A batch of new BMP-3s with a number of modifications has been delivered to the troops.

Russian troops have received a new batch of BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, delivered by the High-Precision Systems holding company, Rostec reported.

A batch of new BMP-3 vehicles has arrived in the armed forces. Delivery parameters are traditionally kept under wraps, but it has been emphasized that the delivery volume exceeded planned targets by 40%. Furthermore, the vehicles are being delivered to the troops with a number of modifications that enhance their effectiveness and protection, including a reinforced underbody and fragmentation protection.

The new batch of "troika" tanks was shipped with a number of improvements: each vehicle is equipped with a more modern electronic warfare system. The underbody protection against blasts has been reinforced, and the spall resistance of the rear and front armor has been increased.

As previously stated by the holding company, infantry fighting vehicles are constantly being modernized based on the experience of the Air Defense Forces. The current vehicles are radically different from those delivered to the troops at the beginning of the special operation. Today's BMP-3s have received additional protection in the form of side skirts, grilles, and upper hemisphere protection kits (grills), as well as specialized equipment and instruments that enhance the vehicle's mobility and the effectiveness of its weapons.

The BMP-3 is the main infantry fighting vehicle used in the SVO zone along with the BMP-2 with the Berezhok module.

Comments

[123_123]

Great news. The Bradlyphiles are about to get burned.

[SAG]

The underbody protection against blasts has been strengthened, and the anti-splinter armor resistance of the rear and front parts has been increased.

I wonder what the weight gain was and whether positive buoyancy was maintained...

[bayard]

Quote: SAG

Is positive buoyancy maintained?

Of course not. Side screens, grills and barbecues completely eliminate waterborne danger, as does additional protection for the front and stern.

[SAG]

Of course not. Side screens, grills, and barbecues completely eliminate waterborne activity.

That's not an argument at all; all these mesh structures won't add up to tons of weight. That's about 5-7% of the total weight. The BMP3's buoyancy reserve is at least 25%.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SAG

That's not an argument at all; all these mesh structures won't add tons of weight. It's about 5-7% of the total weight.

I can't say anything about buoyancy with additional protection, but as additional protection, in addition to the reinforced bottom, grates, and barbecue grill, the BMP-3 also has an additional bulwark made of armored steel.

[d.zacharith]

Voices from Poland are reporting that the Armed Forces have captured so much NATO-made armored vehicles that they have stopped sending them to the rear for study, but are instead repairing them and using them in combat.

[bayard]

Well, this has been a practice in the military for a long time now - everything that can be repaired is repaired and used for its intended purpose.

[Foggy Dew]

There are two main complaints: the 30mm cannon barrel flapping in the wind and the engine being in the wrong place, which is why it's not vertical. The vehicle is said to be good, but the main flaws can't be fixed—a new module and a new chassis are needed.

[TELEMARK]

You've confused the dangling barrel with the BTR; on the BMP-3 it's firmly attached to the "hundred"

[dnestr74]

You obviously haven't seen a BMP-3, so I'm not going to say anything about your expertise.

[SAG]

Quote: dnestr74

You obviously haven't seen a BMP-3, so I'm not going to say anything about your expertise.

I also saw the BMP 3 only at the parade, but what did Telemark write wrong?

[dnestr74]

I replied to Foggy Dew, the answer is not in the TELEMARK thread.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: SAG

I also saw the BMP 3 only at the parade, but what did Telemark write wrong?

The fact that the BMP-3 is the only serial domestic vehicle that does not have a 2A72 barrel dangling in the wind, as it has an additional supporting structure at the muzzle.

Problems with the 2A72 began when it was separated from the 2A70 and installed alone on an APC module.

[fiberboard]

Well, they've designed enough modules. We could try mounting a 57mm gun. They've stopped writing about it these days. But back then, I remember there were articles and some serious debate. I think it was called "Dragoon."

[bayard]

Quote: fiberboard

"Dragoon" I think it's called.

No, "Dragoon" is a "Troika" with a front engine compartment and a stern ramp.
A module with a 57mm gun is far less versatile and productive than a 100mm + 30mm pair. The trio can also fire ATGMs and high-angle fire from indirect positions with a gun elevation of up to 70 degrees against mortars. This is currently the best module, but there's a risk of ammunition detonation if the vehicle is penetrated.

