tank
      truck
      BTR
      BMP
      "running" after the tank


      Hence the moral:
      In order to maintain acceptable weight and size characteristics while maintaining protection and firepower, it is necessary to revise the maximum permissible size of the landing force.

      Personally, I like the armored capsule for 3-4 people across a single tank chassis (tank, BMPT, ZARK and other weapons modules on this chassis)
      1. VlK
        0
        9 September 2025 14: 39
        Hence the moral:
        In order to maintain acceptable weight and size characteristics while maintaining protection and firepower, it is necessary to revise the maximum permissible size of the landing force.
        Personally, I like the armored capsule for 3-4 people across a single tank chassis (tank, BMPT, ZARK and other weapons modules on this chassis)

        I see it as just a half-measure, at least something is better than nothing. I think the very idea of ​​the BMP as a combination of transport and landing functions and fire support in one vehicle was at one time a dead end and fundamentally wrong. And not even because such contradictory requirements will always lead only to a bad compromise. And the cost, complexity and labor costs of producing such a unit are always higher, which is always critical for urgently replenishing losses and increasing production volumes during operations.
        The main thing is that a mobile firing point on the battlefield will always be a top-priority target, they will always be quickly knocked out, and motorized riflemen (motorized infantry) will inevitably turn into simple infantry of the First World War, but without their own horse-drawn transport. That is, the unit will no longer be able to quickly get out of the line of fire, organize the pursuit of a retreating enemy, or quickly redeploy to another position using its own resources. And the more weapons you hang on an armored personnel carrier, the faster they will lose them when solving fire support tasks. And no matter what anyone says, the war of the 21st century is a maneuverable and super-maneuverable war, despite our individual costs.
        In principle, it is clear where the military desire for maximum unification of equipment for tasks comes from - in war, and not in exercises, most often they fight with what is at hand here and now, and not somewhere there. But in my opinion, this issue can be solved here by simply creating special infantry fire support vehicles on the same APC base, and even possibly with modular weapons for different tasks (for overall cost reduction and simplification of maintenance and supply), and include them in platoons, for example, or assign them to platoons from the company level. But without any transport function. Such thoughts.
        1. 0
          10 September 2025 07: 52
          Quote: VlK
          The main thing is that a mobile firing point on the battlefield will always be a top-priority target, they will always be quickly knocked out, and motorized riflemen (motorized infantry) will inevitably turn into just infantry


          and what prevents the enemy from damaging infantry transport first?
          After all, the task of infantry transport is to deliver it as close to the enemy as possible.

          Or we return to the tactics of infantry infiltrating in small groups (2-4 people) on their own two / four / motorcycles / etc., and all the equipment is somewhere in the back. Then yes, an armored personnel carrier / MRAP is needed somewhere in the back (if it is needed at all). But the military will try to hang weapons on it.
          Supply of small robotic UAVs / UPNA

          then it turns out to be something like
          the first line is small-sized combat UAVs / UPNA (weapons similar to infantry: small arms, RG, MANPADS, ATGMs, small-caliber ZARKs, mine clearing equipment),
          then supply of UAVs/UPNAs
          then infantry with operators (or infantry-operators),
          then tanks, and as yet unclear transport of infantry and numerous UAVs and UPNAs

          In general, everything again comes down to tactics.
          Before tactics, thinking about technical requirements is pointless.
          1. VlK
            +1
            10 September 2025 13: 30
            and what prevents the enemy from damaging infantry transport first?
            After all, the task of infantry transport is to deliver it as close to the enemy as possible.

            now the equipment (any, including tanks) flies at full speed to the enemy stronghold, lands the troops, and retreats to the rear at the same speed, then the transport (whatever is available) makes a second trip, delivering a reinforcement group, ammunition, weapons, equipment and water/food, taking the wounded, and then repeats these iterations. That is, they try to minimize the time the equipment spends under fire, and not leave it on the battlefield to support and reinforce the attack aircraft.

            In general, everything again comes down to tactics.
            Before tactics, thinking about technical requirements is pointless.

            This is what you should always start from, and not from the availability of ready-made technical means and solutions, combining them in a new way this way and that - perhaps they have long been outdated and are not optimal, or even not at all suitable for solving new problems. In general, all thoughtful systems, if you act consciously, and not spontaneously and situationally, are built strictly from the top down - from goals to tasks and then to methods for solving them, technical content is only one of the tools for solving at the lower level of the tree.

            then it turns out to be something like
            the first line is small-sized combat UAVs / UPNA (weapons similar to infantry: small arms, RG, MANPADS, ATGMs, small-caliber ZARKs, mine clearing equipment),
            then supply of UAVs/UPNAs
            then infantry with operators (or infantry-operators),
            then tanks, and as yet unclear transport of infantry and numerous UAVs and UPNAs

            I do not agree with the specified order of deployment, but in principle, one way or another, everything is moving towards reducing the contact of combat with manpower, at least for highly technologically developed armed forces. Remember how the States unwound our Wagner in Syria when they tried to go and recapture the Koniko field, if I'm not mistaken? Aerial reconnaissance with the identification of the route of movement - an artillery strike on the column with high-precision munitions - finishing off from attack helicopters. The last stage with clearing the area with mobile units was not carried out - by agreement, they allowed ours to take the wounded and killed. On their side, apparently, there are no losses. There is a lot to think about here.
            1. 0
              11 September 2025 03: 04
              Quote: VlK


              I do not agree with the stated order of placement

              now, equipment (any, including tanks) flies at full speed to the enemy stronghold, landing troops


              What order and composition of lines should be from your point of view?

