Military Review

When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?

268
When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?


The next combat use of infantry combat vehicles BMP-1 and BMP-2 in Syria and Ukraine demonstrated that in the current state, these BMP do not meet the requirements of the elementary security of the crew. It may be recalled that after a significant loss in light armored vehicles in Afghanistan, the abbreviation BMP began to be deciphered no other than the "mass grave of infantry." After the end of the Afghan war, more than a quarter of a century has passed, and the problem has not been solved.


BMP-2D on the march


Although at the very beginning of the Afghan war, the repair enterprises of the USSR Ministry of Defense began to redo the "two" in the BMP-2. The car received additional screens on the sides of the hull, bolted at some distance from the main armor, with steel rigging (5 sections on board) covering the chassis, as well as armor mounted under the workplaces of the driver and senior gunner. The rear projection of the tower was also reinforced.

These events increased the characteristics of security, which saved more than one hundred soldiers' lives. True, as a result of all these changes, the weight of the car increased, as a result of which it lost the ability to swim. A similar upgrade was carried out on the BMP-1.




BMP-2 with dynamic protection from "NIIstal"


After the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, the BMP data was returned to the repair plants, where the additional booking was removed from them. Only a certain number of BMP-2D remained in service with the 201 th motorized rifle division in Afghanistan.

Motorized infantry with the Afghan experience began to be nostalgic about the BMP-2D in January 1995, during the fighting in Grozny. But, both the first and the second campaigns in the North Caucasus, our infantry fought on un-upgraded vehicles that burned and exploded in hundreds.

Domestic designers all this time did not sit idle. Many options for upgrading the BMP were thought out. So in NIIStal developed options for dynamic protection for light armored vehicles, which significantly reduced the effect of not only cumulative reactive grant, but also armor-piercing bullets of caliber 12,7 and 14,5-mm. As well as shells 23-mm guns.


The BMP-2, modernized in Kurgan, attracted a lot of attention at weapon exhibitions,
but did not get into the army


Modernization work was also carried out by Kurganmashzavod. To enhance the protection of technology, they proposed to create additional armor screens that protected the hull from armor-piercing ammunition of the 12,7 caliber mm and reduced the actions of the cumulative jet. In addition, the bottom of the machine could withstand the explosion of a mine with an explosive mass of up to 2,5 kg. At the same time, buoyancy was maintained.

But, unfortunately, these upgraded machines that have passed the tests, exist in single copies, and they never got to the army. In recent years, only an overhaul of BMPs has been carried out with minimal modernization, which did not affect the defense.

Now all hopes are turned to the new Russian BMP Kurganets-25. The novelty of the domestic defense industry should surpass in the characteristics of protection not only the old domestic, but also the newest foreign cars.


Perhaps it will look like "Kurganets-25"


This BMP will receive enhanced armor protection modular design, which can vary depending on the tasks. The crew and the landing will save a special protected capsule. Special attention at the "Kurganze" will be given to mine action characteristics. Apparently, for the first time in the world, a complex of active protection will appear on the Russian BMP, which will neutralize anti-tank missiles and grenades.

However, it is worth remembering that the Kurgans did not immediately fall into all the available motorized rifle units, so the task of finalizing the BMPs in the troops is still relevant. And yet I would like to hope that the BMP will no longer be called "the mass grave of infantry" in the near future.
Author:
Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-10285.htm
268 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Denis
    Denis 15 November 2014 06: 55
    +16
    Only a small number of BMP-2D remained in service with the 201 Motorized Rifle Division in Afghanistan.
    Maybe in Tajikistan?
    Now all hopes are turned on the new Russian BMP "Kurganets-25"
    Even the picture shows that it’s completely different. Look at it live, that's just who will give
    We will wait for stories
    1. Pervusha Isaev
      Pervusha Isaev 15 November 2014 17: 46
      +26
      When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?


      Well, probably when the tanks cease to be a grave, when they are fired at with RPGs, when the bunkers cease to be graves, when they are hollowed with concrete-piercing bombs, and of course when they cease to shoot completely ...
      1. Walking
        Walking 15 November 2014 20: 25
        +14
        When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?


        Already tired of these cries about "mass graves", if you put the American and European armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles in the same conditions in Afghanistan and Chechnya, I would be sure the same way.
        1. tomket
          tomket 15 November 2014 21: 33
          +4
          Quote: Hiking
          American and European armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles

          In Afghan conditions they were. Iraq can be considered an analogue of Chechnya. Yes, and remember the Israeli infantry fighting vehicles.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 18 November 2014 04: 50
            +2
            Israeli people are not required to swim, and yet one can recall the 2nd Lebanese.
          2. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 13 December 2014 11: 26
            0
            and you still say that in Agan and Iraq they did not burn like candles. And the bottom line is that the Americans announced a contest to replace the striker and haamera.
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 15 November 2014 22: 15
          +27
          Quote: Hiking
          Already tired of these screams about "mass graves"
          Right! Our BMPs were created for a global war, and not to counter militants using guerrilla tactics. Let's re-equip the entire army now, "sharpen" our armored vehicles for police missions ... Yes, the war in Afghanistan and Chechnya showed that floating vehicles were not required there, but is this indicative for the entire territory of Russia, Europe, the rest of the world, where, maybe you have to fight? Yes, local conflicts, where the main adversary are various militants, have shown the vulnerability of equipment to explosions at landmines, but are all wars a war on the roads, and continuous anti-terrorist operations against militants? Maybe already enough of this garbage to write about "mass graves"? Sit in a bomb shelter bunker, you will be more safe, the infantry, in any case, from the thickest "Mouse", will have to dismount for battle. Speed, agility, maneuverability and firepower are often more valuable in battle than thick armor. It is necessary to distinguish between the tasks of the army and army equipment, from police and anti-terrorist operations, otherwise the equipment will now be used to fight terrorists and militants, and the war will come completely different, and not against "partisans" in ambushes, but against real armies in large operational spaces, with miles of marches, rivers and swamps. For explosives and special forces, they need their own equipment, for specific tasks, but you don't have to lump everything together.
          1. tomket
            tomket 15 November 2014 22: 45
            +2
            Quote: Per se.
            Speed, maneuverability, maneuverability and firepower are often more valuable in battle than thick armor.

            Let’s then transfer all the infantry to Toyota pickups. And what, speed, maneuverability, patency. And the pickup body, under the armor, is a well-known thing, there is nothing to do.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 16 November 2014 01: 04
              +13
              Quote: tomket
              Let’s then transfer all the infantry to Toyota pickups.
              There is no need to go to extremes, the BMP is not a tank, but not a pickup (however, ISIS fighters successfully developed an offensive on the same Toyota). The Israelis on their "thick-skinned" armored personnel carriers, at the tank base, specially put only auxiliary machine guns, so that it would not occur to these armored personnel carriers to use instead of tanks. BMP is not for battle in the first line, and you cannot add something without subtracting anything, so that there is armor, and weapons, and infantry to carry, and a dry closet ... Only in networked tank toys everything is "pumped" to the point of absurdity and without consequences ... It is necessary to understand why the machine was created, what is the main thing in it. The Soviet school of tank building was not created by fools, our armored vehicles were one of the best in the world, outstripping the enemy in many ways. However, our technology is not stupid, and our enemies have succeeded in the information and ideological war, for many "winners", the Yankees-mattress, now in great authority, like their modern colonial wars.
              1. GDP
                GDP 17 November 2014 13: 02
                +2
                IMHO - you need a modular removable armor. It is necessary to parachute from the air or swim - they removed the hinged armor from the sides, then, if possible, delivered it separately and reassembled it, as, for example, on the BMP - "Puma"



                Protection against RPGs and ATGMs is an extremely urgent thing, now not only in cities - everywhere ...
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 17 November 2014 13: 44
                  +2
                  Quote: GDP
                  IMHO - you need a modular removable armor. It is necessary to parachute from the air or swim - they removed the hinged armor from the sides, then, if possible, delivered it separately and reassembled it, as, for example, on the BMP - "Puma"

                  BMD-4M - absolutely the same approach: a parachute with a suspension system weighs 2 tons, and when they are not needed they are replaced by armor of the same weight.

                  1. MGD
                    MGD 23 November 2014 14: 33
                    0
                    There is something to think about! A sophisticated set of weapons to subdivide the enemy actually behind the enemy lines ... If more solid systems can use NATO ammunition, then there is no BMD ... Although the bourgeois also in the BMP and the fleet 57 mm ????
                2. MGD
                  MGD 23 November 2014 14: 29
                  0
                  But even from Puma Bundes nose turns up ....
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 15 November 2014 23: 46
            +2
            Here it is reasonable to think: what is the likelihood of the start of such a global war with many kilometers of marches and tank mixes "a la Prokhorovka"? It seems that the First and Second World Wars have very clearly shown that such campaigns become destructive for all participants (both winners and losers); the only winner is the one who stands aside and carefully intervenes when necessary (yes, I mean the USA).

            As a result, even the most powerful militarily powers (and again I am talking about them) prefer to fight against a serious opponent with the forces of all kinds of militants, terrorists and other Papuans. In these conditions, the army is also important to be prepared for large-scale counter-guerrilla wars, where many of the tools of the classical war will be ineffective.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 16 November 2014 01: 14
              +9
              Quote: Kalmar
              where many of the tools of the classical war will be ineffective.
              Are you ready to guarantee that there will only be wars with terrorists or "Papuans" from third countries? Maybe then it is not worth spending money on the nuclear triad, or, nevertheless, the threat of a big war remains and a real army is needed against a real army? Anti-terrorist "armored buses" cannot be instantly converted into army equipment for a big war, and the fact that the Yankees are better at these "armored buses" does not mean that they are more far-sighted.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 16 November 2014 22: 54
                -1
                Are you ready to guarantee that there will only be wars with terrorists or "Papuans" from third countries? Maybe then it is not worth spending money on the nuclear triad, or, nevertheless, the threat of a big war remains and a real army is needed against a real army?

