Military Review

A look at the domestic BMP because of the Kremlin wall

105

Very few people know that in the yellow building behind the Kremlin wall, closer to the Spasskaya Tower, the Commission of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on military-industrial issues, which the military-industrial complex was used in everyday life, was located. From 1967 to 1987 Yu.P. worked in the military-industrial complex as deputy head of department Kostenko, dealing with the development of domestic armored vehicles. In 1953 he graduated from the Moscow Technical University and was sent to the design bureau of Uralvagonzavod. From 1962 to 1967 works at the head institute tank branches - VNIITransmash (Leningrad). In 2000, he published a pamphlet [1] on the development of armored vehicles, which, due to the small circulation (500 copies), did not become the property of specialists and interested readers. Let's try to comment on the views of this highly qualified and high-ranking official on the development features of our infantry fighting vehicles.


Our BMP - tracked armored personnel carriers

In December, the Soviet motorized rifle units equipped with BMP-1979s, a large number of which were incapacitated using rifle guns, entered 1 in Afghanistan. weapons the enemy, which for the command of all levels came as a surprise. A scandalous situation arose: the BMP-1 was not provided with anti-bullet protection. Armor-piercing bullets, even of 7,62 mm caliber, pierced the side, the stern and the hull roof, resulting in the death of the crew and the landing party.

In order to understand what are the domestic BMP, consider the combat characteristics of the BMP-1. Machine weight - 13 t. Armament: 73-mm gun "Thunder"; ATGM - "Baby"; paired with a gun 7,62-mm machine gun. In the sides of the hull there are seven embrasures for firing from machine guns and two front ones for firing from light machine guns. Reservations - bulletproof: armor thickness - from 6 to 26 mm. At the same time, the sides, the stern and the roof of the hull are pierced with an 7,62 mm armor-piercing bullet at a distance of up to 50 m. guns. The machine has a system of anti-nuclear protection of personnel.


BMP-1


If we consider the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-1 as combat, then the infantry should be able to fight the enemy infantry without leaving the combat vehicle. But the design of domestic BMP does not provide this. Firstly, it does not protect the enemy’s infantry from the most ordinary small arms. Secondly, initially the main weapon of the BMP-1 was anti-tank, not anti-personnel, which made this machine defenseless when attacking a prepared enemy defense line. The debris shot was introduced into the BMP-1 ammunition unit only 7 years after the start of production of this vehicle, although this should have been done back in 1966 when it was put into service.

And, thirdly, the commander of the motorized infantry unit (he is the machine commander) was “blind”. Being in the hull and not having a circular view, he saw that the driver was less than the gunner-operator, to whom he gave fire command. Note that the error with the placement of the commander in the building was corrected through 13 for years on the BMP-2, which was equipped with a double turret.

Thus, the BMP (1, 2, 3) in their technical capabilities do not correspond to their formidable name, but represent a model of a heavy BTR capable of carrying out fire support for infantry directly during the battle. Accordingly, the MoD has long been time to revise the tactics of combat use of the BMP.

This situation was the result of a weak study by the Ministry of Defense in conjunction with the MOPTX for the development of BMP-1 and others. If we formulate the TTX for the development of BMP, the infantry of which must be able to fight the enemy’s infantry without getting out of the car, then the main requirement should be to protect against small arms of the enemy when firing "point blank". In this case, the question - whether such a machine may or may not float - is of secondary importance. The main objective of the BTR is to deliver manpower to the area of ​​the planned military operation in conditions of overcoming water obstacles by swimming. For this type of cars the level of armor protection is of secondary importance. In this situation, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Defense Industry did not understand.
At the beginning of 1980, Mr. V.M. Shabanov, reporting on the results of his trip to Afghanistan to the military-industrial complex, said the following words: “Who needs this“ tin can ”- BMP-1, which does not even protect against small arms!”

"Can" under the fire of anti-tank weapons

The process of creating models of weapons and military equipment from the development of tactical and technical requirements, design, testing to the adoption of weapons is in its essence a compromise. In relation to domestic BMPs, there was always a desire to create machines with good firepower, high road performance under the conditions of a sharp limitation on the overall mass characteristics, which was carried out due to the protection characteristics that unacceptably reduce the survival of the crew and the landing force. At the same time, the development of high-precision weapons and the improvement of previously known anti-tank weapons led to a sharp decrease in the combat properties of lightly armored vehicles in the conditions of modern and future military conflicts.

In the well-known reference books [2] it is mentioned that domestic BMP are intended to increase the mobility, armament and security of the infantry operating on the battlefield. As for security, it is somehow strange that the events of Afghanistan and Chechnya did not allow the authors of this publication to adjust the protection parameters to the reality that took place. The paratroopers and the crew, being in the BMP, are practically not protected. The state of protection from the effects of small arms can be assessed by comparing the characteristics of armor protection (armor thickness - 6-26 mm) with the armor penetration of regular ammunition [2] small arms (see table).

Armored penetration ammunition regular small arms

A look at the domestic BMP because of the Kremlin wall


The result of the comparison of the parameters of the BMP-1 armor protection with the armor penetration capacity of the standard infantry weapons indicates that the enemy can safely allow the BMPs to their positions, and then shoot them at an emphasis from conventional small arms.
It is a pity that the military educational institutions do not disclose the actual parameters of the protection of infantry fighting vehicles, and in various publications there is continued disorientation and misinformation on this issue.


BMP-2


But not only small arms ammunition will operate on the BMP battlefield, but also other more effective anti-tank weapons: artillery shells, grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, unguided cumulative cluster elements, homing and self-aiming ammunition delivered aviation, MLRS and various engineering mines. Under these conditions, the fate of the BMP crew and landing forces is especially aggravated by enemy attacks in line with tanks. In this case, anti-tank weapons will effectively hit the crew, cause an explosion of ammunition and fuel combustion. Numerous cases of defeat of lightly armored vehicles during hostilities cause a negative moral and psychological reaction in the military. Such a reaction has already occurred with the use of our infantry fighting vehicles in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Paratroopers even on the march try to be on top of the armored car. This is caused, first of all, by the fact that during a mine explosion, firing by grenade launchers, the probability of death inside an infantry fighting vehicle is much higher than when placed on the roof.

But the BMP before the approach to the zone of hostilities will be hit by various anti-tank ammunition delivered by various carriers. The action of these munitions will be very effective. The most dangerous is hitting the strike core self-aiming ammunition (Skeet). The shock core (mass of the order of 0,5 kg, speed - 2 km / s, armor penetration - 120 mm) after penetration of the body armor forms a powerful fragmentation stream with a mass of several kilograms, which effectively hits the landing force, causes the fuel tanks and gunpowder charges of the shells to ignite. The damage is compounded by the rebound of a piece of shards, which cause additional damage. The BMPs of self-guided mines (Merlin, Griffin, Strix) with 500-700 mm armor penetration will be very effective against the BMP. The cumulative jet of such ammunition has a great depth of armor.

Unfortunately, from the given examples of the defeat of domestic infantry fighting vehicles the conclusion is drawn about the weak protection of these machines, the creators of which paid attention primarily to driving performance and weaponry.

Ways to improve the protection parameters of BMP

But is the whole arsenal of methods and materials used to create BMP protection? After all, there is a fairly wide range of materials (armor steel, titanium, aluminum, ceramics, fiberglass, armored nylon and Kevlar, etc.), which is not yet fully used. From this set only armor steel was widely used. The aluminum “armor” was used in the construction of the BMP-3, BMD-3, which made it possible to somewhat reduce the parameters of the armored fragmentation flows. The use of nylon, kevlar and other similar materials as a tamping (from the inside of the hull) allows localizing the armor fragmentation effect of a number of ammunition.

The internal components of the car (transmission, engine, etc.) can contribute to the protection of ammunition, fuel and crew. The placement of the engine compartment in the stern of the BMP-3 is not indicative of attempts to improve crew and landing protection. On the contrary, on foreign BMPs “Marder” and “Bradley” the engine and transmission are installed in the forward part of the corps and, acting as a “thick” screen, protect personnel, which is very important in an offensive operation.


BMP-3


There is information on the delivery of Kurganmashzavod and NIIStali UAE dynamic protection kits for the BMP-3 BMP-3 in service in this country. But something similar to DZ is not visible on our BMP, which simultaneously increases the resistance of protection against small arms. The DZ installation increased the length of the BMP-6,7 from 7,1 to 3,3 m, the width of the screens - from 4 to 19,4 m. The mass of the machine increased from 23,4 to 4 t. The increase in mass on 3 t was due to the significant weight of non-metallic damping devices localizing the explosive effect DZ on a slim body BMP-XNUMX.

In connection with the development abroad of guided anti-tank weapons to destroy armored vehicles, not only at the forefront of the defense, but also the main thing - in the rear of our troops, it is necessary to actively develop means of countering the detection and guidance systems of these munitions.

The development of protection for light armored vehicles should be based on the results of in-depth studies of the interaction processes of promising weapons with new variants of protection structures. Protection developers should take into account that the shock cores are actively destroyed by steel screens (3-5 mm thick). In the role of the screen, you can use the DZ, which can protect not only from the cumulative jet, but also destroy the shock core.

Since lightly armored vehicles will always be part of the Ground Forces, the air defense system can significantly reduce the loss of infantry fighting vehicles by fighting against carriers of guided guided weapons.

To date, the issue of creating a family of machines capable of performing the combat tasks of modern and future military conflicts has already become overripe. The substantiation of the composition of this family and the parameters of the samples should be the primary task of the Ministry of Defense. Ongoing work related to the modernization of old machines, only allow you to gain time, but no more. But in the new cars, the protection of the crew and the landing should not be in the last place.

Disadvantages of the BMP personnel technical training system


BMP-2


The essence of these shortcomings lies in the fact that we have a tacit premise in the basis of the technical study system - a person who knows the weaknesses and shortcomings of his weapon, in combat conditions, can chicken out and not complete the task. At the same time, there is a provision according to which the design documentation of a new type of weapon entering the armament and mass production is declassified, and the specimen performance characteristics remain secret. Therefore, the focus in the educational process is on studying the design and operating conditions of the sample, and the performance characteristics are given in general form with an emphasis on merit. For example, when studying the material part of an infantry fighting vehicle, personnel learn that a reservation is well protected from small arms, from a shock wave, penetrating radiation, and light radiation from a nuclear explosion. But a soldier who underwent such training, an officer, a general, doesn’t know what kind of rifle ammunition and from what range the armor of our infantry fighting vehicles is affected and what should be expected from other destructive weapons.

Thus, the personnel have the false impression that for these machines the usual small arms are not dangerous. What this leads to is clearly seen in the examples of Afghanistan and Chechnya, where the commanders on the battlefield familiarized themselves with the actual performance characteristics, paying for it with lives and losses of military equipment. To send a modern complex machine into battle, knowing in advance that its crew does not have the necessary knowledge and management skills, is to consciously commit a crime, condemning equipment and people to death.

Tactics lagged behind technology

In 1968, in the military industrial complex there was an opinion that after the BMP-1 entered the troops, its shortcomings would appear, and in the command of the Ground Forces, and in the General Staff they would understand that it should not be used as a combat vehicle, but should be used as an armored troop-carrier and at the same time as an infantry fire support vehicle. In this assumption, the MIC was mistaken. In the Ground Forces, no one was in a hurry to engage in tactics of using BMPs and it seems that they are not engaged to this day. For 10 years after the adoption of the BMP-1 into service, there were no relevant training programs in the MO training centers.