[Totor5]

The 100mm cannon, with its low ballistics, is dangerous to the crew if it explodes and is very inaccurate—it can only fire at distant targets, and even then, not very accurately. It's essentially a mortar.

A 100mm ATGM doesn't penetrate a tank; it's much better to have a 30mm dual ATGM + external ATGMs like the 152mm Konet, which penetrates everything.

This has been discussed many times and is no longer of any interest in discussing.

[bayard]

Quote: Totor5

It's essentially a mortar.

Yes. But it works, and it works well.

Quote: Totor5

100mm ATGM doesn't penetrate a tank.

Tanks aren't the only things encountered on the battlefield. There are plenty of things vulnerable to the 100mm cannon/mortar and 30mm automatic rifle. Moreover, this module has been tested and is the most preferred in the current Troika configuration.
But for the BMP-3M "Manul" the BM from "Kurganets" would be a better fit.

Quote: Totor5

30mm + external ATGMs such as Konet 152mm, which penetrates everything.

So I'm all for putting the Manul into production, but also keeping the BMP-3 in production in its classic form. Not so much as an IFV, but as an infantry support vehicle.

Quote: Totor5

This has been discussed many times and is no longer of any interest in discussing.

That's true. But there's still a difference—what's better and what's rational right now. And right now, the BMP-3 is rational. Because the technical process is well-established, and a lot of this equipment is needed.

[Totor5]

Here we need to understand what the primary purpose of an infantry fighting vehicle is—to transport infantry or to fire (very inaccurately) shells from indirect fire positions, essentially from a T55 tank. Only the T55 does this more accurately and at a greater range, thanks to its rifled gun. The 120mm Nona, for example, can fire a mine at different angles, and the mine itself is much more powerful and dangerous, while the Nona is cheaper and more compact than an infantry fighting vehicle.

That's why even now (and it was the same in Chechnya), BMP3s are used as a replacement for tanks when there aren't enough tanks to operate in the ZOP. I don't think that's right.

Tanks are rare. Yes. But! If an infantry fighting vehicle encounters a tank, how can it respond? A 100mm cannon won't hit a tank, a 30mm cannon is like a pellet, and a 100mm ATGM isn't fatal to a tank either. And with a remote Kornet, an infantry fighting vehicle has a 10km range. And that's important!
You could certainly say that an infantry fighting vehicle should escape, but you have to understand that escape isn't always possible—you could be facing the enemy head-on (remember the head-on firefight between an APC and a Bradley at speed?), or there could be urban combat, or, for example, a track might fall off and you'd have to fire back. So, the question of having or not having a powerful ATGM isn't an issue for me, and the 100mm caliber limits that, like the old Vampire RPG.

A BMP3 with a front engine could be made, like a pre-production batch for testing in the army, but I don't think it would be a big distraction to production, considering the development has been going on for 15 years already and the spare parts are the same.

The BMP3 could be useful for the Marines and Airborne Forces as a replacement for the BMD. The former requires buoyancy, while the latter requires some unique characteristics and modifications. However, a standardized add-on protection kit should be introduced for the general public. The parachute BMD could be reserved for the Airborne Forces' special forces.

[bayard]

Quote: Totor5

Here we need to understand what the main purpose of the BMP is - to transport infantry or to operate (very inaccurately) from closed firing positions with a shell from a T55 tank, essentially?

The BMP-3 is so-so as a means of delivering infantry and dismounting under enemy fire due to the awkward dismounting/mounting mechanism through the engine. So, in a real fight, it's better to use it as an infantry fire support vehicle. That's essentially how it's used, and it's quite good at it. It has all the caliber limitations, but it can fire direct fire, with a 30mm cannon, and can fire indirectly against mortars. That's exactly how it should be used, filling that combat niche. For infantry delivery, you need proper APCs with a front-mounted power pack and a convenient rear ramp. The BMP-3 will support them with fire and maneuverability. I wrote that I see the classic three-seater specifically as a BMPP—an infantry fire support vehicle. And as a proper IFV in that class, you need the Manul. It has exactly what you want. That is. With roughly equal numbers of Manuls and classic Troikas, the Troika will provide fire support to the infantry in the APC, while the Manuls can operate independently, depending on the combat situation and the available fire protection. The synergy of these two vehicles is particularly valuable for infantry fire support.
The Nona and its successor are good, but they're not designed for direct combat as self-propelled guns. Therefore, they should be used together, not instead. They already exist, so their combat use can be combined. An experienced commander will always be able to intelligently distribute combat missions.