                The great war of the two major powers (let there be the USA and the Russian Federation) will mean a guaranteed collapse for both. Who is there how many enemy tanks have time to click in the end - is not so important. And the nuclear triad is needed just to guarantee this effect.
            2. Greenhorn
              Greenhorn 16 November 2014 07: 57
              +6
              Quote: Kalmar
              Here it is reasonable to think: what is the likelihood of the start of such a global war with many kilometers of marches and tank mixes "a la Prokhorovka"? It seems that the First and Second World Wars have very clearly shown that such campaigns become destructive for all participants (both winners and losers); the only winner is the one who stands aside and carefully intervenes when necessary (yes, I mean the USA).

              Here oil will be running out and tank mixes will begin. And they will most likely take place in an infected area. If not tomorrow, then in 10-50-100 years. And maybe even earlier, if the most democratic country fails to force the rest of the world to dance to its tune and decides to act according to the principle "not to us, so to anyone." I sincerely think that the Third World War is inevitable. The only question is time.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 16 November 2014 23: 00
                -1
                That oil will be running out and tank mixes will begin ... Not tomorrow, so in 10-50-100 years

                In 50-100 years, I think oil will not be so important. Yes, and in conditions of its acute shortage of tanks you won’t be heavily assimilated - tanks have not yet learned how to drive on parole.

                if the most democratic country ... decides to act according to the principle "not to us, so to anyone."

                This very "nobody" can be wonderfully organized by the forces of the same Papuans, which can be found in abundance in the Balkans, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, in general, wherever required. The scheme, fortunately, has been worked out and is already being actively used. The very same democratic country, of course, like stands aside and only cuts coupons.
          3. Mairos
            Mairos 16 November 2014 20: 11
            +4
            Well, then let's wait for a "global" war and lose thousands of lives in local ones. What kind of heresy are you writing? Why should the 60s decision remain after 40-50 years? Rave. Protection must be increased and supplied to the army and the military forces of MRAP-ovskie armored vehicles. Enough already to live with some kind of global calculations. Or, in the event of a global war, a well-covered BMP with KAZ will be worse than the current "plywood" which 12.7 breaks through.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 16 November 2014 22: 07
              +9
              Quote: Mairos
              Well, then let's wait for a "global" war and lose thousands of lives in local ones.
              I will repeat to you once again, you do not need to interfere with everything in one heap, the explosives and special forces need their own equipment against terrorists, who argue here, just as there are no calls to leave the achievements of the 60s of the last century in service. Finally, which means "well-covered infantry fighting vehicles", there is no invulnerable equipment, and there is no point in making a tank from an infantry fighting vehicle, otherwise it will be a "mass grave" if the infantry does not have time to dismount. It makes sense to convert old tanks into heavy armored personnel carriers (if there are stocks of them), as the Israelis did with captured T-55s, creating the Achzarit armored personnel carrier based on it, or using a ready-made base that fits as a platform - " Namer, an armored personnel carrier on the chassis of the Merkava tank. The Israelis acted competently, but this concerns, namely, the Israelis, one must remember who the IDF is fighting with, what is the climate of Israel and its geography in general (the area of ​​Israel is more than half the size of the Moscow region). At the tank base, we have our own, more radical solution, this is the BMPT, a vehicle that could replace the infantry in certain phases of the battle, providing fire support, both to tanks against enemy infantry, and to our own infantry, saving the lives of our soldiers. Alas, the adoption of the BMPT is stubbornly sabotaged, its concept does not fit into the established dogma. Here and ask your question - "Why should the solution of the 60s remain after 40-50 years?" Why, the wonderful machine BMP-3F, will not reach our marines in any way, why did it take so long for the Airborne Forces to break through the BMD-4M? On the other hand, a "great furniture maker" can come and judge about tanks with notions of wardrobes and "reform" the entire army with his female battalion at headquarters. Until we learn to respect ourselves, our rich combat experience, our school, they will hang noodles on you about "mass graves", and impose imitation of far from the best armored vehicles, without taking into account your national doctrine, geographic environment, and the general military-political situation for Russia, surrounded by enemies with powerful armies, and not a remote territory overseas, with quiet neighbors such as Canada and Mexico.
              1. tomket
                tomket 16 November 2014 22: 25
                +1
                Quote: Per se.
                if the infantry does not have time to dismount

                Sense of the BMP, in which the landing moves on the armor? one turn from the PKK and the landing is not.
                Quote: Per se.
                Alas, the adoption of the BMPT is stubbornly sabotaged

                Don't you think that the BMPT 1 was frankly unfinished? take at least the open placement of missiles?
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 16 November 2014 23: 06
                  +3
                  Quote: tomket
                  Sense of the BMP, in which the landing moves on the armor? one turn from the PKK and the landing is not.
                  Landing on armor was used from Afgan, on a mountain serpentine, in a military column, it was important to quickly dismount, and it was hot under the armor. Finally, in case of an explosion on a planted land mine, there was a better chance of surviving. When they almost hit the roof from the mountains, and the tank is burnt (like any toast armored armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle), how do you imagine a mastodon invulnerable as an infantry fighting vehicle, I hope, not a semblance of a Nazi "mouse"? When moving to attack tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (or armored personnel carriers) in the second line, the infantry should not sit on the armor, this is applicable to a military column, with the danger of a surprise attack.
                  Quote: tomket
                  Don't you think that the BMPT 1 was frankly unfinished? take at least the open placement of missiles?

                  It is possible, but who said that the problem is not solved, what equipment is not being finalized even after the cessation of its production? Missile launch containers can be covered with armored screens, and the combat module itself can have weapons and defense options. What prevents to try, test, modify, especially since you can use the stocks of old T-72, which could be revived in the new quality of the support tank? Russia needs its Heinz Guderian or the new Rybalko with Zhukov, it needs political will and understanding of the role of our armored vehicles in the army in defending Russia, in our military doctrine.
                  1. MGD
                    MGD 23 November 2014 14: 41
                    0
                    Only when did these problems begin to be solved? Having sold the regiment to the Germans, and with us typhoons began to ride .. ????
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 23 November 2014 21: 31
                      0
                      Is it an 8-11% stake in Polkaz?
              2. MGD
                MGD 23 November 2014 14: 39
                0
                Why shouldn’t the armaments and the LMS of the marines be unified with the naval ... it’s scary to think with what rate of fire and accuracy one tower with 2 guns from a destroyer will plow a square = just dream of radio bombings at the indicated point from the ground ...
            2. 4thParasinok
              4thParasinok 13 December 2014 11: 59
              0
              do not confuse the army and the military and their tasks and features the use of technology. It is not necessary to attribute the incompetence of part of the generality to poor equipment and often the deliberate sending of soldiers for slaughter, as the Maikop brigade is for example. Only the lazy one does not know that until they were knocked out by all BMPs who stood in the open on the forecourt, the paratrooper standing just a block from the surrounded station, it was forbidden to provide assistance. And the fighters themselves were forbidden to leave the environment ... And there were hundreds of such cases.

              You, who do not know the real events and the reasons for the enormous losses, are trying to brainstorm that the armor of the BMP should exceed the tank. (you’ll suggest from satellites to shoot down satellites, he’s got how many missiles) but you don’t know that there is a tactic for using technology in cities and mountains. and not fulfilling it leads to huge losses. (as it actually was) For a year of service, and even with such a meager number of hours allotted for study, it cannot be mastered. and mean with any super-sophisticated and hyper-protected technology will be the death toll.
          4. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 19: 26
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            Our infantry fighting vehicles were created for global war, and not to counter militants


            Yeah, i.e. they must operate in tank orders, but any shot from a tank or anti-tank system is fatal for them. It’s strange somehow. I agree that mobility plays a lot for the BMP, but protection must come first, and then high mobility.
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 17 November 2014 22: 54
              +1
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              but in the first place should be protection, and then high mobility.


              "Do not drag large carts with you, the main thing is speed and onslaught, your bread is in the train and knapsacks of enemies."
              "Dangers are better met than expected on the spot."
              "One minute decides the outcome of the battle; one hour - the success of the campaign; one day - the fate of the empire."
              "Where the deer will pass, the Russian soldier will also pass. Where the deer will not pass, the Russian soldier will pass anyway."

              I wonder if A.V. Suvorov, instead of swift transitions, would make every soldier roll a barrel in front of him, bound in iron, in order to fire from it, would we now speak Russian or Prussian? Or in Turkish?

              It is clear that the army needs new infantry fighting vehicles and work in this direction is ongoing.
              But tell yourself honestly, if at the moment Suvorov had to command our army and choose from all the world famous infantry fighting vehicles, then about which BMP he could say: "We are Russians! What a delight!"
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 23: 41
                +1
                Quote: bot.su
                rushed to command our army and choose from all the world famous infantry fighting vehicles, about which BMP he could say: "We are Russians! What a delight!"


                You did not understand my arguments - the BMP should provide protection at the level of 30 - 40 mm of shells, and not just light machine guns. Making an infantry fighting vehicle capable of competing on an equal footing with a tank is economically and tactically unprofitable.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 18 November 2014 02: 54
                  +1
                  Well, you talked about the priority of protection over mobility, but you spoke about a 30-40mm shell in this post. Is it in all projections? At what range? Penetration 30mm BOPS Oerlikon PMC303 at a distance of 1 km - 47 mm, armor penetration of RPG shots up to 500 mm. Suppose, having put 50 mm combined armor, we will protect the BMP from 30 mm shells at least in the frontal and side projections. But it will not save from cumulative shells and grenades, again a mass grave. Where is the reasonable edge of protection? Where is the border between the tank and the BMP?
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 18 November 2014 19: 31
                    +1
                    Quote: bot.su
                    But it will not save from cumulative shells and grenades, again a mass grave. Where is the reasonable edge of protection?


                    From RPGs - only DZ (where possible, but overall dynamic protection is far from 100%) and especially KAZ.
                    Only competent use can protect the lungs of an armored fighting vehicle from RPGs, but it is necessary to increase bulletproof, anti-shatter and mine protection.

                    Quote: bot.su
                    Where is the border between the tank and the BMP?