On the "achievements" tactics of the use of BMP in combat can be a dialogue between Yu.P. Kostenko and Deputy Head of the Academy. Mv Frunze on science (Colonel-General, Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor), with the help of which they hoped to sort out this difficult question.


BMP-1


Colonel-General (GP): - Where do we start?

Yu.P. Kostenko (UP): - Let's start with the simplest: a motorized rifle squad in attack. BMP has reached the initial line for the landing of troops. In this case, the commander goes into battle with the landing force or remains to command in the car?
GP: - Of course, there is a battle with the troops.
UP: - And who in this case remains the commander of the BMP: driver or gunner?
GP: - This is decided by the squad leader himself. Obviously, he will leave the older in the car of the one who is witting.
UP: - So what? After all, it is necessary to teach a person to drive a car in a battle in advance.
The professor thought for a moment, but left the question unanswered.
UP: - Well, the infantry went forward. In this case, should the BMP follow its motorized riflemen?
GP: - Yes.
UP: - And what is the distance provided by the charter between the infantry and the BMP?
GP: - 100 m.
UP: - Suppose that the infantry came under the fire of a machine gun and lay down. How, in this case, the squad leader will transfer the command to the BMP to the gunner to suppress the enemy’s machine-gun point?
GP: - He will whistle and give the corresponding hand sign.
UP: - Excuse me, but this is happening on the battlefield, where bullets whistle and projectiles explode. How in such conditions at a distance of 100 can you hear a regular whistle or see a swinging hand ?!
The self-confidence of the general began to decline markedly.
GP: - Well ... he can give a signal with a red flag.
Gradually the face, neck, hands of the general began to blush.
UP: - Well, here the situation is more or less clear. But tell me, in a motorized rifle platoon at the disposal of the platoon commander there is an 5 BMP, therefore, he has 5 artillery shells and 200 shots to them. Do the statutes provide for the platoon commander to centrally control the fire of all this artillery?
GP: - No, the platoon commander in battle does not have such an opportunity, he does not have an offensive.
UP: - The battalion commander may have the BMN-50 before the 1, therefore, he has the 50 Thunder and 50 guns of the Malyutka ATGM launchers. But it is abundantly clear that one person - the commander of the battalion - at the same time cannot physically control the combat operations of motorized infantry units and fire BMPs. Does the staffing list include the post of deputy commander of a motorized rifle battalion on artillery?
GP: - No. There is no such position in the staff list.
Before me sat a confused man.
GP: - Yury Petrovich, sign me a pass and release me to the Academy. There now we have a commission from the General Staff, checks the educational process. If the commission has any remarks, then the Academy will have troubles, - and confidentially sincerely added: - And nobody asks for tactics from us.

This example clearly demonstrates that such generals should not be allowed to solve the most important tactical tasks.

How the General Staff stripped the country

In 1967, the General Staff informed the Council of Ministers and the State Planning Committee that, according to his calculations, for the staffing of troops with a new type of infantry weaponry, the Ministry of Defense required 70 thousand BMP-1! The Council of Ministers (MIC) and the State Planning Commission adopted it for execution. In economic terms, for the country it was a huge burden. Note that in the sixth year of mass production, the BMP-1 cost 70 thousand rubles. 29 November 1968 marshals Grechko and Zakharov signed an application for 1971-1975, in which the need of the Ministry of Defense for the BMP-1 for the five-year plan was indicated for all 27250 pieces. But even the industry of the country was unable to accept such an application. Moreover, the entire industry of the Warsaw Pact member countries was not able to cope with such an application. The USSR government instructed the State Planning Committee and the State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations to conduct negotiations with the Polish People's Republic and Czechoslovakia on the possibility of organizing production of BMP-1 in these countries specifically for the USSR. It was envisaged that in 1971-1975 years. The USSR is ready to buy in Poland 2500, and Czechoslovakia - 2250 BMP-1. The Czechs accepted the offer, the Poles refused. As a result, capacities were created in Czechoslovakia and deliveries to the USSR on the 500 BMP-1 were started annually.


BMP-3


The Government Resolution on 3 of September 1968 provided for the creation of production capacities of BMP-1 at two plants of the Ministry of Defense Industry in the cities of Kurgan and Rubtsovsk. Almost factories were built anew. Finally, the fifth five-year plan for 1971-1975. it was planned to manufacture 12061 BMP-1, which accounted for 44% of the stated needs of the Ministry of Defense. Application for 1976-1980 It was planned to manufacture 21500 BMP. The figures indicate the following. Starting almost from scratch, the Ministry of Defense placed the army for 10 20 thousands of BMPs for years. The main supplier was Kurgan Machine-Building Plant.

The previous procedure for making high-level decisions on the creation of weapons is very interesting. As a rule, the decision was worked out by the Ministry of Defense Industry, the Ministry of Defense, the State Planning Committee, and the military-industrial complex and the CPSU Central Committee gave them only their "good". Such a system, firstly, was cumbersome and clumsy, and secondly, it created an atmosphere of irresponsibility when making decisions. At the same time, with such a system, defense planning was torn into two parts: the military strategic plans were in the General Staff, and the strategic plans for their material and technical support were in the State Planning Committee. This gap led to gross miscalculations that did not bypass the domestic lightly armored vehicles.

In general, as follows from the main provisions of the Yu.P. Kostenko, in the military industrial complex, the state of Russian BMPs was realistic, but the Ministry of Defense ordered the music. In that state structure, even officials of the rank of Yu.P. Kostenko was not easy to fight with a cumbersome state machine. Between the lines there are words of repentance and regret for what he did not have time to do.

Literature

1. Yu.P. Kostenko, Some issues of the development of domestic armored vehicles in 1967-1987. (memoirs and reflections), UNIAR-Print LLC, Moscow, 2000
2. Weapons of Russia 2000, Military Parade Publishing House, Moscow, 2000
Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 17 August 2013 08: 24 New
    +7
    And if on Kurganets25 the tactical and technical task was done by Serdyukov women, what will happen at the exit?
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 17 August 2013 09: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: Anatole Klim
      And if on Kurganets25 the tactical and technical task was done by Serdyukov women, what will happen at the exit?

      Hardly. Here you need to think a little with your head!
      And so they just got into the register of land plots of the Moscow region, got a bundle and sell it! State lands - who counts them?
    2. duke
      duke 17 August 2013 09: 40 New
      +4
      I guess those. no one could already do the task, especially the Serdyukovskiy battalion of whistles, and experts - intelligent techies, and even who could clearly and clearly compose such a competent tech. the task, taking into account all the modern requirements and capabilities of the industry, is not left, because the old ones were simply fired, but the young ones hadn’t been trained yet, and there weren’t any such services anymore — they dispersed them, so the industry, where the specialists still remained, seemed to proceed from its own understanding and vision of the task. Well, you yourself think, where did Serdyukov, the former furniture maker, get the idea of ​​the tasks, needs, problems of the army? He did not even have the mind to preserve the backbone of the General Staff and the most necessary army services. As one movie hero (from the Caucasian captive) said, “this is voluntarism”
    3. alone
      alone 17 August 2013 13: 16 New
      +5
      women with Serdyukov were engaged in business, their “Kurgan” was not interested
      1. old man54
        old man54 18 August 2013 23: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: lonely
        women with serdyukov went in for business

        well, women with smerdyukov were engaged not only in business, more precisely, he was with them, but also something else, for their intended purpose. lol hi
  2. mirag2
    mirag2 17 August 2013 09: 02 New
    +7
    That's the right reform to start with such articles. I’m sure that both IZHMASH and Uralvagonzavod products have similar data, whose products are incredibly outdated and continue to be produced to save jobs and finance ...
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 17 August 2013 15: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: mirag2
      That's the right reform to start with such articles. I’m sure that both IZHMASH and Uralvagonzavod products have similar data, whose products are incredibly outdated and continue to be produced to save jobs and finance ...

      Do you think only the above mentioned enterprises have such a problem?
      Such a problem almost everywhere, with rare exceptions, is the trouble.
  3. avt
    avt 17 August 2013 09: 48 New
    12
    Sensibly! But this is ---- ,, In 1968, there was an opinion in the military-industrial complex that, after the BMP-1 enters the troops, its shortcomings will appear, both in the command of the Ground Forces and in the General Staff they will understand that it cannot be used as a combat vehicle, but it should be used as an armored personnel carrier and at the same time as an infantry fire support vehicle. In this assumption, the military-industrial complex was mistaken "------- a short and clear answer to everyone who wants to cut open spaces by pouring fire from embrasures inside a super-protected, non-explosive infantry fighting vehicle. Well, the dialogue with the colonel general is something at all! There’s a plus article.
    1. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 12: 30 New
      +5
      Quote: avt
      use as an armored personnel carrier and at the same time as an infantry fire support vehicle

      The concept of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, on modern armored vehicles is already conditional.
      It all depends on the weapons, and armor protection.
      Modular platform on tracked and wheeled. Under various types of weapons.
      What is now planned with the creation of ,, Kurganets ,,,.
      In the West, similar BMP / BTR complexes have already been created, in my opinion the best CV-90.ASCOD.
      ASCOD (PIZARRO / ULAN).
      ASCOD modular platform includes: light tank LT105, chassis for air defense systems, and ZSU, ATGMC SPTRK, 81-mm or 120-mm self-propelled mortar AMC120, BREM, BRM, control and communication machine, mobile ANP, ambulance. GSH for self-propelled guns. The Donar self-propelled guns was created on the basis of one of the ASCOD 2 variants - the infantry fighting vehicle, due to which the created artillery complex has a very high degree of maneuverability.
      CV-90, in the version of the BTR.
      1. avt
        avt 17 August 2013 13: 22 New
        +3
        Quote: bask
        The concept of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, on modern armored vehicles is already conditional.

        I agree . BMP - almost armored personnel carriers with advanced capabilities of fire support, the allocation of a new class and led to all these misunderstandings and excessive requirements for infantry fighting vehicles. That's right, with such a classic approach, they will soon demand from the notorious Terminator the availability of the possibility of deploying an assault. laughing , well, as some claim that Carrots were created for transporting troops and you’ll convince horseradish.
        1. bask
          bask 17 August 2013 13: 54 New
          +4
          Quote: avt
          some that Carrots created for transporting troops and horseradish convince

          avt, just for the Tsakhals, everything is simple. The maximum protection is for armored vehicles and infantry.
          And how is armored vehicles classified on which it will be delivered to them ........
          In Russia, we cannot 100% take this experience of course.
          But for BMP / BTR-T motorized rifles, there should only be ,, heavy ,,,. The main requirement is the crew’s security. And the railway transportation standard.
          1. washi
            washi 17 August 2013 14: 29 New
            +7
            But for BMP / BTR-T motorized rifles, there should only be ,, heavy ,,,. The main requirement is the crew’s security. And the railway transportation standard.
            And who will go on the attack? And how to combine security and transportation by rail? And also patency on the marshy soils of My country and the ability to overcome the Many streams and rivers?
            Kazakhstan and Central Asia may need “heavy” armored personnel carriers, but only in winter or summer. And in the mountains do not care about security - it all depends on the observer i.e. intelligence and own dumbness.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 17 August 2013 23: 30 New
              0
              In order for the troops to attack, they must first be delivered as safely as possible to the landing point.
        2. mirror
          mirror 18 August 2013 20: 29 New
          -1
          We even made a compartment for a landing on a combat helicopter - I'm talking about MI-24.
    2. washi
      washi 17 August 2013 14: 21 New
      +6
      And who believed the article?
      Why, after we created the BMP - EVERYONE who was able to create them - they were made.
      The mission of the BMP and the armored personnel carrier is the same: infantry delivery and fire support.
      Miscellaneous use: BTR - as part of the MSD, BMP-TD. The difference in patency and fire weapons.
      After leaving the CO car, the eldest remains BUT. What's in the APC, what is the BMP.
      BMP is used both in the offensive and in defense as a firing point.
      1. bask
        bask 17 August 2013 15: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Vasya
        Miscellaneous use: BTR - as part of the MSD, BMP-TD. The difference in patency and fire weapons.