Quote: Totor5

Tanks are rare - Yes. But! If an infantry fighting vehicle encounters a tank, how can it respond? It won't hit a tank with a 100mm cannon, and a 30mm cannon is like a pellet to a tank.

If the encounter is sudden and head-on, you need to respond immediately with everything you have. There are people in the tank too, they have optical devices, they can also be concussed. Therefore, if there is a high-explosive shell in the line, you can hit the tank with it, and then start spraying it with a 30 mm machine gun. You will feel something special even under tank armor. A 100 mm shell and even an ATGM won’t take out a tank head-on? What about the side? What about at course angles? Different angles can happen. Even 30 mm armor piercing to the side can cause a lot of trouble. Have you forgotten the footage of Bredlja blinding our tank with her 25 mm cannon and how long she held up under fire? 25 mm cannon! Anything can happen in combat. And at such close ranges, you still have to have time to fire an ATGM.
But for all other purposes, 100 mm + 30 mm are quite sufficient and even excessive.

Quote: Totor5

A BMP3 with a front engine could be made, like a pre-production batch for testing in the army, I don’t think it would be a big distraction to production, considering that the development has been going on for 15 years

There's nothing smaller. Perhaps "Dragoon" is the same thing, but with the classic "Troika" module.
What's stopping you from releasing a trial pre-production batch?
I think it's precisely because, on the very eve of the Second World War, Kurganmashzavod received a large order for the production of the BMD-4 and BTR-3F series, as well as two types of self-propelled guns on the BMP-3 and BMD-4 chassis, and all this while testing of this equipment was ongoing. The "airborne lobby" was really pushing for new equipment for the Airborne Forces... PARACHUTE-LANDED!!! And then the Second World War began, and all this thinly armored airborne (and terribly expensive) equipment demonstrated literally zero combat stability. So much so that they immediately started cobbling together additional screens. But the old paratroopers weren't calming down; they also ordered the "Sprut-SDM", and production of this oddity began during the Second World War!! And it continued for more than one year!!! And the propaganda was filled with joyful cries, accompanied by footage of practically unarmored vehicles being delivered to the troops, but with a "parachute up their ass." What kind of "Manul" could they possibly be talking about if all this frenzy prevented even the good old BMP-3 from being produced at a normal rate?! Over the last year and a half, the cries about this parachute madness have finally died down, and Kurgan reported that the BMP-3 plan was exceeded by 40%. Well done! So, instead of being useless for airborne assault, they've actually started making the same BMP-3. Even that's encouraging.
As an old army friend of mine once said: "You can't trust paratroopers with strategic planning; they're just smashing bricks over their heads." To give you an idea, at his peak, his biceps circumference was 52 cm (his wife told me she measured it with a tape measure because they couldn't find him a short-sleeved shirt - his arm wouldn't fit). At the same time, in the mid-00s, he and his partner were officially considered the best specialists in the branch of the armed forces (air defense) in the field of automated control systems... Well, on a proactive basis, he and his partner developed and created three copies of an automated control system for inter-service interaction on the scale of an army (air defense) - district - front. So not only is he in good health, but he's also a tadpole... and what software the programmers (from a specialized institute) wrote and debugged for him under his supervision. During the Interaction-2008 exercises, the standard automated control system crashed almost immediately (due to massive electronic warfare and communication channel suppression), but his automated control system, which was the backup, carried out the entire exercise with flying colors.
Do you think you were awarded/recognized/promoted?
No way - that same year, I was laid off along with my partner and given an early retirement. Back then, "They were purging the Army of Soviets." And the conclusions I draw are from conversations, including with the paratroopers. We had a disaster with armored vehicles thanks to the "Airborne Lobby." Well, I wrote a lot about that back then. Many didn't like it - they wanted parachutes. Because it looks so dashing and beautiful in training exercises. But in real combat, we lost so many elite troops because of this... If they had regular BMP-3s and tanks with decent self-propelled guns... there would have been fewer losses. And even against the backdrop of what was happening, the lobby stood its ground. But apparently, it finally got through.
It was with these facilities, occupied by who knows what, that they could have started producing Manuls and a new self-propelled gun based on them as early as 2022. But for some, parachutes are more important.