                    The boundary in cost and mobility. It makes no sense to rivet a terribly expensive BMP with tank mobility to meet the needs of a continental power, but a well-protected lightweight vehicle can be launched in a series. Or upgrade old armored infantry fighting vehicles with mounted armor.
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 19 November 2014 01: 39
                      +1
                      Quote: Blackgrifon
                      From RPGs - only DZ (where possible, but overall dynamic protection is far from 100%) and especially KAZ.

                      How do you imagine DZ and KAZ on BMP? And what if the active protection works in the rear hemisphere at the moment of the landing? How can a landing party use an armored vehicle with reactive armor, when it can be triggered by a large-caliber bullet? In addition, the DZ, without protecting the BMP from cumulative tandem shots, even from hand-held grenade launchers, will drive the troops under the armor, because the burst from a large-caliber machine gun will become fatal. And without DZ, she may not hurt anyone. Again the grave - a tandem shot, even to the RPG-7, penetrates 650 mm beyond the remote control. This phenomenon has one more side - the strengthening of the requirements for the health of the infantryman. Almost to the level of a pilot. For in a closed iron box on a caterpillar track, very many are prone to nausea at best. Such fighters, and there will be several of them in the squad at the current selection, will not be very suitable for combat operations after dismounting. Where can you get so many "pilots"?
                      Protection from mines, in addition to reinforcing the bottom and mine mats, requires special seats with some vertical free wheeling, which will require an increase in machine height and an increase in its dimensions and weight.
                      So a "well-protected light vehicle" with the current development of armor and projectiles is a utopia. Reality is intent. Or the German Puma - 43 tons, in fact - a tank, only without a gun and much weaker than the tank is protected. In fact, the mass grave of the infantry with the use of cumulative grenades by partisans.
                      So the lightweight protected BMP is the utopia of couch strategists. Either equal to the tank in terms of mass and fuel consumption of the BMP, which does not save from cumulative ammunition, or hinged light armor and screens for old BMPs.
                      So can buoyancy, terrain, power reserve and proper use?

                      "Do not be afraid of death, then you will probably win. Two deaths will never happen, but one cannot be avoided."

                      "You should not think that blind courage gives victory over the enemy. But the only thing mixed with it is the art of war."
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 19 November 2014 18: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        How do you imagine DZ and KAZ on BMP?

                        Development of remote sensing was. An example is the relatively recent article on this site. And then we are only talking about installation where possible - the side, the front.

                        According to KAZ - you are wrong. Israel is carrying out its work in this direction. There are working prototypes. KAZ "Arena" does not pose a threat to the landing force.

                        Quote: bot.su
                        will drive the landing force under the armor, because the line from the heavy machine gun will become

                        The main armament of modern infantry fighting vehicles is 30–40 mm automatic guns, and most have protection only against medium machine guns on board. The disproportion is more than palpable - the infantry fighting infantry finishes even without RPGs.

                        Quote: bot.su
                        lightweight protected bmp - utopia couch strategists. Either equal to the tank in terms of mass and fuel consumption of the BMP, which does not save from cumulative ammunition, or hinged light armor and screens for old BMPs.

                        We are not talking about the T-BMP or the light classic BBM. But the reality is that modern infantry with small arms can cause disproportionate damage to infantry fighting vehicles. Do not confuse armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles - the latter should support its infantry with fire, cover it with armor. And how can this be done with low security.
                        I wrote about the heavy infantry fighting vehicle above, and the "light protected" - we have the BMP-2 - but morally and technically outdated. The main modernization concerns weapons, but light side protection and fuel tanks in the aft hatches remain.
                        You want an example of a more or less normal modern BMP - the Swedish-British CV90, our BMP-3. But both require a hinged side armor (the Swedes have it, we did not begin to develop it).
                      2. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 19 November 2014 20: 20
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        , will drive the landing under the armor, because the line of the heavy machine gun will become fatal.

                        Eee, the infantry does not go to battle on the BMP, and if it does, then it is either an ambush, or illiterate actions of the commander, or a very exceptional case.

                        Quote: bot.su
                        So can buoyancy, terrain, power reserve and proper use?

                        Why buoyancy on all machines, if any infantryman or near projectile gap can disable the BBM? Need buoyancy - BTR-82 and pontoons, coupled with artillery cover.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 20 November 2014 16: 12
                        0
                        not any infantryman can disable BMP
                        a floating infantry fighting vehicle, then it’s not a whole convoy, and a mortar fire zone passes on it — unarmored infantry is only loaded with one mortar mortar or a needle shell (already before the company) before being platooned.
                2. 4thParasinok
                  4thParasinok 13 December 2014 12: 20
                  0
                  in which projection? should the bottom also hold a 40 mm shell?
                  What kind of forty-millimeter shell? ate from 3,7 cm Pak 35/36 or 3,7 cm KwK 38 (t) then they don’t take BMP-3 in the forehead. So stop philosophizing, many people know how to, and start thinking with real values.
            2. MGD
              MGD 23 November 2014 14: 43
              0
              forgot about the fire support of the infantry and tanks ... under heavy enemy fire, the infantry will lie down !!!
          5. MGD
            MGD 23 November 2014 14: 26
            +1
            Partly I agree with YOU. It is necessary to have equipment corresponding to the region of military operations. I very much doubt that somewhere in Yakutia or Priobye there will have to be active clashes with the Abrams, Leopolds or Chinese .. but the easy-to-use (albeit slightly armored) floating equipment with a fairly universal artillery caliber and others. A set of NEs will cover the entire Polar region ...
        3. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 19: 24
          -1
          Quote: Hiking
          to put the American and European armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles under the same conditions in Afghanistan and in Chechnya, I would be sure the same.


          This is true, but some European BBMs showed themselves better in the whole class, others worse. The main disadvantage of the BMP is the weak armor, which at best holds 7,62 mm, but from 12,7 or even 14,5 it turns into a sieve.
        4. Oblozelo
          Oblozelo 21 November 2014 23: 17
          +1
          On foot, you said badly about the "mass graves" our Guys died there, and no one can compare with them
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 19: 23
        +1
        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
        when tanks cease to be a grave, when they are fired at with RPGs


        A tank with a DZ, with proper use, can withstand even in the city up to 8 hits from RPGs and independently leave the battlefield. The main thing is crew training.
        The downside of our tanks is the internal location of the ammo, but in terms of protection they are not inferior to foreign armored combat vehicles, and in some ways even surpass them. So there is no need to "slander" the tanks.
        Another thing is BMP - BMP, which was supposed to operate in battle formations of tanks. So the question is: how is an infantry fighting vehicle with bulletproof armor, which is taken by a heavy / medium tank machine gun or any automatic weapon on board, is able to survive in modern realities? This is not a high-speed car that can still "jump", not a BMD that can "duck" (though this will not always help). Here the erroneous idea played - the BMP is a heavy armored personnel carrier. But in fact, an infantry fighting vehicle is a light tank - an infantry transporter, for which the following are especially important: security, mobility, firepower (in that order). An infantry fighting vehicle and any modern light tank should confidently hold a shot at the side from guns up to 30 mm at a distance of up to 500 m and have a remote control or at least something like KAZ Arena. Otherwise, the BMP was and remains a mass grave. By the way, the BMP-2 can be raised in terms of security (for example, Czech and our corresponding options). It is undesirable to transfer all BMPs to the tank-BMP variant, since the main advantage of this BMP will be lost - mobility.
    2. Nicotin13
      Nicotin13 16 November 2014 03: 18
      +1
      So for sure: 201st is located in Tajikistan, and with these very BPMs they ruined all taxis (the runway was still more or less in the 93rd) in Ayni.
  3. Prikaz4ikov1992
    Prikaz4ikov1992 15 November 2014 07: 23
    0
    In order for the behi to cease to be graves, it is necessary to install as MINIMUM steel grating screens and, at the most, replace the rollers with reinforced ones and put instead of the usual float boards reinforced from the kurganmash plant and grate screens from above. Plus, Kurgan people offer a reinforced bottom for mines and you can still put up steel research mine seats with safety belts and then just do not need any more Kurgan 15 for years.
    1. Denis
      Denis 15 November 2014 07: 42
      +3
      Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
      replace the rollers with reinforced and put instead of the usual float boards reinforced

      Then she won’t swim for sure. Will the task miss this?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 15 November 2014 11: 02
          +6
          Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
          You need to choose either a coffin on wheels able to swim or a machine that can protect the crew. IMHO, it is best to invest in the means of crossing and in the corresponding branches of the army in order to quickly induce the crossing. And again, in those future wars that I see buoyancy I didn’t rest. I don’t need it either in the steppe or in the desert or in the mountains.


          Uh-huh. Where do such "clever guys" come from?
          Have you heard about such a war as the Great Patriotic War?
          And about the forcing of such rivers as the Dnieper 1943, Vistula and Oder 1944-1945, apart from all the others, have you read?
          To read about how, during the off-season (spring-autumn), Red Army fighters crossed the Dnieper on hastily put together rafts, on raincoats, tents, gymnasts, on their own pants stuffed with straw and dry leaves, and how many soldiers died while drowning in icy water, and not having reached the opposite shore?
          Because the width of the Dnieper in most places of its channel was in those years about 600 tons, and there was a catastrophic shortage of ferry crossings for troops.

          In Wed-va for crossings to invest?
          Well, yes ... Only troops that go in the second tier, that is, will be able to normally cross them only. following the advanced units.
          In the tactical component, the dependence of the troops on the PMF and other temporarily deployed medium-transit ferries significantly affects their maneuverability and ability to deliver sudden attacks on the enemy (from where they are not expected).
          In addition, by the appearance of engineering units that will direct the crossing, the enemy can quickly determine the direction of the main attack, for example, and having such information can organize or strengthen the defense in this area. And all your forces that you will transport in this sector or try to do it will fall under fire from either tactical missiles, or artillery, or they will stumble upon mines, or will be surrounded and will be quickly destroyed. And these are far from all options.
          Having discovered the place of the alleged crossing, the enemy will immediately intensify surveillance of this area, and taking into account the capabilities of modern technical reconnaissance reconnaissance, crossing over this area will be tantamount to suicide.