        Vasya.
        Patria -AMV, with our module, triad, for the UAE, is it an armored personnel carrier or wheeled infantry fighting vehicle?

        M1133 on the General Staff. Tower with a 20 mm Spanish-Suiza. This is a BMP or armored personnel carrier.
        1. smprofi
          smprofi 17 August 2013 15: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: bask
          Is it an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier

          All of the above are classified as armored personnel carriers.
          True, there is a newfangled definition of zhurnalyug - "wheeled tank". but this is to describe the "reform"
          1. bask
            bask 17 August 2013 20: 02 New
            +3
            Quote: smprofi

            All of the above are classified as armored personnel carriers.
            True, there is a newfangled definition of zhurnalyug - "wheeled tank". but this is to describe the "reform
            smprofi
            Wheeled is understandable.
            But I also answered question No. 2, about the high-passable GSh M113 with a turret and a 20 mm cannon.
            Wheel BMP with object 1200.
            In 1964, the BAZ was given the TTX task to develop a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. The work was started under the leadership of V. A. Rozov, the name object 1200. Already in September 1965, a prototype wheeled infantry fighting vehicle was created (8/8). Entrance and exit to the BMP, through, hatches and exit through the threshold door. On the starboard side. Diesel UTD-20 with a power of 300 hp located in the stern on the port side. The BMP in the year 64 !!!!! BMP the presence of hydropneumatic suspension, which allows you to change ground clearance, and wide-profile tires with a centralized air pumping system. The mass is 14 tons. On modern western-propelled APCs in the late 90s. And then not everyone has it, only on the Patri-AMV BTR.
            So how to classify an object 1200 BTR or BMP according to the TTX task.
  4. erix-xnumx
    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 09: 49 New
    12
    The author of the slonets fooled with a dialogue between Colonel General and Yu.P. Kostenko. Firstly, in the BMP, after dismounting the squad, the senior becomes not the one who is more savvy, but the gunner-operator. His position sounds like NO-ZKBM, gunner-operator, deputy commander of a combat vehicle. Secondly, there are portable radio stations to control the combat vehicle, and not just flags and art whistles. Thirdly, the platoon commander, not to mention the company commander, and even more so the battalion commander, manages subordinate units, and not every BMP or every weapon. Well, the statement about the control of the battalion commander with the 50th Thunder guns and the 50th ATGMs is generally a complete misunderstanding of the control system of motorized rifle units and subunits. The author is clearly not aware that during the preparation of the battle some elements of the battle order are created, and that quite specific officials are appointed to lead them. And what would the proposed deputy commander of the artillery battalion have to do with firing from weapons? In general, a mishmash of truth and fiction, not an article ....
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 09: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: erix-06
      Secondly, there are portable radio stations to control the combat vehicle, and not just flags and art whistles

      Yah? On BMP, how many radio stations do we have? That's right, one. How can it work simultaneously in a platoon network and in a branch network? So only whistle and flags.
      1. erix-xnumx
        erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 10: 06 New
        +9
        What a severe problem! The mighty radio platoon network - as many as seven radio stations! Of course, it’s much easier to wave a flag or whistle in the field than to learn your call sign and the callsign of your BMP. Talk about a whistle or flags can only be one who has never been in a chain. Well, talking about the department’s radio network is possible only if there are more than two radio stations in the department. But in fact, a portable station by the squad leader and one radio station by car. That's the whole network ... So you have to get along with the platoon network.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 August 2013 10: 41 New
          0
          Quote: erix-06
          What a severe problem! The mighty radio platoon network - as many as seven radio stations!

          Very harsh. The squad leader must have contact with the platoon commander and his machine. How is this done? How can this be done at all with available funds?
          Quote: erix-06
          But in fact, a portable station by the squad leader and one radio station by car.

          And both work in a platoon network.

          Quote: erix-06
          So you have to do a platoon network.

          Are you sure that in this case the platoon commander will be able to control the platoon?
          In addition, there is a problem with tanks, how to interact with them?
          1. erix-xnumx
            erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 11: 07 New
            +6
            The lack of radio is certainly bad. But in a particular case, it is quite realistic to provide control of squads and combat vehicles in a platoon network. It will be relatively difficult, but, with a normal discipline of communication, it is quite achievable. And this is better than trying to yell in chains or wave a flag, still no one will hear or see. I do not claim that there is no problem, but to say that the whistle is the only means of control, just a mockery.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 August 2013 13: 35 New
              +2
              Quote: erix-06
              But in a particular case, it is quite realistic to provide control of squads and combat vehicles in a platoon network

              Unreal. Think for yourself if the platoon commander will be able to control anything at all if the three squad commanders start driving their cars on his network. This is because target designations go from the TO to the crew of the car. Not monosyllabic forward-backward-right-left commands
              1. erix-xnumx
                erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 13: 49 New
                +4
                Everything is real. There is no other way. Only competent organization of communication and a well-developed system of short signals and commands. Otherwise there will be nothing at all. Judging by your reasoning, it turns out that it is necessary either to leave the unit commanders and platoon commanders in battle inside the combat vehicle, or to issue two radio stations, one for controlling the infantry fighting vehicle, and the second for communication with the higher commander. But the presence of portable radios no longer refers to the design of the BMP ...
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 17 August 2013 14: 30 New
                  +3
                  Yes, nothing is real. With a modern system. So, the BMP remains an ordinary truck, no matter how many weapons you install on it.

                  The article posed the absolutely correct questions. And for manageability, and for an incomplete crew (the commander of the car should be required).
                  1. erix-xnumx
                    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 14: 51 New
                    0
                    And in what relationships should, in your opinion, be the squad leader and BMP commander? Will the squad leader have to control the BMP commander in battle? If so, then with the existing means of communication, the management problems will remain the same. And if not, it becomes completely unclear who will lead the BMP after the infantry dismounting.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 17 August 2013 14: 58 New
                      0
                      Must manage. A communication system should provide this control.
                      1. erix-xnumx
                        erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 15: 10 New
                        +1
                        If in the end the actions of the BMP will be led by the commander of the squad, then why is the commander of the machine needed?
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 17 August 2013 15: 18 New
                        0
                        The tank platoon commander also manages his vehicles. However, abandoning tank commanders at the moment is impossible.
                      3. erix-xnumx
                        erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 15: 30 New
                        +2
                        The tank platoon commander has only three tanks subordinate. Moreover, in one of the tanks he himself and the tank commander. And the tank commander manages only his tank, he does not have dismounted infantry subordinate. But the commander of a motorized rifle platoon has three squads subordinate, which has both infantry and infantry fighting vehicles. But why is the BMP commander still needed? I still don’t understand, because the BMP will still be managed by the squad commander. The problem is, as far as we found out, that there are not enough portable means of communication, but not commanders ...
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 17 August 2013 18: 36 New
                        0
                        Quote: erix-06
                        And the tank commander manages only his tank, he does not have dismounted infantry subordinate.

                        Exactly. And he exists.

                        And the commander of the motorized rifle division has subordinate infantry — that is, there are more responsibilities in battle. And his surveillance tools are an order of magnitude worse than that of the tank commander. However, for some reason, the BMP fire control responsibilities were assigned to him.
                      5. erix-xnumx
                        erix-xnumx 18 August 2013 00: 57 New
                        +1
                        We discussed the presence of a problem in the management of infantry fighting vehicles during infantry dismounts due to an incomplete communications system. The introduction of the post of BMP commander to the branch staff does not solve this problem. All the same, the squad leader will receive commands and orders from the senior commander and set tasks for his combat vehicle. Then what is the commander of a combat vehicle for? And whose commands to defeat targets will the gunner-operator have to fulfill first of all, KO or KBM? And who will give the target designation BUT when operating on an infantry fighting vehicle without dismounting? Optical surveillance tools of course give a certain gain in range, but they brutally lose in the observation sector to the ordinary eye.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 18 August 2013 01: 07 New
                        0
                        Quote: erix-06
                        The introduction of the post of BMP commander to the branch staff does not solve this problem.

                        But it solves many other problems. For example, the problem of using weapons and monitoring the battlefield. The gunner-operator, firing at the target, simply can not do anything else. Especially when working with guided weapons. K, the commander of the compartment has neither the time nor the ability, after a rush, to perform the same functions with the BMP as the tank commander does.
                      7. erix-xnumx
                        erix-xnumx 18 August 2013 01: 17 New
                        0
                        Well, yes, it solves some problems, but it creates some ... But the commander of the squadron does not affect the problem of controlling the machine after infantry dismounting.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 18 August 2013 01: 29 New
                        0
                        What problems? BMP so can survive on the battlefield? Or will normal intelligence tools appear on it, because who will they finally use?
                      9. erix-xnumx
                        erix-xnumx 18 August 2013 02: 03 New
                        0
                        What problems? Who will lead the BMP after dismounting infantry? Whose command to defeat targets will have to be carried out by the gunner-operator, first of all, the squad commander or the commander of a combat vehicle when receiving target designation at the same time? Who will direct the movement of the BMP on the battlefield? Who will lead the fire of the BMP during the operations of the squad on equipment or on the march? How will the unit commander conduct surveillance if the commander of the combat vehicle is at the most convenient place for observation? You say that in BUT it will not be able to do anything else during the launch of the ATGM, but at this moment the commander of the combat vehicle will most likely not do anything else, he will observe the result of the ATGM launch and will not be able to transfer the tower towards new goal. And in general, one of the responsibilities of the KO is to observe the results of the shooting and adjust the BMP fire. So the BMP commander, most likely, will look precisely at those goals for which the BUT is firing.
            2. mirror
              mirror 18 August 2013 20: 42 New
              0
              The problem is the lack of modern means of communication and data exchange. In conventional networks, in fact, separate radio stations are needed to operate on each radio network. For a long time already in the Western armies there are tactical digital communications networks - like a cellular telephone network. One such network provides communication with a different set of destinations, i.e. creates a kind of virtual radio network. Moreover, such networks provide data exchange - i.e. a platoon commander and other commanders can set targets for each infantry fighting vehicle (in this example) from their computer and automatically issue target designation. Gunners can only aim the gun at the indicated target (it is displayed on the screen). Well, the commander receives target designation from drones, etc. This is the network-centric war in the scale of a platoon, company and battalion. Moreover, the Westerners all this was back in 80 years. Our ever-present misfortune - tens of thousands of infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, ships and submarines cost, but always forgot about control systems. We lagged behind very seriously, and unfortunately lag behind.
  • erix-xnumx
    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 14: 16 New
    0
    Everything is real. There is simply no other way out. Here you need a well-developed system of short signals and commands. And the good training of gunners-operators of BMPs on independent reconnaissance of targets and their defeat is very important. The main thing is to prevent verbiage on the air. Otherwise, it turns out that the squad and platoon commanders must remain in battle in their vehicles, which I consider to be wrong. Or it is necessary to improve portable radio communications to ensure the work of commanders in various radio networks. But this can no longer speak of the depravity of the concept of BMP.
  • slav4ikus
    slav4ikus 17 August 2013 11: 32 New
    +1
    Have you heard anything about multi-channel communication? But about the change of frequencies?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 13: 24 New
      +3
      Do you know what to do with a platoon commander whose squad leaders leave his frequency in order to steer his own BMP? What is there in wartime for loss of control relies on?
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 14: 33 New
    +1
    I mentioned below the P-126.
    With the coherence of the division of words is not necessary.
  • erix-xnumx
    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 10: 08 New
    +3
    Although, the BMP-2 has long been receiving and transmitting radio and receiver ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 10: 41 New
      +3
      On some BMP-2s. And some still have the 123rd station.
      1. erix-xnumx
        erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 11: 13 New
        +5
        Not ready to answer for all BMP in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. But somehow I did not have to meet the BMP-2 with the P-123. My regiment was rearmament on the BMP-2 in 1994. The cars were produced a few years earlier. All came with 173 radio stations. In the next regiment I met BTR-80 with R-123, but they appeared there instead of the looted 173s. As they say, a special case ...
        1. Normal
          Normal 17 August 2013 12: 31 New
          0
          Quote: erix-06
          Not ready to answer for all BMP in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