              I read here that the infiltration tactic is often used. Apparently, on all steams for open terrain, and infiltration for complex terrain and buildings

              Thank you.
  28. 0
    31 August 2025 14: 23
    Chief, everything is lost! The vehicle platform is in an age-related dead end, it's good that at least protection from drones has been established, UTD-32T gives a 7% increase in power and is in a development stage similar to the BMP Kurganets, Boomerang. New capabilities, new technology.
  29. +3
    4 September 2025 00: 26
    What did the SVO show? That the BMP3 is a boyar's hat. The BMP is a taxi for infantry. Quickly arrive, quickly leave, at worst provide fire support, suppress firing points. All this is out of the BMP 3, including protection. It can only carry potatoes, not an infantryman who is fully equipped. No matter how you look at it, Bradley is a cut above in all this, you have to admit your mistakes. The one who supplies this ... to the army will not go for a spin in it himself, just as AvtoVAZ managers do not drive Lada Grants.
  30. 0
    4 September 2025 11: 05
    The author did not say the main thing, that the role of the BMP and the practice of their use are currently being radically revised. The current conflict has shown that the approach needs to be changed in general. New weapons, new infantry tactics, everything new! A universal vehicle (infantry + fire support) is a series of compromises and a decrease in efficiency.
    It is possible that there is still room for classic IFVs, but practice shows otherwise. Separate transporters, MRAPs and even buggies, plus separate fire support vehicles are better than an IFV used in exactly the same way, but in the role of Truffaldino from Bergamo. In both cases, it does not work and is expensive. In practice, the BMP 3 is used precisely as a fire support vehicle, and in this role it has many shortcomings caused by compromises.
  31. 0
    4 September 2025 17: 27
    In the photo there is some kind of headdress of a Chinese emperor from ancient times... In our news, UAVs fly under whatever they want. And what kind of umbrella is this?
  32. 0
    4 September 2025 21: 19
    The BMP-3M Manul is designed for a crew of three: a driver, a commander, and a weapons operator. The troop compartment can accommodate up to eight fully equipped soldiers. The troop is placed in the rear compartment with individual seats. Disembarkation is carried out through a wide hydraulically powered rear ramp, which allows you to leave the vehicle in a matter of seconds, even under fire.


    When will the plant start producing normal Manul IFVs?
    How long can they continue to churn out this half-tank and half-IFV in one bottle called the BMP-3?
    The SVO received working models of foreign IFVs Bradley, Marder, CV 90. Is it really that they lack the intelligence to take the most effective engineering solutions and use them to improve the same IFV Manul, if there are not enough resources for a completely new product...
  33. 0
    5 December 2025 08: 06
    Quote: Ing Mech


    But the men don’t even know!!!
    What's not according to Feng Shui?

    It's so flattering when poems are dedicated to my humble ideas.

    I'm waiting for your ode to BronyaOduvan in the style of
    "lonely steel cactus
    on the flooded
    . sun
    . field! "

    Thank you, “our everything”!


    By the way
    "On a sun-drenched field" (=with fire)

    It seems more poetic.

    Well, if the Armored Dandelion works in principle in some kind of design density
    https://m.vk.com/wall-123538639_4757427

    И
    Works with plastic material

    That
    1. Such structures can potentially be made using equipment for producing artificial Christmas trees (and other elements of artificial greenery, which, by the way, can serve as a camouflage element)
    2. You can experiment with attaching these plastic structures to the center of the rollers and wheels (if you are sure that the plastic will not damage the propeller when it hits its elements and will not be cut off by the elements of the side screens (if, for example, the cuts in the screens are made for the suspension travel with this element of the Armored Dandelion)).
    1. 0
      11 December 2025 07: 07
      Quote: Ing Mech


      Well, if BronOduvan does work in...


      ...in any density and rigidity of its elements, then another option for development on the theme of analogues on the World Wide Web could be folding protection similar to umbrellas.

      It makes sense to experiment with the following Armor Umbrella Characteristics:

      1. Spring-loaded mechanisms for full opening and closing, like in hand umbrellas.
      2. Remote cocking (full folding) as in large stationary umbrellas by means of cable drives.
      3. Fractal (branched) design to provide sufficient rigidity (via large branches) for massive large reflective projectiles and sufficient density (via smaller folding branches) for smaller reflective projectiles.
      4. Theoretically, in this fully remotely folding version, it is possible to use the net instead of the Bronezont fabric, which would not significantly impair the overall cross-country ability and the net's own durability in forests and densely populated areas.