          So the ability to force water barriers on the move for combat vehicles of motorized rifle troops should not even be discussed.
          This is simply stupid, given the combat experience of past wars.
          The Afghan and Chechen campaigns are not an indicator. Moreover, not an indicator and all sorts of "Desert Storms", etc.

          So catch a quality minus.
          1. opium
            opium 15 November 2014 11: 31
            0
            what rivers do infantry need to cross over now? Oder? hang out?
            this was true for the USSR Armed Forces, but not for the RF Armed Forces. our kind of march to Europe is not going to
            1. svp67
              svp67 15 November 2014 12: 06
              +15
              Quote: afion
              this was true for the USSR Armed Forces, but not for the RF Armed Forces. our kind of march to Europe is not going to

              That is, ALL rivers on the territory of the Russian Federation itself have already dried up? Any river is a ready-made natural barrier line, so that all crossings on it will be under attack. It turns out that the ability to swim is not a whim, but an urgent need and for a long time there are already many ways to help BMP to swim. For example, additional floats are hung on top of conventional boards.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 34
                0
                Quote: svp67
                It turns out that the ability to swim is not a whim, but an urgent need

                Is this the only way to overcome water barriers?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 15 November 2014 13: 22
                  +6
                  Quote: Spade
                  Is this the only way to overcome water barriers?

                  Of course not, but it allows you to act independently, without involving engineering equipment ...
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 42
                    +7
                    Quote: svp67
                    but it allows you to act independently, without involving engineering equipment ...

                    Dear ... Well, go to any river, look for a place where it is possible to swim through the BMP without the involvement of engineering equipment ... Thickets that need to be cut down, steep banks ... Rare places where you can normally go into the water, and then to climb ashore, a stupid enemy will definitely mine, shoot with artillery and even use remote mining tools.
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 15 November 2014 17: 43
                      +6
                      Yes, not so few places. And what is there to cut down. Now, if the rear does not provide the army with chainsaws, it is possible to requisition from the population, business then.
                      And if the question is put in such a way, how much and what kind of engineering equipment will be needed to overcome a motorized rifle company, say, r. Northern Dvina in the middle reaches at BMP-2 and at the most protected armored personnel carriers - Namer? The width of the river will be 900 m, there are enough gentle banks, there is only a narrow coastal strip and trees only in a narrow coastal strip, further you can find a "road" for the movement of tracked vehicles.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 20: 54
                        +1
                        The question cannot be put like that. "The company crossing the river on the BMP-2" is a spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        In reality, tanks will go down anyway. And of particular importance is whether the BMP will cross the river or pass like tanks, no bottom.

                        Moreover, up to a third of the equipment of any motorized rifle brigade cannot overcome water barriers without ferry facilities at all.
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 15 November 2014 21: 26
                        0
                        Here's how it means. That is, a motorized rifle company cannot receive an order to force a river?
                        Everything is clear about brigades. For the brigade, therefore, a bridge will be built. Tell us about the company.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 21: 30
                        +1
                        Can. Gifted commanding fathers are not uncommon. They can also send a company for slaughter.
                      4. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 15 November 2014 21: 53
                        +1
                        What’s the slaughter here? The question was simple - how much engineering equipment would be required to transport a company to our infantry fighting vehicles and companies on plans?
                        The question of the enemy is not worth it.
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 22: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        The question was simple - how much engineering equipment would be required to transport a company to our infantry fighting vehicles and companies on plans?

                        The Namers do not have diving gear. It is necessary to compare the crossing of a tank company and a company on an infantry fighting vehicle.

                        In engineering, its involvement will be approximately the same.
                      6. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 15 November 2014 23: 42
                        +1
                        And what do you choose the technology that is more convenient for you to compare? Namer - currently the most protected armored personnel carrier, is well suited for war with irregular troops, which have neither heavy equipment, nor serious military education and experience, nor even a clear goal of the struggle. This is obviously the ideal vehicle for motorized rifle forces, for some on this site. And you do not want to discuss it, insist on tanks smile It seems to me that for intentions it will be necessary to direct a crossing, and this means more and more time.
                        Another thing is, you can talk about the requirements for an army heavy armored personnel carrier or BMP, estimate its "height and weight" in connection with these requirements. For intend is definitely not suitable for us. If only for the internal troops.
                      7. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 10: 29
                        +2
                        Quote: bot.su
                        And what do you choose the technology that is more convenient for you to compare?

                        No, it is you who choose what is more convenient. Deciding that the Russian analogue of "intent" will not be equipped with equipment for underwater driving
                      8. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 14: 01
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Namer - currently the most protected armored personnel carrier, is well suited for war with irregular troops, which have neither heavy equipment, nor serious military education and experience, nor even a clear goal of the struggle. This is obviously the ideal vehicle for motorized rifle forces, for some on this site.


                        Support.
                      9. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 00
                        0
                        Practice shows that these "irregular units" are organized, trained, armed, and have better means of communication than regular ones ... which even the "Deer fathers" did not bring when it was necessary to dump, in order to burn alive ..
                      10. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 14: 54
                        0
                        Dances with a tambourine will be almost the same = not knowing the ford => rush into the water !!!!
                      11. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 14: 51
                        0
                        Go to Vitebsk and cross without bridges, it’s not wide ....
                    2. wanderer_032
                      wanderer_032 15 November 2014 19: 10
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      Dear ... Well, go to any river, look for a place where it is possible to swim over to the BMP without involving engineering equipment ... Thickets that need to be cut down, steep banks ...


                      Now let's see:



                      Watch moments 0:39 and other footage showing a car entering the water. There are many other video materials on the Internet, when "Bekhi" are moving along the flood plains of rivers, flooded meadows, arable lands, overcoming shallow ravines and hollows filled with water. They move freely in mountain-desert conditions and overcome a rather deep snow cover. And they do it without any preliminary engineering preparation of the area.

                      Patency, has been and remains the most developed quality of Russian infantry fighting vehicles and other infantry fighting vehicles. Moreover, I note that the main shortcomings described and claims put forward relate to the security of our infantry fighting vehicles. And there are practically no complaints about patency, but it is worth a lot.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 20: 46
                        0
                        Mountain desert? That's cool. The area most commonly found on the banks of rivers.

                        I also advise you to go to the nearest REAL river. And do not study life with the help of YouTube.
                      2. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 15 November 2014 22: 14
                        +4
                        Quote: Spade
                        I also advise you to go to the nearest REAL river.


                        You are also desirable at this time. And at the same time to capture all the equipment that the fighter carries on himself and, together with this good, try to cross with the help of assistants to the other side.
                        For completeness of sensations, you can take a couple of people with you, at least with pneumatics, so that they shoot at you and firecrackers throw at you.
                        Then you can post a video with your impressions to us, and we will take a look and evaluate your success. lol
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 22: 31
                        -1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        And at the same time to capture all the equipment that the fighter carries on himself and, together with this good, try to cross with the help of assistants

                        Why assistants? Everything else has already been canceled? From boats starting and ending with helicopters? The American division, not having any amphibious combat vehicles in service, overcame the water obstacle in 1987 during the Autumn Forge exercise in 5. Using only standard engineering means, without amplification means.
                      4. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 15 November 2014 23: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        The American division, not having any amphibious combat vehicles in service, overcame the water obstacle in 1987 during the Autumn Forge exercise in 5.


                        Only teaching is not war. In a modern battle for 5 hours from this division, "horns and legs" would remain.

                        Quote: Spade
                        From boats starting and ending with helicopters?


                        Where will you take boats at 5 thousand pr. (MSBr staff) l / s?
                        Even if the capacity of one boat for example 10 people with equipment and weapons.
                        Oh yes, turntables ... Who will give them to you, if they are not provided for motorized rifles in principle.
                        The headquarters of the OGV will tell you so, go with such requests to the farm and catch butterflies. The turntables of your brigade and mustache are not laid.
                        They will say that you have a full-time equipment, and you’re thinking how and why ... And if they press you on epaulettes, let’s certify you for a company, or a platoon. laughing
                      5. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 00: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        In a modern battle for 5 hours from this division, "horns and legs" would remain.

                        Akin to the notorious 15 seconds of a tank’s life in modern combat and so on la la la ...
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 10: 33
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Only teaching is not war. In a modern battle for 5 hours from this division, "horns and legs" would remain.

                        The ficus picus is that our division using regular means could not have crossed over during this time.


                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Where will you take boats at 5 thousand pr. (MSBr staff) l / s?

                        Why 5 thousand? Some problems out of the blue. Who told you that all infantry to the bridgehead is being transported at the same time?
                      7. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 14: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        The ficus picus is that our division using regular means could not have crossed over during this time.


                        Yeah. Having armed amphibious infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers at that time still quite new and efficient and mechanized systems such as PTS-2, PDP, etc ...
                        Tales and more.
                        I do not believe. Give specific facts, preferably with details.
                        And so it's just a concussion.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Why 5 thousand? Some problems out of the blue. Who told you that all infantry to the bridgehead is being transported at the same time?


                        And if such an order arrives? But it can.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 15: 48
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Yeah. Having armed amphibious infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers at that time still quite new and efficient and mechanized systems such as PTS-2, PDP, etc ...

                        6 TCP and 2 SHGs. And in one motorized rifle battalion there are about 30 vehicles. Count for yourself how long it will take.
                        And if you consider that in the modern motorized rifle brigade there are 752 units. automotive technology?

                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        And if such an order arrives?

                        Those who gave such an order will meet with the tribunal, and then they will bury it in a ravine.
                      9. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 17 November 2014 13: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        6 TCP and 2 SHGs

                        Quote: Spade
                        And if you consider that in the modern motorized rifle brigade there are 752 units. automotive technology?


                        For this purpose, engineering units along with their ferry units, such as ferries, PMP, etc., are attached to reinforce motorized rifle units.
                        In amplification, it does not mean that they must always be dragged along.