          But you are ready to evaluate Kostenko’s opinion on the concept, tactics and combat employment of infantry fighting vehicles in the years 60-70-80 from the perspective of the 90s.
          I do not pretend to be an expert opinion, I served urgently in the first half of the 80s and in the Airborne Forces, but the problems of communication and control in the battle line were the same as the author describes. There is one walkie-talkie at the platoon. platoon, to the department three receivers. And you can yell on the radio. The company officer yelled and swore so much that the battalion commander could not stand it and aired: “Captain S-hin, stop annoying the personnel! They BETTER KNOW YOU what to do ...” Immediately there was silence and the company aligning the battle line successfully hit all targets intended for her. But this is in ideal conditions for exercises ... yes
          1. erix-xnumx
            erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 12: 51 New
            +2
            Dear Kostenko, according to this article, did not offer any concepts and tactics for the use of infantry fighting vehicles in units. I did not appreciate Kostenko as such, I expressed the opinion that the author could well convey the essence of the dialogue between Kostenko and the deputy head of the Frunze Academy. I don’t think that the Colonel-General didn’t know about the existence of portable radio stations, didn’t know that the battalion commander didn’t personally control each BMP in the battalion, that there were not 5 BMPs in the platoon, but 3 ... And there are enough such mistakes in the article. But the very concept of using BMPs is quite good. Another question is that quite a few shortcomings were originally laid in the BMP design ... But the one who does nothing is not mistaken.
            1. bask
              bask 17 August 2013 13: 17 New
              +3
              Quote: erix-06
              I didn’t appreciate Kostenko as such, I expressed the opinion that the author could well convey the essence of the dialogue between Kostenko and the deputy head of the Frunze Academy

              erix-06, I’ll say it can be a common phrase.
              Quote: erix-06
              A look at the domestic BMP because of the Kremlin wall

              When the kids politicians because of the Kremlin wall will serve as ordinary soldiers on the BMP. Then the BMP in Russia will be the best in the world !!!!
              In the meantime, it is necessary to modernize the BMP-1.2, their modernization potential is huge.
              The Czech company EXCALIBUR ARMY, proposed a modernized version of the BMP-1.2. For conflicts of low intensity called MGC-1.
              The main emphasis is on improving protection. Resistance to side protection corresponds to level 4 according to the STANAG-4269 standard. Mine resistance corresponds to level 2 of the STANAG-4269 standard. The landing is placed on the mine seats., Suspended from the roof of the hull, 2nd reinforced bottom.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 August 2013 13: 29 New
              +2
              Sorry, management problems in the squad-company-squad link have not been resolved to this day.
              Do you think that the 173rd plus receiver decides something? (By the way, this “bundle” is intended for the organization of duplex communication, as far as I remember)
              1. erix-xnumx
                erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 13: 57 New
                0
                I agree that there are plenty of problems in organizing communications, but this does not mean that they do not need to have any fighting vehicle for the infantry squad. After all, the author in his article presented shortcomings in the organization of communications, as one of the arguments against the very idea of ​​having a combat vehicle for the infantry squad. This is the wrong approach. Whether the infantry were on foot or on trucks, communication problems would be all the same. They do not exist because of the presence of BMPs or armored personnel carriers.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 17 August 2013 14: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: erix-06
                  I agree that there are plenty of problems in organizing communications, but this does not mean that they do not need to have any fighting vehicle for the infantry squad. After all, the author in his article presented shortcomings in the organization of communications, as one of the arguments against the very idea of ​​having a combat vehicle for the infantry squad.

                  You did not understand the author. He indicated that BMP-1,2,3 are not full-fledged BMPs. Including due to the lack of controllability in battle.
                  1. erix-xnumx
                    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 14: 45 New
                    0
                    And what is the lack of controllability of the BMP? If you do not take into account the cars of the first releases, then the presence of a radio station and a receiver in the BMP fully ensures the work of the car commander in two radio networks — the radio networks of his unit and the radio networks of a higher commander. If we talk about the lack of portable radio communications, then this problem is much wider than the design problems of the BMP.
                  2. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 17 August 2013 15: 01 New
                    +1
                    Is it possible to control the BMP crew by the squad leader after dismounting? No. So what can we talk about?
                  3. erix-xnumx
                    erix-xnumx 17 August 2013 15: 08 New
                    0
                    You can talk about the ways of developing portable radio communications in departments and platoons. But this does not apply to the design of the BMP.
                  4. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 17 August 2013 15: 12 New
                    +2
                    Here you have no analogue in the world of BMP, own it, but what will you do with it, not our problems?

                    Why do binoculars do with two rather than stirrup eyepieces?
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 14: 39 New
    +1
    There is almost no difference, except for an increase in the RFL and the ability to connect the ADF (numbers)
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 14: 36 New
    0
    R-123 - transceiver with 4 ZPCH,
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 14: 32 New
    +1
    There were also R-126 radios, which were intended for each soldier
  • soaring
    soaring 17 August 2013 12: 47 New
    0
    +++++++++++ 1000% good drinks
  • gallville
    gallville 17 August 2013 10: 05 New
    +6
    I put the article in bold minus. The article is nonsense regarding the tactics of using the machine.
    Let's go:
    UP: - Suppose that the infantry came under the fire of a machine gun and lay down. How, in this case, the squad leader will transfer the command to the BMP to the gunner to suppress the enemy’s machine-gun point?
    GP: - He will whistle and give the corresponding hand sign.
    UP: - Excuse me, but this is happening on the battlefield, where bullets whistle and projectiles explode. How in such conditions at a distance of 100 can you hear a regular whistle or see a swinging hand ?!

    The goal for the platoon is separation. For the department, respectively, a third of the department. Total against 3 infantry fighting vehicles by acting 1 (RF) -2 (USA) machine gunner 6-8 infantryman and 1 infantry fighting vehicle (which the artillery and the tank will try to hit before) - already 3 BMP 1-2 machine gunners will be revealed.
    The infantry task to identify the grenade launcher.
    UP: - And what is the distance provided by the charter between the infantry and the BMP?
    GP: - 100 m.

    Is there anything else ahead of the tank? Tank after tank infantry 100-200m. for infantry 100m. BMP
    200m from the tank artillery fire shaft. Total 400-500m to the front edge of the enemy’s defense.
    UP: - Well, here the situation is more or less clear. But tell me, in the motorized rifle platoon, the platoon commander has 5 BMPs

    In infantry platoon 3 BMP. The author clearly did not serve in the army.
    UP: - At the disposal of the battalion commander may be up to 50 BMP-1

    Doubtful.
    Does the staffing list include the position of deputy commander of a motorized rifle artillery battalion?
    GP: - No. There is no such position in the staff list.

    Correctly. Because there is a commander in the motorized rifle battalion mortar company.

    With whom the author spoke, to put it mildly, it is not clear. And finally, a link to the OSH motorized rifle regiment of the USSR:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/%D0%9E%D0%A8%D0%A1_371-%D0%B3
    %D0%BE_%D0%B3%D0%B2.%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BF.jpg?uselang=ru
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 10: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      The goal for the platoon is separation. For the department, respectively, a third of the department. Total against 3 infantry fighting vehicles by acting 1 (RF) -2 (USA) machine gunner 6-8 infantryman and 1 infantry fighting vehicle (which the artillery and the tank will try to hit before) - already 3 BMP 1-2 machine gunners will be revealed.
      The infantry task to identify the grenade launcher.

      Looking at whom you run into. What if the Americans? This is against 3 BMPs and one tank, one tank, 1 BMP and 2 ATGM. The task of the infantry is to survive to the moment when, finally, it will be possible to start looking for a grenade launcher.

      Quote: gallville
      Correctly. Because there is a mortar company commander in the motorized rifle battalion.

      Cool. Well, firstly, he has a lot of his own problems, and secondly, no one will give him the command of the artillery battalion supporting commander.
      1. bask
        bask 17 August 2013 11: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Spade

        Looking at whom you run into. What if the Americans? This is against 3 BMPs and one tank, one tank, 1 BMP and 2 ATGM. The task of the infantry is to survive to the moment when, finally, it will be possible to start looking for a grenade launcher.

        I think we will not live up to head-on collisions with amers. Now the main problem is the interaction between MBT and infantry during the storming of cities and the war in the mountains and forests.
        Tactics should be clearly developed and scientifically calculated, this type of battle. Using BMP and armored personnel carriers.
        The technology should be designed for future real wars and threats. For Russia, this is China and the war on terrorists in the S. Caucasus.
    2. Normal
      Normal 17 August 2013 12: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      Let's go:
      .........
      The goal for the platoon is separation.

      You describe a hypothetical ideal attack situation on a poorly prepared enemy defense in an open field. (this is exactly what BMD was imprisoned for), but even under these conditions, ONE competently located on the flank and masked machine-gun crew of the enemy will put the whole company, or even two and no BMD will be able to detect it. Tanks left without infantry will fall under the RPG flanking attacks again.
      The article that in the development, production, and training of l / c tactics for the use of BMD, the realities of the battle were completely ignored. It is not new, but as old as the world; we always learn to fight already in the course of the database, and the concepts of application and tactics of actions studied previously usually turn out to be outdated, erroneous, or frankly false.
      1. sedoj
        sedoj 17 August 2013 22: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Normal
        You describe a hypothetical ideal attack situation on a poorly prepared enemy defense in an open field. (this is exactly what BMD was imprisoned for), but even under these conditions, ONE competently located on the flank and masked machine-gun crew of the enemy will put the whole company, or even two and no BMD will be able to detect it. Tanks left without infantry will fall under the RPG flanking attacks again.