Quote: Totor5

The BMP3 could be useful for the Marines and Airborne Forces as a replacement for the BMD. The former requires buoyancy, while the latter requires unique characteristics and modifications.

I've been writing about this for 5-7 years. Because the BMP-3 is ideal for amphibious operations. Specifically, in its classic configuration. That's why the Navy Marine Corps and the Airborne Forces needed them specifically – as amphibious, versatile combat vehicles. An aircraft (the Il-76MD) couldn't care less about transporting two infantry fighting vehicles or two infantry fighting vehicles with personnel. But the combat value and, most importantly, the combat stability of the latter are many times higher. And no one would deploy them with a parachute in a real war. And we don't have enough military transport aircraft for that. And it looks like we never will. Building new ones in Ulyanovsk isn't working properly.
With the Kurganets side skirts attached, the Manul tank has 30mm of armor penetration at short range, both frontally and from the sides. If the Manul tanks had been deployed instead of the Airborne Forces' eccentricity, how many lives of our soldiers would have been saved over the years...
Yes, it is clear that this science still does not appeal to die-hards.

Quote: Totor5

The parachute BMD can be left for the special units of the Airborne Forces.

This is exactly what I've been proposing for many years: keep no more than 20-25% of the airborne forces' parachute-droppable vehicles. And transfer the rest to BMP-3/3M infantry fighting vehicles and APCs based on the Manul chassis, with a forward-mounted engine compartment, a taller hull so the paratroopers don't have to hunch over, and a lightweight module from the BTR-82A. Plus wheeled vehicles.

[Totor5]

The old T55/62 will be used with the ZOP much better than the BMP3, and I think the price will be lower.

There was also the Lynx from the 90s—at least it didn't have 100mm canisters scattered around inside, which gave it more room for troops, not the can of sprats it has now. Even if you remove the 100mm automatic, it's still roomier, even without the engine in the front.
How, for example, can you transport a wounded person in this shell?

[bayard]

Quote: Totor5

The old T55/62 will be used with the ZOP much better than the BMP3.

But can it swim across a river, camouflage itself in a ravine, and provide fire support to its infantry on the bridgehead? This vehicle's versatility is valuable. Therefore, it should be in service with the Airborne Forces and Marine Corps of the Navy, as well as reconnaissance and advance units of Ground Forces formations. Specifically, as an amphibious watercraft.
The basis of the armored vehicles of the RF Armed Forces should be TBTR and TBMR (on a tank chassis, with a level of protection close to that of a tank), as well as wheeled vehicles.

Quote: Totor5

How, for example, can you transport a wounded person in this shell?

You can try it on the engine, but it’s not certain.
BMPs and APCs must be front-engined, with a comfortable, spacious troop compartment, a convenient rear ramp for quick dismounting, and an unmanned combat module.
The BMP-3 is more of an infantry support vehicle (BMPP) or a light tank with infantry transport capability. That is, it's a vehicle for combat and transport, but not for airdropping infantry into combat.

[SAG]

You can try installing a 57mm gun.

There's already such a machine, it's called the Air Defense Derivation. And it doesn't matter that its specialty is air defense. The Shilkas performed brilliantly against Amin's palace in 79, suppressing the defenses so completely that no one could get a glimpse!

[Stas157]

Quote: Foggy Dew

But the main shortcomings cannot be corrected - a new module and a new chassis are needed

BMP Dragoon and BMP Manul. The engine is in the front.

[grau]

No matter how you decorate a mass grave of infantry, it will remain a grave.

[Pleiades]

What's the difference between 7 separate graves and a mass grave of 7?