                        Quote: Spade
                        And in one motorized rifle battalion there are about 30 vehicles

                        Combat vehicles. Which can independently overcome water barriers, without involving additional ferry cross-in.
                      10. tomket
                        tomket 15 November 2014 22: 50
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        For completeness of sensations, you can take a couple of people with you, at least with pneumatics, so that they shoot at you and firecrackers throw at you.
                        Then you can post a video with your impressions to us, and we will take a look and evaluate your success.

                        Well, since it was all about experiments, then even then you don’t disdain to get into a rubber boat that will simulate an IFV, and ask your friends to shoot it from the air, and then, in full calculation, then imitate with the miracle of a rescued fighter from armor.
                      11. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 15 November 2014 23: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: tomket
                        Well, since it was all about experiments, then even then you don’t disdain to get into a rubber boat that will simulate an IFV, and ask your friends to shoot it from the air, and then, in full calculation, then imitate with the miracle of a rescued fighter from armor.


                        Not okay. The BMP has at least bulletproof armor, but it does. At least some protection (it's me that the boat and sheathed something can be for the sake of experiment laughing ).
                        And the soldier who is being transported to improvised sr-wahs has none at all.
                        In addition, in the BMP / BMD / BTR airborne landing squad, it is better to cross the water barrier this time of year than on a cloak-tent full of straw with almost zero chances of reaching the opposite shore.
                      12. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 01: 07
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Not okay

                        But the RPGs were seized from the infantry, or is this the infantry weapon an invention of science fiction writers?))) Like LNG and ATGM ......
                      13. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 12: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: tomket
                        And RPGs were seized from the infantry, or is this the infantry weapon the invention of science fiction writers?))) Like LNG and ATGM .....


                        Well, if you are going to ferry the entire SMBr in front of the enemy and where he has already organized a serious defense, then you should use 2 tactics.
                        Armor protection is the last obstacle and it is not needed in order to climb into trouble.
                      14. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 15: 50
                        0
                        These are two for you, if you are counting on the insufficient mobility of the enemy and his lack of intelligence.
                      15. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 17 November 2014 14: 12
                        0
                        That's just the point that I do not count.
                        And I would choose the crossing point as far as possible from the average observation of the enemy.
                        Our motorized rifle units have their own separate reconnaissance units, incl. engineering, artillery, etc.

                        In any war, the suddenness of the main strike is considered the highest aerobatics of operational art.
                        As for the oncoming battle, the same Germans during the Second World War tried their best to get away from him and competently rolled away if they ran into a well-organized defense.
                        They always struck at the weakest point, feeling it during reconnaissance in battle, and by concentrating most of the forces of their units, they struck the main blow breaking through the defenses with the help of concentrated strikes by aviation and artillery, then tanks and motorized infantry in two or three waves went into the gap.
                        With virtually no resistance, they achieved what remained on the breakthrough site and tried to go deeper into the rear in order to reach or surround the defending troops. And they did it so quickly that ours often didn’t have time to transfer reserves for counterattacking. hit.
                        This is a classic, an axiom of modern highly maneuverable war.
                        Yes, I can be reproached that I think in outdated categories, but in a modern global conflict, such tactics of action, despite its apparent backwardness, will be taken as a basis, but the modern capabilities of military equipment will simply be added to this.
                        The foundation of military-operational art has not changed over the centuries, it is simply supplemented and improved on the basis of the increasing capabilities of modern weapons systems and military equipment. The basis remains constant, one and the same. Only the speed of military operations has changed.
                      16. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 21: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Well, if you are going to ferry the entire SMBr in front of the enemy and where he has already organized a serious defense, then you should use 2 tactics.

                        Excuse me, but what is the fundamental difference from the pontoon crossing?
                      17. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 08
                        0
                        I meet in your debate ... The old phrase: "With Fire and Sword" without preliminary Fire and not to meddle ...
                      18. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 01: 09
                        -2
                        Quote: tomket
                        And the soldier who is being transported to improvised sr-wahs has none at all.

                        As an available means of a fighter, I suggest considering, for example, the Mi-8 or the pontoon bridge
                      19. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 13: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: tomket
                        As an available means of a fighter, I suggest considering, for example, the Mi-8 or the pontoon bridge


                        Mi-8 is vulnerable to air defense, including and MANPADS, like any other helicopter.
                        I really do not want to remember and stir it up, but here:

                        The Mi-26 crash in Chechnya on August 19, 2002 is the largest plane crash in the history of the Russian armed forces. It happened due to the defeat of a helicopter by a missile from the Igla portable anti-aircraft missile system. An additional reason that increased the number of victims was a fatal set of circumstances: the helicopter’s heavy congestion and its fall on a minefield. It is the largest helicopter crash in the world and one of the largest air crashes in the history of Russia.
                        As a result of a helicopter crash, fire and mine bombings, a total of 127 people died. 117 people died on the spot and another 10 subsequently died in hospitals.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E0%F2%E0%F1%F2%F0%EE%F4%E0_%CC%E8-26_%E2_%D7%E
                        5%F7%ED%E5_19_%E0%E2%E3%F3%F1%F2%E0_2002_%E3%EE%E4%E0

                        Do you still want to ferry on turntables?

                        Now about the pontoon bridge. They will find it very quickly and in the shortest time will try to destroy it. And the strike will be done when the troops approach the pontoon bridge and begin the crossing, so more damage is achieved. And anything can fly from artillery shells and adjustable bombs to short-range ballistic missiles.

                        And now, at the request of fans of alternative methods of forcing water barriers and ardent opponents of floating BMP / BMD / BTR:

                      20. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 15: 53
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Do you still want to ferry on turntables?

                        Of course. Just do it right. Air defense systems are suppressed, a corridor is organized for the landing of helicopters. Landed and provide the possibility of the transfer of troops.


                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Now about the pontoon bridge. They will find him very quickly and in the shortest possible time will try to destroy

                        Yeah ... A BMP on the water is invulnerable ...
                      21. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 20: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Yeah ... A BMP on the water is invulnerable ...


                        Vulnerable, but to a lesser extent than if they were moving across the bridge.
                        Getting into a submerged and moving BPM is much more difficult.
                        In addition, those who crossed the Dnieper in the 43rd preferred to be covered by at least some armor, even if it would have protected them from stray bullets and fragments, than without it at all.
                        And yet the "beha" itself can snap back with fire afloat, and when you cross a lot with the helpers, you don't shoot a lot, the hands and feet of others are busy.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Air defense systems are suppressed, a corridor is organized for the landing of helicopters.


                        And those who will organize it, somehow themselves should get to that shore. Really on improvised sr-wah?
                        This is very troublesome.
                        And besides, if some private Smith has a "Stinger" MANPADS in the storehouse, how do you know if he is there or not?
                        When the turntables go, he just pulls it out of the store and fires it. And truncated, Repin's painting "Swam".
                      22. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 21: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Getting into a submerged and moving BPM is much more difficult.

                        What's so difficult? Is she diving like a submarine ???
                      23. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 22
                        0
                        and how boats and other coastal equipment are undermined along with the tramps on the "beach" ... yeah, she determined, this is a BMP and not a landing boat = I will miss it !!!! and what kind of duck flutters with flippers? let me scribble the antennae = suddenly fins are no longer needed ... This is rude that fans can expect right off the bat ...
                      24. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 21: 16
                        -1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Mi-8 is vulnerable to air defense systems, including and MANPADS, like any other helicopter

                        Have you heard of such a technique as vertical coverage? and about its use by the Americans in Vietnam? it seems to me that you would gladly abolish helicopters altogether. Mol, they are so dangerous, by the way, the presence of a "stinger" in a fighter in the bushes is much less likely to have an RPG in the same fighter in the bushes by the river. By the way, how are you going to refuel the ferried BMPs?) or will you issue a command to the designers to create an BMP-fuel tanker?))))
                      25. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 06
                        0
                        Paradoxical as it may seem, during the war there will be no rescuers ... and if the car sank, the crossing ...
                      26. sharp-lad
                        sharp-lad 15 November 2014 21: 08
                        +1
                        Yeah! LIFE !!!
                      27. sharp-lad
                        sharp-lad 15 November 2014 21: 08
                        0
                        Yeah! LIFE !!!
                      28. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 15 November 2014 21: 52
                        0
                        Here is another video:





                        BMP-1 from 3:56 to the end.



                        Czechs and Germans simply "stick" from our "beshek" ...
                      29. kplayer
                        kplayer 15 November 2014 21: 54
                        +2
                        As usual, it’s easy to enter the water, it’s difficult to get out, except for the usual water barrier at a familiar training ground.
                        Poor cross-country ability with an insignificant combat weight (14 t and 21 hp / t for a tracked vehicle) - you should try hard to get it.
                        In addition to protection - stabilization of weapons and firing on the move, control systems, thermal imaging sights, etc., "no problem"!
                      30. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 15 November 2014 22: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: kplayer
                        In addition to protection - stabilization of weapons and firing on the move, control systems, thermal imaging sights, etc., "no problem"!


                        All this has long been reworked and fixed, by the way, for protection too. It just doesn’t want the MO to shell out for the modernization of the BMP-1/2, but it wants the personnel of the SV to fulfill their tasks according to modern requirements.
                        This is the difference between modern reality and the reality of the times of the USSR, when these machines appeared.
                      31. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 22: 34
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        All this has long been reworked and fixed,

                        fellow Nothing has been processed or fixed ... By the way, are you aware that after a month or two of combat operations, 60-70 percent of BMP-2s will lose their ability to cross afloat?
                      32. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 00: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Nothing has been reworked or fixed ...


                        Argument more specifically.
                        For what I wrote, I can find and prove clearly.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Are you aware that after a month or two of military operations, 60-70 percent of BMP-2s will lose their ability to cross afloat?


                        Yes of course. They probably turn into a tractor. laughing
                        All malfunctions and malfunctions can be eliminated by repair, if that.
                        A month or two on the battle ... it is unlikely that so many will fight without replacement or reformation.
                        And on reformed, everything is brought back to normal. Of course, no one will give much time, but three or four days to bring the car back to normal is quite enough. If she is already very "tired" she will be sent to the rear for repairs. And the crew will get another.
                      33. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 10: 35
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        For what I wrote, I can find and prove clearly.