        And you, as I look, without reconnaissance, without artillery preparation - go straight into battle! And all that then emerges from the enemy is a complete surprise.
        And the article put a minus - in some places bullshit.
    3. alone
      alone 17 August 2013 16: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: gallville
      The author clearly did not serve in the army.



      so many such authors and military experts have appeared our time, already the head is already spinning. such nonsense they write that sometimes I rejoice that they did not serve in the army. so much trouble could have done
      1. ebrd
        ebrd 18 August 2013 17: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: lonely
        Quote: gallville
        The author clearly did not serve in the army.



        so many such authors and military experts have appeared our time, already the head is already spinning. such nonsense they write that sometimes I rejoice that they did not serve in the army. so much trouble could have done

        ... Briefly and on business! I’ll add on my own - when I served in Afghanistan, we, the BEMPU, loved a good car! The author here is all kinds of calculations, links to sources like, one grandmother said, etc. Yes, the BMP is normal, it’s holding, hits from the rifle, (Unlike the BTR-70,80) and I’m spat on it (the author) and rub it ... about the large-caliber-12,7 (dshk) - but who will BMP-1 yes, the gun is unimportant, it’s not good in the mountains, BMP-2 is another matter, when we, the deuces went in the convoy, the spirits from the RPG were afraid to hit - a shot from an RPG at once will detect the position, and from a 30mm automatic gun immediately-khan calculated.
      2. Normal
        Normal 19 August 2013 00: 34 New
        0
        Quote: sedoj
        And the article put a minus - in some places bullshit.

        Quote: lonely
        so many such authors and military experts have appeared our time, already the head is already spinning. such nonsense they write that sometimes I rejoice that they did not serve in the army. so much trouble could have done

        I understand that you certainly know much more than Kostenko.
        Then please read: http: //topwar.ru/12977-tank-chelovek-sreda-mashina.html

        Or maybe you can boast of more solid works than:
        1. Yu.P. Kostenko, Some issues of the development of domestic armored vehicles in 1967-1987. (memoirs and reflections), UNIAR-Print LLC, Moscow, 2000
        2. Weapons of Russia 2000, Military Parade Publishing House, Moscow, 2000
        Throw references, I will be very grateful laughing
  • Su-9
    Su-9 17 August 2013 10: 07 New
    11
    The article is interesting, Kostenko, of course, was in the subject, but in principle - nothing new, and a little wound. What is the author trying to prove?
    That all BMPs are lightly armored? Well, I don’t know, but all the pekhtura with whom I spoke in the 80s knew that.
    That we did not have normal means of communication at the branch-platoon level? Well, yes, there wasn’t. Now I think there is.
    What was written by the experience of the Second World War? Probably it was, I also did not always understand all of these tank attacks by the front, digging and exiting to the flank - but again, I would like to hear a person familiar with the topic about this.
    What is bad that they produced a lot of BMP? Criticizing without offering a reasonable alternative is always easy. The army was large, a lot of equipment was needed. The strategy was - a jerk to the English Channel, what to go? If they made heavy BMPs like Marder, then they would cost 3 times more expensive, would not swim (and how to cross rivers in Europe?), Engines would have to be installed from tanks, more fuel would have been needed, patency would be worse - and a bunch of other problems.
    That the military-industrial complex was good and the Ministry of Defense ordered not that and did not know how to use it? I do not believe, it is very one-sided.
    Well, the reasoning that the BMP should hold an anti-tank missile and a mine - to the level of technology of the 70s - is nonsense.
    Although, probably, if heavy BMPs were made from T-54/55 as the Izailtians, then maybe they would come in handy and save lives in Afghanistan / Chechnya.
    It's good to be smart after 30 years.
  • erased
    erased 17 August 2013 10: 29 New
    0
    Favorite game of the top - attack on the rake. You can throw billions on worthless equipment, and then say "UPS". Now, if they paid from their own pockets, they would hardly have adopted bad cars.
    The practice of all wars since 1967 showed:
    - infantry to the field or place of battle must be delivered in a well-armored vehicle capable of withstanding fire from small arms up to machine guns of 14,5 mm caliber; as well as RPGs; have mine protection at the level of 5-7 kg of TNT.
    - in battle, infantry can be supported by the fire of armored vehicles that can withstand shots from RPGs, ATGMs, guns, and detonation of 10-12 kg of TNT. It is desirable that the support be different - machine guns, automatic small-caliber guns, AH, large-caliber guns. We are talking about tanks and combat support vehicles such as BMPT. Moreover, the latter, made on the basis of the tank, should take the landing of 6-8 people.
    No other vehicles will simply fit the characteristics of infantry in war (excluding floating vehicles for the marine corps).
    As a "taxi" for infantry, a Tiger-type car or a KAMAZ "Shot" car, reinforced with armor, including the active type, are suitable. But these cars are not involved in the battle. And for the battle, alteration based on the tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is suitable.
    Everything else is from the evil one. Or from enemies, how to look ...
    1. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 10: 59 New
      +5
      Quote: erased
      infantry to the field or place of battle must be delivered in a well-armored vehicle capable of withstanding fire from small arms up to machine guns of 14,5 mm caliber; as well as RPGs; have mine protection at the level of 5-7 kg of TNT.

      This is the main STER, I agree 100%.
      But the BMP was created under the concept of the war of the 60s with the use of nuclear weapons.
      The war in Afghanistan showed the complete unsuitability of the USSR armored vehicles for this war (asymmetric). BMP-2D appeared, but the mine
      shield remained at the same level.
      Now they are writing off for scrap T-62, T-80 and here I agree, tank corps should go only for the manufacture of BMP-T / BTR-T.
      In 1992, it was tested and adopted by the General Staff, MT-SM; the General Staff GM-123, self-propelled guns Akatsiya, a mine-loading system, ready-made platforms for conversion into BMP / BTR are in service.
      The Germans created in 2010 on the nodes the tanks ,, Leo 1.2,, BTR G-5, find, find 10 differences with our GSh MT-SM, it could turn out BMP.
      One more word: in the 80s, our soldiers fought in Angola against South Africa had anti-mine missile vehicles, but no one in the USSR even considered this method of defense against mines. And all the gzuziks in Afghanistan were unarmored, which led to heavy losses as gr..machine and soldier.
      G-5

      MT-SM

    2. Flooding
      Flooding 17 August 2013 19: 55 New
      +7
      Quote: erased
      infantry to the field or place of battle must be delivered in a well-armored vehicle capable of withstanding fire from small arms up to machine guns of 14,5 mm caliber; as well as RPGs; have mine protection at the level of 5-7 kg of TNT

      If I make a mistake, please correct.
      Delivery of manpower on the battlefield is carried out on the enemy fortified territory? Or without engineering reconnaissance of the liberated territory through minefields? Or in conditions of terrain control by enemy saboteurs?
      I do not understand why everyone is so obsessed with increased mine protection?
      Why should linear armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles be necessarily MRAP-free?
      How much is it claimed in large-scale hostilities?
      Indeed, under conditions of limiting the load on the supporting platform, an increase in mine protection means only a decrease in protection against other weapons, or to the detriment of the dynamic qualities of armored vehicles.

      I am wary of articles by Mikhail Rastopshin.
      There are a lot of accusations of bias distributed to him.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 17 August 2013 21: 15 New
        +3
        Quote: Flood
        Delivery of manpower on the battlefield is carried out on the enemy fortified territory?

        Yes. Because as soon as you break through, you are forced to develop success. With all the ensuing problems.
        1. Flooding
          Flooding 18 August 2013 17: 58 New
          +2
          Accepted. But if we are talking about a detailed battle formation, then probably the first will go heavy armored vehicles. She then will face mines in the first place.
          Well, and then for sure roundabout maneuvers in any situation, even with exceptional mine protection.
          1. bask
            bask 18 August 2013 18: 23 New
            0
            Quote: Flood
            She then will face mines in the first place.

            To pass minefields use .Robotov (drones) -sapper.
            As an example.
            Unmanned aerial vehicle. Digger D-3 Swiss company Digger DTR, working in the field of technology for demining.
  • krpmlws
    krpmlws 17 August 2013 10: 34 New
    +2
    In my opinion, an infantry fighting vehicle and armored personnel carrier is only an infantry delivery vehicle that should have reliable bulletproof armor, good cross-country ability, move on a march in a convoy with tanks, and be floating. The armament for an infantry fighting vehicle and armored personnel carrier is secondary, a sufficiently remotely controlled machine gun. MT-LB meets the requirements. To send lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles (even BMP-3-4) and armored personnel carriers to a battle along with tanks is a crime. Our military, what they are and what to take from them, if they have not received a normal education, it’s enough to evaluate the professional qualities of a doctor of military sciences ... Hence the excessive losses in armed conflicts, a poor understanding of tactics, the lack of normal interaction and intelligence. He has written more than once that reforms must begin with military science, with military education. How many do not introduce the most advanced equipment into the army in practice, the result will be similar to 41. Yes, and with the new technology, everything is not going well, if the military is not able to correctly give out the technical characteristics, what is the epic with bmp: put the gun but no, let's stick one more thing, we’ll poke a few more granotomes — quiet horror. They can’t hope for tens of thousands of infantry fighting vehicles now, but the BMPs themselves will look like battleships with anti-shell armor, several towers and a picket fence of guns, mortars and machine guns ... It seems that smart people have long abandoned multi-armored vehicles, but our wise men are the smartest ...
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 17 August 2013 10: 54 New
    +6
    The most beautiful look is the order for 70 BMP-000s - the military diligently undermined the country from the inside, and this at a time when T-1s were convoyed to columns for ports in Vietnam and other places in exchange for pineapples.
    34 is noticeably stronger than BMPs and they did not need to be made, they served in Serbia until the 21st century.
    1. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 11: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Volkhov
      The order for 70 BMP-000s looks most beautiful - the military diligently undermined the country from the inside, and this at a time when T-1s drove in columns to ports for Vietnam and other

      Well, that’s really BEAUTIFUL.
      What will the order of the Russian Ministry of Defense for BMP ,, Kurganets ,,. In thousands of units.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 17 August 2013 14: 47 New
        +2
        There will be nothing - the war is already underway and there will be nothing but repair in large numbers - they even refused the finished BTR 90, they are repairing the BTR-80 with modernization.
        1. bask
          bask 18 August 2013 11: 16 New
          0
          Quote: Volkhov
          There will be nothing - the war is already underway and there will be nothing but repair in large numbers - they even refused the finished BTR 90, they are repairing the BTR-80 with modernization.