[fiberboard]

There's nothing else for now anyway. The enemy isn't any better; Bradley, Kunitsa, and so on are all on the same level.

[gribanov.c]

The BMP-3 should be retained as a light infantry support tank; troop seats are unnecessary; instead, more ammunition should be carried. And if technically feasible, the crew stations should be made remotely controlled online.

[powart]

Better than nothing. And how long can we keep debating the same thing? The Ministry of Defense hasn't managed to adopt a new infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) in four years, even though it's supposedly available. It's no longer funny, and I don't even want to discuss it.

[Arigin]

If we're talking about Kurganets, then they've been dragging their feet with him for a long time.
Previously, this machine needed to be finalized and implemented, but now there is no point in spending money on it.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

BMP-3 coffin on tracks.

What "genius" came up with the idea of ​​loading a couple dozen 100mm high-explosive shells into a vehicle carrying paratroopers? For what purpose? If so that the first hit would instantly blow everyone to pieces, then the idea was a success.

Russia needs an analogue of the Israeli Namer or at least the American Bradley.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

What "genius" came up with the idea of ​​loading a couple dozen 100mm high-explosive shells into a vehicle from the landing force? For what purpose?

At the numerous requests of workers. ©
The issue of fire support for the MSO could have been solved in two ways. The first—a fantastical one—was communications and coordination. But no matter how hard the commanders tried, this approach didn't work, doesn't work, and, I'm afraid, never will.

The Red Army is strong, but communications will destroy it.

No matter how hard we tried to establish statutory coordination with the operational call for fire from our own and attached artillery, either there was no communication, or the artillery took so long to process the request that the momentum of the offensive was lost, and the motorized riflemen, lying under fire, suffered losses.
The second option is to give the MSO its own high-explosive mortar, which doesn't require requesting and then adjusting its fire with complex methods. This turned out to be the most feasible.

[Sancheas]

No problem. We'll do it tomorrow. About 700 pieces.

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Russia needs an analogue of the Israeli Namer or at least the American Bradley.

Russia needs heavy armored personnel carriers and heavy infantry fighting vehicles on tank chassis, with a frontal engine compartment and steel armor (no aluminum)—inexpensive, fast, and widely available. And leave the three-person armored personnel carriers for the Airborne Forces (leave the BMDs only for parachute landings, which will likely never happen), the Marine Corps of the Navy, and reconnaissance and advance guard units within the Russian Armed Forces' Ground Forces.

[Disant]

bayard
The BMD should be left only for parachute landings, which will most likely never happen.

Well, you could say just a couple of blinks of an eye - the Americans dropped equipment in the Panama Canal, followed by a human landing at almost low altitude.

[bayard]

I didn't see it, maybe I missed something. The US only has one airborne division. We have a little more. 20% of our armored vehicles are enough for parachute drops. The rest is airdropped. The US probably didn't deploy a division either, but a battalion at most. That's enough to capture and hold an airfield. Everything else is airdropped.
The US is far worse at parachute landings than we are. But this doesn't give us much of an advantage – the US has many more heavy military transport aircraft.

[Disant]

Alexey RA(Alexey)
What "genius" came up with the idea of ​​loading a couple dozen 100mm high-explosive shells into a vehicle from the landing force? For what purpose?

As they wrote above, use the machine variably. If you want, load it with 100 mm, if you don't want, don't load it.
The crew loaded the 100mm, moved into position, and the commander adjusted the position via drone. They fired and left. The video is full of 2-year-old guns.
Loaded 30mm and the troops moved forward. Yes, the troops will be smaller, but the engine is also very compact -)) The overall height of the vehicle is lower -)) The height of the ramp steps is about half a meter.

[Totor5]

The chief designer... there's an interview where he proudly boasts that it was his idea to put the engine in the rear for weight distribution and buoyancy, and that this flat engine had to be invented for that reason. He also came up with the idea for the 100mm cannon—he says it provided unprecedented firepower.
What is characteristic is that he also notes that he had to push through these decisions and he is proud that he was able to push through them!
And this is not surprising, because he dreamed of the idea of ​​a light tank and essentially crammed his old ideas into the IFV, ideas that have now been shown to be completely absurd. But we can't get off this hook anymore.