                        Come on, "argue"


                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Yes of course. They probably turn into a tractor.

                        No, their access hatches are deformed or come off.
                      34. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 12: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Come on, "argue"


                        Please.

                        1.In order to increase the firing capabilities of the BMP-1 (2) / BMD-1 (2), new military modules were developed by the military industry such as:
                        1. "Cleaver"
                        2. "Berezhok"
                        3. "Bakhcha-U"
                        For BMP and BMD, all three types of these combat modules are suitable, all of them have improved SLA equipment and provide the ability to fire on the fly under various weather conditions and the time of day. I do not want to bet.

                        Now for the defense. Go to the website of the Research Institute of Steel and just see how much and what they have. In addition, KAZ "Drozd", "Arena", incl. and for BM motorized rifle units, as well as KOEP "Shtora".
                        I don’t want to put it either. All this is designed and ready for serial production. Where is it in parts?
                        This question should not be asked to developers and manufacturers, but you yourself understand who.
                      35. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 16: 18
                        0
                        BMP-2 stopped spontaneous combustion? No
                        BMP-2 got an adequate engine start system? No
                        BMP-2 received enhanced protection? No.
                        KOEP "Shtora" has ceased to act as a target designation tool for third-generation ATGMs? No.

                        From those listed by you on BMP-2 it is possible to install only "Berezhok". And it's not a fact that he will continue to swim after that.

                        "Bakhcha" - does not float, the landing is only 5 people.
                        The Kurgan BMP-2M does not float with a "shore", however, the protection has been increased there, the armor began to hold 12.7 (a very common thing in our and foreign armies).
                        "Cleaver" did not go initially, this is not for infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, this is for anti-tank crews. In the ideology of the British anti-tank "Warior" Rejected due to the idiotic concept. However, the Ukrainians repeated this mistake.

                        Well, putting KAZ on a machine that does not hold 12.7 is somewhat stupid. The complex will be dangerous not only for enemy missiles, but also for its BMP, which will be hit by high-speed fragments
                      36. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 21: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Kurgan BMP-2M with "shore" does not float


                        Why for?



                        The developer claims that he is swimming and even able to fire afloat capable, and aimed.

                        Quote: Spade
                        "Cleaver" did not go initially, this is not for infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, this is for anti-tankers.




                        Well, yes ... Only he was even put on an armored personnel carrier. Without worsening combat capabilities.

                        Quote: Spade
                        "Bakhcha" - does not float, the landing is only 5 people.




                        And from this video you can see what is floating, and how. In addition, it shoots aiming.
                        5 airborne personnel, standard capacity for BMD. In the BMP-2 with the combat module "Bakhcha-U", the landing force also remained 7 people.
                      37. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 31
                        0
                        And everything that was described is in the troops ????
                      38. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 28
                        0
                        Are you sure about this ??? If suddenly global and YOU personally change BMP ??? They don't bring ammunition to eat = the marauder helps! and here = demolished equipment => let's get a new one in the last upgrade !!!!
                      39. kplayer
                        kplayer 17 November 2014 17: 41
                        +1
                        And you do not know why the Americans no longer tried to upgrade the M113A3 BTR, the BMPs on its base (AIFV / YPR-765) were not upgraded by the Belgians and the Dutch, the French BMX AMX-10P, the Swedes BTR RBV.302, the Austrians BTR Saurer 4K 4FA (Steyr 4K 7FA). Only the British in 2006 ventured to modernize the BTR FV.432 Trojan, the updated car received the designation FV430 Mk3 Bulldog, the vidka is the same:



                        By the way, the Amer and Canadian military are so stupid that when the technical requirements for the Stryker armored personnel carrier, and the BMP / BRM / armored personnel carrier Kodiak / Coyote / Bison (all Piranha / LAV II-III, 8x8) ignored the much-needed buoyancy, not only Canadians ignored the previous operating experience of the early floating BRMs and armored personnel carriers Cougar and Grizzly (6x6), although the Swiss BBM MOWAG Piranha I-III-series can, by definition, swim unlike Boxer (Germany, the Netherlands), VBCI (France) and VBM Freccia (Italy) .

                        Let me remind you that the very first modernized BMP-2 * (BMP-2D) loses its buoyancy, and the BMP-2M “Berezhok” has risen in price, but is just as vulnerable, meaning? (the criterion "cost-effectiveness" does not work in the DSL), in GABTU not quite iDiots sit.

                        * BMP-2: 7km / h - max., When rewinding tracks, excitement - up to 2 points, i.e. wave height 0,1-0,5m (BMP-3F: 10km / h, 2 water cannons, 3 points - 0,5-1,25m)
                      40. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 23
                        0
                        do not forget about mining ...
                      41. The comment was deleted.
                      42. Mairos
                        Mairos 16 November 2014 20: 14
                        0
                        Yeah .. and punch them from all trunks as easily as they overcome everything.
              2. boris-1230
                boris-1230 15 November 2014 16: 58
                +3
                In 2010 engineer troops paved several kilometers in 10 hours. railway tracks, threw a pontoon bridge over the Yenisei, surpassed over a dozen military personnel over it and dismantled everything! Yusovtsy who saw this action from the satellite were in touch! good
                1. MGD
                  MGD 23 November 2014 15: 32
                  0
                  You would be in these troops !!!
              3. MGD
                MGD 23 November 2014 14: 48
                0
                Go down and swim? How long does it take to reconnect a tank? Isn’t it easier to plow everything in the vicinity of the MLRS and, with the support of the air, direct the crossing !!! (I exaggerate slightly)
            2. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 15 November 2014 12: 10
              +11
              Quote: afion
              what rivers do infantry need to cross over now? Oder? hang out?
              this was true for the USSR Armed Forces, but not for the RF Armed Forces. our kind of march to Europe is not going to

              Nevertheless, given the extremely large territories of the Russian Federation and the variety of climatic zones in which its armies may have to operate, it is most logical to have two or three types of combat vehicles for the ground forces. By the way, "Namer" in Israel is not the main vehicle, but the vehicle of the t / Br mechanized battalions and the t / DV mechanized brigades. The main infantry vehicle remains the modernized M113. By the way, in Israeli military operations (roofing felts), the use of BMPs is not provided at all, only armored personnel carriers. This is due to the fact that in the IDF, the number of tank destroyers and mech / tanks is the same and infantry without tanks does not go into battle at all. In short, the difference in the tactics of using equipment is due to the different tactics of using troops.
              And "Namer" really proved itself so well during the last street battles in Gaza that it was decided to increase the order from 200 to 520 despite the price.
              1. bmv04636
                bmv04636 15 November 2014 12: 31
                +1
                swim moht or just walk along the bottom?
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 15 November 2014 12: 42
                  +7
                  Quote: bmv04636
                  swim moht or just walk along the bottom?

                  If you are, about Namer, then like almost all Israeli equipment does not float. We do not have the Marines, except for the Sh-13, and pontoon crossings are used to cross large reservoirs. Engineering troops are trained regularly on the Kinneret.
              2. tomket
                tomket 15 November 2014 21: 45
                +1
                Quote: Aron Zaavi
                By the way, "Namer" in Israel is not the main car, but

                I agree all the more so that in fact our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles duplicate each other. You can, for example, make the floating type on a wheeled drive and the speed is higher, which is important for a quick transfer. And on the caterpillar track to make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. If this is not the case, then you can make a lightweight tracked vehicle, universal for the airborne and infantry.
            3. pv1005
              pv1005 15 November 2014 12: 22
              +3
              Lessons of NVP against Higher Military Education and the General Staff Academy.
            4. jktu66
              jktu66 15 November 2014 15: 58
              +1
              our kind of march to Europe is not going to
              keyword - sort of wink Yes, and Ukraine calls itself tseevropoy
            5. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 15 November 2014 16: 23
              +2
              Quote: afion
              what rivers do infantry need to cross over now?


              Through any that meet on the way.
              And the one who claims that the floating armored vehicles are not needed by our motorized riflemen, is he either acting as an idiot or is engaged in throwing misinformation.
              The technical task for the development of floating armored vehicles for motorized rifle units was given by those people who personally during the Second World War, held the positions of commanders of large infantry or mechanized units and were directly involved in operations of the second half of the Second World War.
              Who better than they should know about what equipment is needed. Or do you not recognize the authority of WWII veterans?
              Then read the book by V. Astafiev "Wolf's Pit" for an example. There is a description of the events that took place during the battle for the Dnieper.
              1. tomket
                tomket 15 November 2014 21: 50
                0
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Or do you not recognize the authority of WWII veterans?

                And let's remember what was necessary for the participants in the battle of Kalka. tell me, when was the last time you saw the crossing, followed by the capture of the bridgehead of the banks of a large river? Like the Dnieper? And when was the last time a city battle involving Soviet-style armored vehicles? so it turns out that more demanding is enhanced booking or the possibility of overcoming the river for the notorious capture of a bridgehead on the river bank ???
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 15 November 2014 22: 47
                  +2
                  Quote: tomket
                  so it turns out more in demand, enhanced booking or the ability to overcome the river for the notorious capture of the bridgehead on the river ???

                  And why is it necessary to capture the bridgehead immediately after the crossing?
                  Let's look at the transfer of our wax over rough terrain. For example, a breakthrough of the border from China into the depths of our territory in order to chop off a piece of our territory (http://nnm.me/blogs/inteum/u_kitaya_svoya_granica/)

                  Let’s wait until the engineering troops cross over everywhere?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 22: 58
                    0
                    This is a Chinese copy-paste of the Israeli "Spike-NLOS". Range of application up to 70 km. Are you sure there will be enough floating BMPs to repel a Chinese attack?
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 15 November 2014 23: 12
                      +6
                      Quote: Spade
                      Are you sure that amphibious infantry fighting vehicles will be enough to repel the Chinese attack?