          All the same, I want to hope for the best. But perhaps you are right in this matter.
          BTR-90 was killed for a reason. According to TTX, it is an order of magnitude higher than BTR80 / 80A (82).
          They adopted Rostock and stopped production. They are not in a hurry for stools, but they are not in a hurry to start production at the Shoigu Defense Ministry. (Off-topic, but the purchase of the T-90 x did not start either).
          1. Volkhov
            Volkhov 18 August 2013 15: 05 New
            +1
            For mass production, you always need firstly a machine that has passed the experimental stage (this is a year of 2 ... 3 minimum tests), and secondly, a plant with equipment for mass production. The BTR-90 and T-95 passed the experimental stage, but there were no accessories and assemblies for them, so what remains is what can be done on the old equipment.
            Armata and Kurganets do not yet exist as waste machines, especially equipment for them, so this is just technical creativity.
            As an example, Ukrainian armored personnel carriers 3 and 4 - launched a crude car into a series and customers refuse, and they took 80s normally.
            1. bask
              bask 18 August 2013 18: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: Volkhov
              The BTR-90 and T-95 passed the experimental stage, but there were no accessories and assemblies for them, so what remains is what can be done on the old equipment.
              Armata and Kurganets do not yet exist as waste machines, especially equipment for them, so this is just technical creativity.

              Then for the mass production of modern models of armored vehicles, you need the construction of new plants, turnkey, with new equipment .. As they did in the 60s for the mass production of BMP-1.
              And on the old factory floors having changed the machine park, to do KAP .. repair.
              1. Volkhov
                Volkhov 18 August 2013 23: 24 New
                0
                In the 60s there was peace and the USSR was whole, it allowed carrying out large projects for decades, and now there is a war, tactical weapons are used and there is no time for new equipment, only repairs and re-conservation from storage.
                What can be done in a year?
  • Normal
    Normal 17 August 2013 13: 20 New
    +2
    The article is certainly true, although not a lot and with busting. But, as it seems to me already obsolete, Let the more informed comrades correct me, but as the experience of the latest databases shows, there is no BMP on the battlefield. Well, if it's certainly not a heavy BMP. To create an infantry fighting vehicle capable of swimming, "holding" a large caliber and anti-tank ammunition, being an armored personnel carrier for separation and a fire support vehicle, while being significantly cheaper and easier than a tank, is unfortunately not possible.
    In modern armed conflicts, databases are usually located in the mountains or in urban areas. In these conditions, the tank is also very vulnerable, what can we say about the BMP. In my opinion, the best Infantry Fighting Vehicle is .... "Chechen". That is, an excellently physically and psychologically trained warrior, equipped with means of communication, individual defense, means of detecting the enemy, is a self-effective weapon and a fairly protected vehicle. If such a warrior has an exoskeleton, pack work, target designation and acting in conjunction with a tank and a helicopter, the need for a BMP concept of the late 60's disappears
    Heavy infantryman - Tank (heavy infantry fighting vehicle) - Army aviation, here is the triad of dominance on the battlefield, even if it is a field in a city or mountains.
    But this in our conditions is of course fantastic.
  • smprofi
    smprofi 17 August 2013 14: 19 New
    +6
    you know, guys, you can butt for a long time, to scream, to hoarseness, to fight ... and everyone will be right and wrong at the same time.
    The article is interesting, but clearly not without distortion.

    tells about the experience of Afghanistan. and it is presented as a revelation from Matthew. Well? here I am a man far from armored vehicles and motorized rifles in the second half of the 80s I knew about a report that said that according to the results of Afghanistan, statistics are known: only 4% of Soviet tanks cannot be restored from mine explosives, 70% from armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles .
    from the same experience of Afghanistan, only "our western partners" [this is not my statement, this is the vocabulary of the President of Russia and the current Minister of Defense of Russia]:
    Only tanks were able to save the lives of our soldiers from their (that is, terrorists) bombs. Just this morning, one of our tanks was blown up on a makeshift landmine, but all crew members remained alive. Thus, this tank completed its task in full

    © Speech at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Defense, Commander of the Canadian Ground Forces, Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie.

    here is a colleague bask remembered about CV-90. maybe ... BUT! firstly, when was the BMP-1 created and after what time did the CV-90 appear? the difference in technology and materials does not bother? and, secondly, the price of the "question" is also not in doubt? Well, in my opinion, it may be mistaken, the CV-90 is only good for its modularity and comfort, but in terms of the same security it can and surpasses the Soviet / Russian infantry fighting vehicles, but not by much.

    again a colleague bask remembered about the Bundesovsky armored personnel carrier G-5. but no one remembered the Israeli armored personnel carriers based on the same tanks. but in vain. that’s where the protection is! and if you recall the monster in the form of Namer APC



    so generally Wunderwaffe!
    Yes, that's just ... Israel Defense Forces (IDF) played with one copy and zadrobili this topic.

    "topic" of the mentioned MRAPs, "here is the experience of Rhodesia and South Africa ..." yes, not bad experience. in specific conditions and tasks to drive partisans. the gringos also decided to "take into account the experience." ate in Afghanistan (and this is without using MRAP in battles with the regular army!). and now they think which banks (where can I find so many ?!) push these MRAPs to transport valuables.

    in general ... an absolute miracle weapon has not yet learned to do. and are unlikely to create. and again, to consider one type of weapon / weapon for all occasions, with the opposition to the enemy with a full set (from small arms to aviation) is at least incorrect.

    Well, you want the soldiers to be completely protected from enemy fire and the same minimum weight - well, combat robots and drones to help. but there are problems.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 14: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: smprofi
      Yes, that's just ... Israel Defense Forces (IDF) played with one copy and zadrobili this topic.

      ?
      Firstly, they have been "played" for a long time, remember their heavy armored personnel carriers based on the T-55 and the Centurions
      Secondly, there are many more “Names”. 15 pieces participated in the "cast lead". A contract was signed with the Americans (General Dynamics) for the supply of AOI 600 units.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 17 August 2013 15: 19 New
        +1
        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13655#.Ug9ZraxUYkp
        15 lemons green tugra compensation for General Dynamics Corporation and "theme" Namer APC closed
        Quote: Spade
        remember their heavy armored personnel carriers based on the T-55 and the Centurions

        Yes, I meant them when I wrote about Israeli armored personnel carriers based on the same tanks
        there were two articles on topwar, where Oleg Kaptsov waved a saber, smashed BMP and armored personnel carrier into cabbage ...
        Landing on the armor. Why no one trusts domestic BTR?
        http://topwar.ru/21708-desant-na-brone-pochemu-nikto-ne-doveryaet-otechestvennym
        -btr.html
        Why soldiers do not trust domestic armored personnel carriers? Part of 2
        http://topwar.ru/21843-pochemu-soldaty-ne-doveryayut-otechestvennym-btr-chast-2.
        html
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 August 2013 15: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: smprofi
          15 lemons green tugra compensation for General Dynamics Corporation and "theme" Namer APC closed

          From whom are "compensation"? From the US government? "Intentions" are made at the expense of military assistance to Israel.
          1. smprofi
            smprofi 17 August 2013 15: 38 New
            0
            The IDF is expected to announce a substantial reduction in the manufacture of the newest Merkava tanks - whose rate of production has been slow anyway - and the complete halting of the production of Namer APCs (armored personnel carriers). This decision will require a $ 15 million compensation to the General Dynamics Corporation, which had developed a production line for this APC in the US - in view of the Israeli commitment to requisition a guaranteed minimum amount, a commitment the army will not uphold.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 August 2013 18: 41 New
              +1
              How does this translate? "It is expected that ..." I remember how in one of these articles it was expected that the Georgian army would reach Moscow. Let's operate with facts, not expectations. The existence of heavy armored personnel carriers in the IDF and their development is a fact. Press articles on how US financial problems may affect Israel are speculation
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 18 August 2013 00: 04 New
          +2
          Golani has already moved to Namers. The whole team. There are at least 130 cars in Tsakhal now. Photo from the exercises in May.
    2. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 20: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: smprofi
      here bask colleague remembered about CV-90. maybe ... BUT! firstly, when was the BMP-1 created and after what time did the CV-90 appear? the difference in technology and materials does not bother?

      Of course, it’s embarrassing, but in the year 45 GM GS-123 was created (in the literature GS, SU100, self-propelled guns, Acacia, Hyacind, 1K11, Stiletto, objects 108,12,117,118, etc.)
      TTX Caterpillar mine loader GMZ-3.
      Weight in running order and with ammunition.-28.5 tons.
      Carrying capacity -12 tons.
      Dimensions :
      length is 9.3m.
      width-3.25m.
      height is 2.7m.
      Track 2.72m.
      Ground clearance is 45 cm.
      The specific ground pressure is 0.67 kg / sq. Cm.
      Traveling speed
      60 km / h on the highway
      off-road 35-40 km / h
      Maximum lifting angle 57.7 degrees
      Maximum roll angle 46.7 degrees
      Walking ford 1 m.
      The height of the vertical overcome wall 0.7m.
      Overcome ditch 3m.
      Diesel engine V-59U or V-59UMS
      Engine power 520 l / s.
      Cruising range 500 km.
      Armament PKT machine gun 1250 rounds.
      MTO in the nose.
      The crew of the car is 3 people. The commander and driver are located in the bow of the car on the port side.
      Aft entrance AND READY BMP ON GSH CREATED IN THE 40S !!!!
      The 21st century has not lost its relevance. Additionally, you can book 18 tons. !!!! + DZ.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 17 August 2013 20: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: bask
        and so on.

        oh what a familiar "body"!
        so this is my VUS: SNR 1C32 from the composition of the air defense system 2K11 "Circle"



        Yes, and the "gun" SPU 2P24, it seems, from this series

        1. bask
          bask 17 August 2013 23: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: smprofi

          oh what a familiar "body"!

          The body is super familiar, but you are amprofti, try to dig about it in the internet about it.
          Infa 0000. It all starts with the words GS from SU 100 USE !!!
          All tracked armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were created as floating. The protection of the crew from conventional weapons was
          far from first. Protection No. 1 from weapons of mass destruction.
          Times were like that.
          But now letting out BTR-80,82 / BMP-3 with a feed MTO is beyond understanding.
          All hope for the new Kurganets and Boomerang, but they will not appear in the troops until the 20th year.
          Now it is necessary to modernize the BMP 1,2 only for the purpose of protection, the creation of a BMP / BTR on the GM -123 BMGs, from self-propelled artillery systems and air defense systems, the creation of the BTR-T / BMT-T based on the decommissioned T-54,55,62,72,80, XNUMX. Not one armored corps should go for remelting. All with the front location of the MTO, or in extreme cases, as in the Tsakhal, Ahzarite.
          But this is only a dream, in the course of the MO it’s not necessary for anyone !!! But it’s a pity to let such equipment into the scrap .....
          Jordanian BTR-T, based on ,, Centurion ,,
          BTR-T / BMP-T ,, Thames, ,, command vehicle, communications, ambulance. Ventilation with dust filters and air conditioning. Also, in the BTR / BMP variant, reserves of dry rations and water, for 2 days 12 people.
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 18 August 2013 00: 02 New
      +2
      It may be funny to you, but the fact is that several brigades are already armed with this prodigy. I know about one regular and one reservist. More than 130 cars. For now. And in total there will be 8 hundred, no less.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 18 August 2013 00: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        And in total there will be 8 hundred, no less.

        another would argue - I will not.
        wrong - then wrong
  • observer
    observer 17 August 2013 14: 27 New
    0
    Ha ha, yes that’s for sure)) now they are taught in the army, not in BMP armor, but on it, apparently, combat experience is taken into account)))
  • washi
    washi 17 August 2013 14: 53 New
    0
     Normal (1)  Today, 12:52 PM ↑ New

    Quote: gallville
    Let's go:
    .........
    The goal for the platoon is separation.
    The article that in the development, production, and training of l / c tactics for the use of BMD, the realities of the battle were completely ignored. It is not new, but as old as the world; we always learn to fight already in the course of the database, and the concepts of application and tactics of actions studied previously usually turn out to be outdated, erroneous, or frankly false.
    I agree with that.
    I also agree that the main problem of our armed forces is communication.
    "There is a connection - do not punish the signalman" - a popular expression among signalmen.
    The worst enemy is not America, but its tankers and infantry - a teacher of a coherent school.
    "no connection - no control"
    Until ALL military commanders understand what is important in modern wars, the MAIN: Intelligence and Communication We won’t win the war.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 August 2013 14: 54 New
    0
    the purpose is hidden in the name of the machine, created and intended for the transport of infantry (the most precious that we have), the conditions of atomic war and war on the European theater of war. Our army had, and more than once, will have to (for sure) conduct operations NOT in such conditions. Why do we need such cars that every darling burns because of blowing from RPG-7? Our tanks are not bad, they are being modernized, they think why the BMPs remain in the same place? Both bmp and armored personnel carriers must be protected. History is, the army of Israel, let's take an example
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 17 August 2013 16: 59 New
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      History is, the army of Israel, let's take an example
      The Israeli army has a completely different geographic environment, and the army more performs police functions, fighting Palestinian ragged. As for the "darling" with the RPG-7, when in Afghanistan they shot from the mountains almost on the roofs of armored vehicles, all Israeli monsters would have burned on a streamer, along with the infantry inside.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 18 August 2013 00: 08 New
        +2
        The IDF is primarily imprisoned, not under war against Palestinian raggers, but under military operations against several conventional opponents at the same time.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 18 August 2013 10: 45 New
          +1
          Shalom! The IDF can be "imprisoned" even under war with the entire Arab world at the same time, but if Israel had planned a war on a European theater, in particular in Russia, it would have had a completely different technique for this. We are talking about this, as well as about the fact that potential opponents of Israel are not distinguished by good military and technical training; they are far from NATO and the USA. If you take something from the Israelis, then the general military duty (including women, in our case, for the civil service), the quality of training of the infantry. As for heavy armored personnel carriers, they would be useful for our explosives in the Caucasus and other anti-terrorist operations, but not for general copying for the Russian army. IMHO.
          1. bask
            bask 18 August 2013 11: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            our case, for the civil service), the quality of infantry training. As for heavy armored personnel carriers, they would be useful for our explosives in the Caucasus and other anti-terrorist operations, but not for general copying for the Russian army.

            It’s certainly not necessary to copy Israeli experience into the creation of armored vehicles, to conduct combat in urban conditions. But you need to study, carefully and scientifically rethink it.
            Especially at the HIGHEST LEVEL there is the interaction of infantry, heavy engineering and tanks. And also the interaction with BTLA, reconnaissance .. and attack + helicopters. Israel is already conducting a network-centric war.
            In the creation of armored vehicles ,, Merkava-4, and BTR-T, our ATGMs ,, Cornet ,, do not break through. In MBT and BTR_T, the thickness of the armor in the upper hemisphere is increased and the thickness of the hatches is increased. In the Caucasus, this technique could reduce our losses.
            BTR-T and was created in order to safely deliver the infantry to the place, deploy and cover it with armor.
            But blind copying is not acceptable for Russian conditions. It requires a creative approach and taking into account natural conditions. And the development of technology in the state.
            And most importantly: HEALTHY HEADS IN MO AND MIC: While these are not visible (maybe I'm wrong).
            But it was almost the fall of 2013, and the Russian army almost did not have modern armored vehicles in the troops !!!
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 18 August 2013 19: 56 New
              +1
              Dear bask, rethinking and synthesizing world experience is a great blessing for our army. Unfortunately, fools and venal skins, as it turns out, "has a place to be." BMP-3F has long been waiting for our marines, and for the army it is a first-class machine. It’s not necessary to create a semblance of a new “Mouse” for infantry, but a strong, maneuverable, well-balanced machine, like the BMP-3, is very difficult, we have it. Another topic is the BMPT, an apparatus that could allow fighters to fight from under armor, the machine has no analogues, but this also destroys it, in the inertia of the thinking of bellied generals and officials. Old tanks could turn into BMPTs, but alas, this is apparently an understanding for the Martians. As for the heavy armored personnel carriers, I said and say, the armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter for infantry, it’s still necessary to get out for battle. The same Israelis do not put strong weapons on their "Intent" so that they would not try to use instead of tanks, armored personnel carriers and should not replace tanks, climb ahead of them. BMPs are not for armored infantry combat, but BMPs, unlike armored personnel carriers, can provide stronger support for their assault forces. Few countries have good infantry fighting vehicles; Russia has them. Returning to the heavy armored personnel carrier, for me personally it is the same nonsense as the women have a “bra with fur”, especially when the BMPT was created for the battle in the front row with tanks. The use of heavy armored personnel carriers is seen in operations of internal troops, and selective equipment of the army from converted old tanks for certain operations and types of combat. Naturally, I can be mistaken, this is only my humble opinion, the main thing is that those who make the decision to equip our army with the necessary equipment are not cruelly mistaken.
  • gallville
    gallville 17 August 2013 15: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Looking at whom you run into. What if the Americans? This is against 3 BMPs and one tank, one tank, 1 BMP and 2 ATGM. The task of the infantry is to survive to the moment when, finally, it will be possible to start looking for a grenade launcher.

    1. Well, what makes it difficult to identify a tank during artillery preparation? (Especially the abrams is almost 70t) By Fri. the question is generally open since if the anti-tank regiment in the platoon location (territorially) they will definitely fall under the fire shaft. And if not in the location, this is no longer a platoon level.
    2. Infantry just before the moment of approaching the line of real fire is relatively safe precisely because of the fire shaft. Well, I hope what a fire shaft is. Do you know?
    Quote: Spade
    Correctly. Because there is a mortar company commander in the motorized rifle battalion.
    Cool. Well, firstly, he has a lot of his own problems, and secondly, no one will give him the command of the artillery battalion supporting commander.

    1. What are some of his problems of this kind that he has while being at the disposal of the battalion commander and supporting specific units of his battalion?
    2. Interaction with artillery division is precisely its task since both gunners.
    Quote: Vasya
    The article is that when developing, manufacturing, and training l / s tactics of application BMD the realities of battle were completely ignored. It is not new, but as old as the world; we always learn to fight already in the course of the database, and the concepts of application and tactics of actions studied previously usually turn out to be outdated, erroneous, or frankly false.
    I agree with that.

    In the case of BMD (landing), it may be so. In the case of infantry fighting vehicles, everything was calculated and the database experience of both the Second World War and local conflicts was used. In addition, the staff was sharpened, its structure and quantity (I did not in vain cite a link to the OSS regiment of 87 years).
    1. The appearance of a 30mm gun is associated with the proliferation of helicopters - a clear example. (local conflicts like Vietnam)
    2. Not explicit to many. It was not for nothing that I indicated a distance of 400-500 m. To the front edge of the defense for infantry fighting vehicles because this distance was taken in view of the effective RPG fire - more specifically, it is extremely difficult to hit an IFV from such a distance using RPGs. (ranging from the Faust of cartridges to RPGs in Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli wars).

    BMP - a linear machine for war with a regular army.
    It is poorly suited for operations in Afghanistan or Chechnya - even worse than the BTR-80, it can move even without 1-2 wheels.
    Why didn’t they create after the Afghan MREP? The answer is only known to God, all the more so since this MCI in the person of the Urals (aka “cart”) was in front of everyone's eyes. For what a fierce minus to our designers.
    Quote: barbiturate
    Why do BMPs stay in the same place?

    Perhaps the crisis was in the 90s and the army took up only after 2008?
    1. krpmlws
      krpmlws 17 August 2013 16: 19 New
      +2
      Who will create this fire shaft? Artillery regiments of amplification, artillery divisions remained in the Second World War. I doubt the experience of the Second World War used in the development of tactics of combat use. If you tried to send these carts in 45g to attack along with tanks for a breakthrough, you would have been removed from office for inconsistency. And the guns account for another story: first 30 mm to shoot down helicopters, then add another 100 mm to pick out bunkers, several mortars so as to wet the infantry, then to strengthen the defense, so that the shells would not take, mine protection, so that the spirits rest, put the gun, so that the tanks wouldn’t seem to be hostile enough, and then put the curtain, air defense, active defense, anti-aircraft missile system, so that the planes shoot down, weld the landing pad so that the drones take off, and attach the cart to the back, so that the infantry is transported, it is necessary to save on something ...
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 August 2013 18: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      1. Well, what makes it difficult to identify a tank during artillery preparation? (Especially the abrams is almost 70t) By Fri. the question is generally open since if the anti-tank regiment in the platoon location (territorially) they will definitely fall under the fire shaft. And if not in the location, this is no longer a platoon level.
      2. Infantry just before the moment of approaching the line of real fire is relatively safe precisely because of the fire shaft. Well, I hope what a fire shaft is. Do you know?

      And why in this case do you need BMPs at all? Yes, and tanks, too ... The fire shaft is cool, the mobile fire zone is even cooler. But why did you decide that in a modern war they will let you arrange it? The fire shaft is 40 guns per kilometer of the front. With the appropriate amount of ammunition.


      Quote: gallville
      1. What are some of his problems of this kind that he has while being at the disposal of the battalion commander and supporting specific units of his battalion?

      Read the charters. He has more responsibilities than the company commander. If he still has to add them, he will not fulfill them, and he will fill up his direct ones.


      Quote: gallville
      Interaction with artillery division is precisely his task since both gunners.

      Interaction with the division commander is carried out by the battalion commander. If there is time for this. And the mortar commander performs the duties of firing and controlling the fire of his own battery.
      1. gallville
        gallville 17 August 2013 22: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        But why did you decide that in a modern war they will let you arrange it?

        And why not necessarily give? Have you seen the staff of the modern brigade?
        Quote: Spade
        The fire shaft is 40 guns per kilometer of the front.

        Modern tools are much more accurate, mobile, destructive and have a greater range.
        Quote: Spade
        With the appropriate amount of ammunition.

        How else? Or do you need it without supplies?
        Quote: Spade
        Read the charters. He has more responsibilities than the company commander. If he still has to add them, he will not fulfill them, and he will fill up his direct ones.

        Here it depends on the battalion commander how he will solve this problem, what deputies will be in the comrade. The human factor, of course, yes - I agree.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 August 2013 22: 28 New
          0
          Quote: gallville
          And why not necessarily give? Have you seen the staff of the modern brigade?

          Yes. Two divisions. Single fire roll 900 m. Along the front. Even with the complete absence of enemy opposition.

          Quote: gallville
          Modern tools are much more accurate, mobile, destructive and have a greater range.

          That's exactly for them and 25 m. Per gun is needed. For the old, it was necessary to have more.

          Quote: gallville
          How else? Or do you need it without supplies?

          For the fire shaft, they need much more than the brigade can lift with their transport.