                      Do you propose in vain not to drive equipment, but to begin immediately with a nuclear strike on Beijing?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 23: 15
                        +4
                        I propose to have a normally protected equipment that can withstand such threats.

                        The Chinese army is no longer a crowd of hunweibins in treuhi and with quotes from Mao.
                    2. Corsair
                      Corsair 17 November 2014 10: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Are you sure that amphibious infantry fighting vehicles will be enough to repel the Chinese attack?

                      But here it would not hurt to remember that the BMP, in its original incarnation, was developed as a means of DELIVERY and FIRE SUPPORT for infantry on the march and in battle, and it was implied (and should be implied now) that the offensive zone should be previously "cleared" by other means ...
                      Well, they cannot, and should not be BMPehi "REFLECTORS" ...
                      Only from the thoughtless and inept use of BMPs become "mass graves" ...
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 21: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Corsair
                        But here it would not hurt to remember that the BMP, in its original incarnation, was developed as a means of DELIVERY and FIRE SUPPORT for infantry on the march and in battle, and it was implied (and should be implied now) that the offensive zone should be previously "cleared" by other means ...

                        Sorry, but the main difference between the BMP is that the BTR is primarily intended for transportation, and the BMP is primarily for fire support and infantry cover in battle. How can an insecure BM perform these tasks?
                      2. Corsair
                        Corsair 1 December 2014 12: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        and BMP - primarily for fire support and cover infantry in battle.

                        IN THE PRELIMINARY CLEANED ATTACK BAND, where the enemy’s means of destruction must remain MINIMUM, and under the cover of motorized gunners, who finally clear the terrain.

                        "Hand washes hand" ...
            6. vovka
              vovka 15 November 2014 17: 02
              +7
              A year ago, we thought that the Ukrainian government was loyal to us, well, as a last resort, they would pour mud out of habit out of habit (Moscow is always their fault). And now there is a great prospect that Kokla will join NATO. And the Dnieper will again have to force an hour. I do not want to but .....
            7. nerd.su
              nerd.su 15 November 2014 17: 12
              +3
              Quote: afion
              this was true for the USSR Armed Forces, but not for the RF Armed Forces. our kind of march to Europe is not going to

              Judging by the word "like" you yourself are not sure about it smile
              Military-political statements are one thing, and objective reality is another.
              Remember - while the NATO bloc has not been disbanded, and the United States is trying to be a hegemon, for the Russian army the task of mass rapid forcing of large European rivers and the English Channel will always be relevant. Whatever our leaders say about this.
            8. TsUS-Air Force
              TsUS-Air Force 15 November 2014 22: 17
              +1
              Terek Sunzha also crossed armored
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 22: 50
                0
                Quote: NOC-VVS
                Herek Sunzha also crossed with armor

                But why swim if there are a lot of fords? Yes, and it’s dangerous to swim there, a sickly course. They drove the equipment from Darial to Tarskoe through the ford on the Terek. The depths were not really measured, and the river after the rains somewhat spilled ... Well, the twist of the beginning of the BRM-1K reconnaissance. It turned out to be a good mechanic, he didn’t finish it, he waited for the goose to dig the ground. As it happened, he gave gas, pulled the car to the sandbank. Well I didn’t catch a pebble in a goose ...

                And I remember through Argun south of Art. Atagov were crossing ... This show was, two-thirds of the behh stern hatches were either dented or torn off. Water flows, property swims away, infantry swears ...
                1. TsUS-Air Force
                  TsUS-Air Force 15 November 2014 23: 05
                  0
                  Well, you yourself know that in the Russian army the paranormal phenomenon is a normal phenomenon laughing
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 23: 26
                    +2
                    There is nothing paranormal here. The BMP-2 has one weak point. In the absence of proper maintenance, which is a reality in the war, they begin to have big problems with winding.

                    First, the "air" is killed, after which, due to the increased load, the batteries are killed. So you need to start from the pusher. But since someone gifted in the USSR decided to save on the thickness of the cables, and they break at the BMP-2 at a time (due to the design of the machine, it is not able to pull softly and smoothly, like the same MT-LB), then you have to start one car aft of the other.

                    Accordingly, the hatches bend and come off. Even the partition between the hatches bends.
                    1. wanderer_032
                      wanderer_032 16 November 2014 00: 17
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      you have to start by pushing one car into the stern of another.


                      They did not try to cling to the "pusher" on the front of a log with tires so that instead of a buffer it would serve, they say it helps. and the hatches remain intact. Eh you riders ... laughing
                      1. tomket
                        tomket 16 November 2014 00: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Quote: Spade
                        you have to start by pushing one car into the stern of another.


                        They did not try to cling to the "pusher" on the front of a log with tires so that instead of a buffer it would serve, they say it helps. and the hatches remain intact. Eh you riders ... laughing

                        Offer morning in the fields, before starting, drop into the local tire service for tires?)))))
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 10: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        They did not try to cling to the "pusher" on the front of a log with tires so that instead of a buffer it would serve, they say it helps. and the hatches remain intact.

                        Have you ever seen a BMP-2 in your eyes? This motorcycle league can be protected like this, but not BMP. It is enough to see at least once how the BMP-2 starts to understand that it needs these tires and logs as a dead poultice.
                      3. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 11: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        This motorcycle league can be protected like this, but not BMP. It is enough to see at least once how the BMP-2 starts to understand that it needs these tires and logs as a dead poultice.


                        As an option, make a buffer on the rear landing hatches of metal and rubber sheathed from old car tires.
                        A similar removable buffer can be made for a pusher with sufficient width.
                        The head is given to people to think, and not just to wear a hat.
                        Yesterday I posted 4 videos about the BMP and they show that the "kopecks" and "deuces" when starting off have a longitudinal swing, all this is as old as the world.
                        Buffers can be made by rem.roth companies on the PPD if anything and the materials for this are the simplest needed, nothing outstanding and archaic. A bit of thought and handwork. It all depends on the deputy technician and the mechanical water unit of the unit in which the equipment is operated.
                        And then they will put anybody in mech.water, and then they "sweat" from them.

                        So I had such a case when I worked in Daewoo. Together with Serega, they sent us to clean the snowball on one road, two tractors, MTZ-80 and ZTM-60 (aka YuMZ-6). We already worked and returned to the park. At Seryoga’s engine on MTZ-80, the engine became flawed, there was no way to fix the malfunction on the spot. Tow ropes too. So I pushed him with my blade under the brush to the park 10 km slowly. And in the park, in boxing, too, pushed. I didn’t break anything.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 11: 37
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        As an option, make a buffer on the rear landing hatches of metal and rubber sheathed from old car tires.


                        Will not help

                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Yesterday I posted 4 videos about the BMP and they show that the "kopecks" and "deuces" when starting off have a longitudinal swing, all this is as old as the world.

                        Only you have not made any conclusions. Imagine the process of winding up in dynamics, taking into account this "buildup"

                        By the way, it’s good that you are aware that making BMP-2 start up normally is not an option ...
                      5. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 13: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Will not help


                        You can make it even easier, carry normal cables with you and that's it. Then you don’t need to be smart.
                        In general, I will say this, in the hands of a gouging, even the best equipment will work poorly, give at least what it will still whine, that the equipment is bad, etc., etc. ..
                        He will find a thousand reasons to justify himself.
                        I had an uncle in Afghanistan for a year and a half as a gunner on the BMP-2, and he still responds well about the car. And he, as part of motorized mechanized groups of frontier troops, repeatedly participated in military operations.
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 November 2014 16: 22
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        You can make it even easier, carry normal cables with you and that's it.

                        Do you steal from the tankers? It is possible, but not enough for everyone.


                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I had an uncle in Afghanistan for a year and a half as a gunner on the BMP-2, and he still responds well about the car.

                        And I remember how the anti-tank officer in the "Shturm" rode around the infantry positions and started their behi.
                      7. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 59
                        0
                        Here it is called Logistics !!! And then Mlyn s can’t fight without toilet paper ...
                      8. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 15: 57
                        0
                        therefore, the "towline! wink
                    2. traper
                      traper 17 November 2014 18: 31
                      +2
                      Well, I, over the years of service, noticed that our infantry will destroy any equipment, both its own and the enemy’s laughing ,
                    3. MGD
                      MGD 23 November 2014 15: 55
                      0
                      They helped the Ural to get across the ravine = he did not believe for a long time that the bridges were in place (Kamaz-> a priori there were no way to those places)
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 12
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            So catch a quality minus.


            For you, this may be a revelation, but the tanks do without the ability to sail. The one that may not be worth the pathetic minuses scattered?
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 15 November 2014 16: 28
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              For you, this may be a revelation, but the tanks do without the ability to sail.


              Crossing with the help of an anti-tank missile system requires tank crew, good training and solid skills.
              In addition, the use of OPVT has greater limitations on the application than the use of equipment with amphibious capabilities.
              1. svp67
                svp67 15 November 2014 17: 29
                +2
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Crossing with the help of an anti-tank missile system requires tank crew, good training and solid skills.
                Most of all such crossings require excellent engineering training, and then engineering and technical support ...
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 17: 52
                0
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Crossing with the help of an anti-tank missile system requires tank crew, good training and solid skills.

                As I understand it, in your opinion it is impossible to provide? When the Soviet Union somehow coped. Conducted real crossings not only in summer but also in winter. Used the training data as a means of psychological preparation ... Even the simulators to leave the tank after flooding were ...
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 15 November 2014 20: 06
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  As I understand it, in your opinion it is impossible to provide? When the Soviet Union somehow coped.