          Quote: gallville
          Then it depends on the battalion commander how he will solve this problem,

          The battalion commander himself will shoot for the commander of his mortar? I'm afraid it won’t work out.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 August 2013 15: 42 New
    0
    we never have time, this is the curse of Russia, there are developments, there are military officers who speak as they should, here are the equipment, but the generals. Who invented them, such purchased and such corrupt, I know a couple of examples, cattle (the beginning of the district and above). Will the Russians do it while your generals are in place, corrupt
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 16 New
    0
    1967 to 1987 Yu.P. worked in the military-industrial complex as deputy head of department Kostenko, dealing with the development of domestic armored vehicles.
    A very ambiguous person and his role in the development of our tank industry is also far from unambiguous ...
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 17 August 2013 16: 24 New
      0
      Oh, unfortunately the interrupt world troops did not know the guns of the 2nd world
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 44 New
    0
    1967 to 1987 Yu.P. worked in the military-industrial complex as deputy head of department Kostenko, dealing with the development of domestic armored vehicles.
    A very ambiguous person and his role in the development of our tank industry is also far from unambiguous ...
  • svp67
    svp67 17 August 2013 16: 46 New
    +1
    The result of the comparison of the parameters of the BMP-1 armor protection with the armor penetration capacity of the standard infantry weapons indicates that the enemy can safely allow the BMPs to their positions, and then shoot them at an emphasis from conventional small arms.
    But the table given in defense of this statement is not entirely objective - the main small arms in the NATO armies were automatic 5,6 mm rifles - which could penetrate armored personnel carriers only from above. The given characteristics correspond more to the "support weapon" - to machine guns ...
  • Per se.
    Per se. 17 August 2013 16: 48 New
    +2
    Another hit on our infantry fighting vehicles, first of all, on the prospect of purchasing BMP-3. Who, interestingly, finances and directs all these spectacular pearls to enfold our tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? The Emirates, if BMP-3 were so bad, would not have bought them hundreds. Heavy armored personnel carriers are more needed for the internal troops, and not for the army, for the army there is a beautiful heavy machine, "Terminator", which is also in every possible way kid for adoption. The people are led to the slogan of protecting the infantry, without delving into the essence of obgazhivaniya BMP-3 with the "Terminator", and admiration for the miracle monsters from the "promised land." In general, the more things are blasphemed, you once again think that the Yankees wanted to destroy in the first place what is bothering them now, and in verbiage and dusting their brains they are specialists, and therefore they outplayed us bastards in the Cold War, continuing informational and ideological. You see that it’s broken off, it’s not lucky to kill the BMD-4M, thanks to Shamanov, they are lobbying the brake on the BMP-3.
  • Jarserge
    Jarserge 17 August 2013 17: 28 New
    12
    I read .... It became a shame. Lord, I served both on BMP-1 and on BMP-2 and in Afghanistan as well. The author of the article that the officers and officers of the Soviet Army holds idiots ?! Yes, we knew all these shortcomings of booking cars and nevertheless they were loved and loved by everyone who served and serves them. People who have brains and used BMPs, respectively, it’s another matter that Afghanistan is not the war for which BMP-1 and BMP-2 were created , for the Afghan war, like any local warfare, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers like the Israeli Ahzarit and Namer or the German Marder are suitable. Yes and it cannot be otherwise with armor either. It’s all in the MO order. Well, a floating car cannot have powerful armor. Before writing such articles, the author would have to decide for what purposes the BMP family was created. As soon as Mr. Rastopshin learns this simple truth, he will immediately understand that all his constructions are not worth a damn.
  • chenia
    chenia 17 August 2013 18: 12 New
    +2
    An attempt to create a universal weapon leads to the deterioration of almost all performance characteristics.
    Therefore, as for different conditions of hostilities and to perform tasks at different stages of the battle, you need to have more specialized equipment. Well, it’s impossible to consider the effectiveness of equipment when performing a task without taking into account other fire weapons.

    Classic is a breakthrough of the enemy’s early occupied defense.
    Art. preparation and artillery support - the main part of artillery leads planned lights (well, a battalion commander cannot use his regular means during this period - a minimum battery.)

    The boundary of the safe removal of 200m-tank. 400m - infantry, 1 minute enemy in prostration (1min. = 100 meters). From here (chain) with only 300m we hit the adversary of small arms — it’s not very effective, and he bastard burns our tanks from primitive RPGs.

    We introduce BMPT (50-100 m behind the tanks) - pouring from machine guns and gas stations do not allow the enemy to raise their heads, and there already our infantry on the approach will cover BMPT already. A tank platoon, or rather, there will be an armored platoon — 3 tank and 2 BMPTs (instead of 4 tanks), attached unit from the TB (or then BTB).

    Moreover, in the chain, and not after them are their heavy infantry fighting vehicles (in the company to have one platoon of TBMP). The rest of the BMP company is as it should be 50-100 m behind the chain.

    Well, behind them all 200-300m assault guns (in this capacity, say Vienna), firing direct (half-direct fire) from short stops (this can already be afford) for individual targets, covering primarily tanks.
    I will not describe the fight in the mountains, in the woodland, in the city, but with such equipment you can combine it.
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 17 August 2013 20: 55 New
    +1
    While the designers / selection committee itself will not be located inside the created / receiving object - all this is from the CRAFTS!
    1. bask
      bask 17 August 2013 23: 59 New
      0
      Quote: sergey158-29
      While the designers / selection committee itself will not be located inside the created / receiving object

      Better yet, in military trials on a prototype, visit-fight in a combat zone or counter-terrorist operation. Then all gut. Everything needs to be tested on your own skin. Then the armored vehicles will be as efficient and protected as possible !!!
  • Fofan
    Fofan 17 August 2013 21: 39 New
    0
    it is unfortunate that the authors of the article confuse the concepts of "tank" and "bmp"
  • motorized rifle
    motorized rifle 18 August 2013 12: 58 New
    +5
    Something the author of the article goes too far, especially in an interview with GP. I served in the MS regiment equipped with BMP1 and later BMP2. He started as a grenade launcher, then he was a sniper, he demobilized from the position of gunner-operator. So then (1981-83) we had portable radio stations in my name called "Dolphin", they were mounted on the head from the side of the ear and had an antenna similar to a tape from a tape measure. There were two of them at the squad, the commander and the senior shooter. According to their designations, the gunner worked. In addition, the fighters gave target designation with tracer bullets, quite effectively. Conducting a fire battle due to armor, with unstable weapons, is possible only from a place, in movement it is a waste of ammunition, and with dismounted infantry going ahead of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles will be the very last target for which the enemy’s small arms will work. And of course, as someone wrote above, we loved our "Swallows" for speed, beauty, maneuverability and amazing ease of control and operation, and we were the FIRST to create this amazing machine. Not for nothing in every army in the world is either they or their analogues. To the author minus.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 18 August 2013 13: 31 New
    0
    A rather controversial article.
    I am not a specialist in narrow sense, but, as I recall, armored personnel carriers will have more serious armor than armored personnel carriers. So now the BTR is scrapped? So, what is next?
    And, to be honest, I can’t believe that 7,62 with a steel core directly destroys the drugs inside the BMP.
    My classmates fought in Afghanistan and I haven’t heard from any of them that BMPs are so bad. True, you don’t hear much from these guys.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 18 August 2013 20: 56 New
    +5
    As life shows ... everything burns. It's not in the car, as such, but in where and how it is used. There is nothing ideal. BMPs were originally designed for a completely different war, but with honor they withstood everything that fell to their lot. Domestic BMPs are the most howling in the world.
    1. Wynd
      Wynd 19 August 2013 09: 15 New
      0
      I agree with every word. It’s good that I read the comments, otherwise I would start repeating the thoughts of smart people. bublic82009, I wanted to write this - BMP-1 was not developed for local conflicts, with a bias on the partisan form of the database. So, a priori it is clear that the BMP is outdated and does not meet modern requirements.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 19 August 2013 00: 19 New
    0
    Our BMPs were developed in the distant 60s. then saturation with anti-tank weapons and precision-guided automatic weapons was not enough. for that time they were normal cars. infantry in battle must go along with tanks in battle, and infantry fighting vehicles so support support. But the question is right, how can a CO command BMP from a chain, as well as from a BMP with arrows that go in a chain? only walkie-talkie.
    but about heavy infantry fighting vehicles, you can say: the heavier the infantry fighting vehicles, the farther you run after the tractor, the heavier the cabinet, the louder it falls, the more iron, the more useless it is. out in Libya guerrillas fought on pickups and nothing.
  • vietnam7
    vietnam7 19 August 2013 06: 45 New
    +2
    The article was written by a near-war man. It is impossible to fire inside and makes its way from 50 meters? Even so, no armor will save the enemy infantry by 50 meters. Target designation in well-coordinated units is provided by tracers, we each commander of the department had a store loaded with tracers, and if it turned out to point turntables, then God himself ordered the traveler. In competent hands, yes, under the clever guidance of beh, she is capable of much.
  • 6216390
    6216390 19 August 2013 10: 34 New
    +2
    This example clearly demonstrates that such generals should not be allowed to solve the most important tactical tasks.

    It’s not the generals who determine the tactics of warfare or the use of military equipment, for this there are charters, instructions, manuals, which for all occasions are people specially trained in the field of strategy and tactics. Moreover, these documents should be received by the troops simultaneously with the adoption of new equipment and the military should not have questions about how to act in a given situation.
  • vietnam7
    vietnam7 19 August 2013 11: 38 New
    0
    For all MYAPES and Intentions with increasing resistance to undermining, there is a simpler solution: increasing the mass of the charge. But with an increase in its own mass, the equipment will lose more. A walkie-talkie to every soldier? If the Soviet army already confidently used radio suppression against the Germans in 42-43, now in conditions of a big war this will not be done only by the lazy. If the unit, at least motorized rifles, at least intelligence, was really engaged in combat training, there are enough regular means of communication, all the more the experience of Afghanistan and other hot spots does not disappear, all the superfluous screenings, sometimes “artisanal and grandfathering” methods remain effective.
  • Sochi
    Sochi 19 August 2013 11: 53 New
    0
    BMP ... What would I like from it: smoothness of movement (shooting at current ones is problematic), protection against large-caliber small arms up to 14,5, ability to swim on the move (current ones require training), comfortable separation of the landing, communication with each paratrooper and the possibility of their own target designation, the possibility of self-digging. As for the engine, it is possible to place a “flat” engine under the bottom, which will protect the crew from undermining, although maintenance will be more complicated (I agree that such a layout is controversial). The requirements are certainly not prohibitive, but it is difficult to combine, with current materials such a problem is solvable, but here is the price ...
  • Safa7.62
    Safa7.62 25 August 2013 21: 16 New
    0
    Ukraine made the same T64-based BMP so we don’t have to wait for the 20s to move smoothly into the 30s. It will weigh one hop, 500 at least to drive them to areas of local conflicts.
    1. svp67
      svp67 25 August 2013 21: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Safa7.62
      Ukraine made the same BMP based on t64
      Yes, lately she has "done" a lot of things, but she’s not in a hurry to take them into service ...
  • Safa7.62
    Safa7.62 25 August 2013 21: 20 New
    0
    Ukraine made the same T64-based BMP so we don’t have to wait for the 20s to move smoothly into the 30s. It will weigh one hop, 500 at least to drive them to areas of local conflicts.