                  Yes, it is possible, but not always.
                  The reasons for the place of crossing and the equipped access roads to them are easy to find even from a great height, and given the capabilities of modern avt-technical intelligence, you can even find a flooded pontoon bridge.
                  And it is much more difficult to detect disparate groups of motorized rifles on infantry fighting vehicles with observance of camouflage measures. Yes, and destroy one powerful missile-artillery or air strike, too.
                  In the USSR, just all competent people understood this very well when they issued the technical task for the design of BMP-1 / BMD-1.
                  Or the opinion of such people as Marshal V. Chuikov (Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the USSR, Deputy Minister of Defense of the USSR (1960-1964)) and Army General Margelov V.F. (Commander of the Airborne Troops in 1954-1959 and 1961-1979) is this an empty phrase for you?
                  After all, it was they who set such requirements for the development of infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, it was they who claimed the launch of this equipment in mass production.
                  Largely thanks to them, BMP-1 and BMD-1 appeared.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 21: 02
                    0
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    In the USSR, just all competent people

                    And the "incompetent", that is the infection, did not allow the main battle tank to be made floating?
                    1. wanderer_032
                      wanderer_032 15 November 2014 22: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      And the "incompetent", that is the infection, did not allow the main battle tank to be made floating?


                      To do this, there is an OPVT.

                      By the way, you shouldn't. In order not to depend on the PMP, even military trucks were taught to walk on water at one time. R&D topic code "Land". yes
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 23: 00
                        0
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        To do this, there is an OPVT.

                        Well, at last you recognized that there are alternative methods of crossing over water barriers.
                      2. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 12: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Well, at last you recognized that there are alternative methods of crossing over water barriers.


                        There is something there. Only in order to be transported with the help of OPVT, the equipment must be prepared in advance, and this is a waste of time. This time.
                        An ATW for tanks was introduced because there were no other ways to transport equipment weighing 35 tons or more. These are two.
                        In addition, the place for the crossing must be chosen more carefully (there should be access roads from two banks with soil of sufficient hardness to withstand the technique of such a mass, it is necessary to measure the depth of the channel in the forcing section and it is possible to carry out other additional measures to ensure the forcing of the water barrier). These are three.
                        In addition to this, the BM crew also needs to be additionally trained to carry out a similar task. It is also necessary to provide the crew with an emergency exit vehicle under water (IP-46M). These are four.

                        To force the water barrier on the BTR / BMP / BMD from all of the above, you need only three conditions to check the operability of the equipment, conduct engineering reconnaissance of access roads to the forcing area and provide the crew and the landing team with rescue equipment.
                        All this does not constitute a large investment of time in comparison with the preparation of tanks. The crossing itself is carried out on the move, in a short time.
                        There is a difference?
            2. boris-1230
              boris-1230 15 November 2014 17: 09
              +1
              In Krasnoyarsk, caterpillar floating conveyors were previously made, which could freely transport a tank to the other side of any river in their hold (inside)! There is a rule of technology - a universal tool always loses to a specialized one in quality! In the 30s they tried to screw glider wings on wedges - now they use landing ILS for this. stop good
          3. new communist
            new communist 15 November 2014 12: 47
            +1
            You are wrong, special brigades can be formed for crossing rivers, where the state has both floating tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and the rest can be made non-floating or floating with additional fittings. Here the Israelis made Merkava -4 only for their area, and they make armored infantry fighting vehicles based on tanks. And the crossing now can also be carried out by helicopter, such as a landing-place landing capture.
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 15 November 2014 12: 53
              +3
              Quote: new communist
              . So the Israelis made the Merkava -4 only for their area, and they do tank-based infantry fighting vehicles. And the crossing now can also be carried out by helicopter, such as a landing-place landing capture.

              There are no infantry fighting vehicles in Israel, only armored personnel carriers.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 21: 14
                0
                Quote: Aron Zaavi
                There are no infantry fighting vehicles in Israel, only armored personnel carriers.


                By the way, the answer, why such an incident? I never understood why the IDF does not use IFVs or heavier weapons on its BTR-Ts.
            2. svp67
              svp67 15 November 2014 13: 29
              +5
              Quote: New Communist
              And the crossing now can also be carried out by helicopter, such as a landing-place landing capture.
              And immediately after the seizure of the bridgehead, the question arose, what next? The main issue in the fight for the bridgehead is the speed of buildup of forces by both sides and therefore the side defending the coast is in more favorable conditions, since it does not need to overcome a water barrier every time, but you can use highways, railways and other roads, and at the same time keep under the blows all the crossings that you need to have more time to direct. That is why the ability to swim technique is very important, this quality will help to quickly build up strength on the captured bridgehead, so that it could be expanded so much that the crossings will be in a more or less protected state due to their remoteness from the line of contact.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 45
                0
                Quote: svp67
                And immediately after the seizure of the bridgehead, the question arose, what next?

                Engineering equipment will ensure the passage of armored vehicles along the bottom; the PTS will provide supplies, after the expansion of the bridgehead and pontoon crossings.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 15 November 2014 18: 21
                  +3
                  Quote: Spade
                  Engineering equipment will ensure the passage of armored vehicles along the bottom; the PTS will provide supplies, after the expansion of the bridgehead and pontoon crossings.
                  It will take no less time to prepare a crossing under water than to prepare a pontoon crossing, since it is necessary to carry out engineering reconnaissance work, and this is mainly the work of divers and to carry out a bunch of measures, and all this is under the opposition or under the threat of opposition from the enemy forces. Therefore, the first cast goes all waterfowl and self-propelled ferries ...
              2. new communist
                new communist 15 November 2014 13: 47
                +2
                You forgot about artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and other weapons. BMPs crossing the other side will not make a significant contribution to the offensive because their offensive capabilities are not great.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 15 November 2014 18: 26
                  +3
                  Quote: New Communist
                  BMPs crossing the other side will not make a significant contribution to the offensive because their offensive capabilities are not great.

                  Without fish, you’ll become a cancer yourself ... BMPs at this stage can even do a lot, in any case, the infantry simply won’t have anything else, so it’s not volitional, but BMP capabilities will be used to the full, including high-speed, to capture the largest possible territory, while the enemy does not restore the line of defense.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 21: 08
                    +2
                    Quote: svp67
                    Without fish, you’ll become cancer yourself ...

                    Exactly. Some BMPs are excellent targets for enemy tanks and PTS.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 16 November 2014 03: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      Some BMPs are excellent targets for enemy tanks and PTS.
                      They have such a fate, though they can be helped in their survival by "Octopuses", "Chrysanthemums" and all other "waterfowl"
                      1. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 16: 07
                        0
                        Let's not philosophize .... The firing range with conventional ammunition of an average self-propelled guns is roughly 35 km ... Front-line aviation on xxx with a slightly larger radius (without entering the fire zone) mines from all the possible places of fords from the air .... and where do we go?
                  2. tomket
                    tomket 15 November 2014 22: 00
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    to capture as much territory as possible until the enemy restores the line of defense.

                    In my opinion, even during Napoleon’s time, the seizure of territory was not a priority. The priority was the destruction of enemy forces. The Germans, on the other hand, reoriented themselves towards the destruction of the communications and rear headquarters. in the absence at that time of such a universal and effective means as say RPGs or ATGMs, this kind of tactics posed a great danger. in your opinion it turns out something like this. A dozen infantry fighting vehicles will cross the river, and will leave a hundred kilometers inland enemy territory until the fuel runs out. But what a piece they grabbed !!!!!
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 16 November 2014 03: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: tomket
                      In my opinion, even during Napoleon’s time, the seizure of territory was not a priority. The priority was the destruction of enemy forces

                      We are talking with you about seizing a bridgehead, and in this type of battle "seizure of territory" is a vital measure, since the stability of the defense of the bridgehead and the possibility of accumulating forces and means to go from it to the offensive depend on it.
                      1. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 16: 11
                        0
                        What is the seizure of the parade ground and even for the gift ???? Look at the chronicles ... Against the "separatist rabble" the regular army died down !!!
                  3. new communist
                    new communist 15 November 2014 22: 12
                    0
                    BMPs at this stage can even do a lot, disagree, Nona in the floating version Yes, but BMPs will only burn, in the first coast it can be mined, Then one tank will beat ten BMPs as partridges.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 16 November 2014 03: 36
                      0
                      Quote: New Communist
                      firstly the coast can be mined
                      And what is engineering support in your concept for? Some kind of "childish" conversation
                      1. new communist
                        new communist 16 November 2014 10: 43
                        +3
                        And for what purpose is engineering support organized? Talking some sort of "childish" is not a childish question, for dubious benefits when crossing rivers, thousands of soldiers risk their lives riding in lightweight infantry fighting vehicles. And any crossing of the river without a pontoon bridge is doomed, that's the conclusion.
                      2. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 16: 16
                        0
                        Silently glanced over, and there I am glad to welcome a loud snap ...
                    2. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 21: 24
                      0
                      Quote: New Communist
                      BMPs at this stage can even do a lot, disagree, Nona in the floating version Yes, but BMPs will only burn, in the first coast it can be mined, Then one tank will beat ten BMPs as partridges.


                      1. Why strike in a place known to the enemy? This is not Omaha Beach. And at the same time, the enemy will not throw tanks into a counterattack without special need - artillery will do everything.
                      2. Nona is an SPG, not a tank destroyer. The ambush infantry fighting vehicles due to the presence of anti-tank systems together with their own infantry will be able to repel an enemy attack (preferably, however, with the support of artillery).
                      3. Tank in the open - yes. But a tank without infantry support and with an equipped position is not a fact that it can do this.
                      1. MGD
                        MGD 23 November 2014 16: 18
                        0
                        YOU have, an option, how to discreetly land in Florida - if Omaha was slapped (sarcasm)
                    3. MGD
                      MGD 23 November 2014 16: 14
                      0
                      which coast? (sarcasm) one Russian destroyer from an artillery tank is giving up a tank battalion without squealing ...
                2. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 15 November 2014 19: 24
                  0
                  Quote: New Communist
                  You forgot about artillery


                  ACS 2S1 "Carnation", ACS 2S9 "Nona-S", ACS 2S31 "Vienna", ACS 2S25 "Sprut-SD" - did not forget to leave.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 21: 10
                    +1
                    N-yes ... Do you know that artillery can shoot through water obstacles?
                  2. svp67
                    svp67 16 November 2014 03: 37
                    0
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    ACS 2S1 "Carnation", ACS 2S9 "Nona-S", ACS 2S31 "Vienna", ACS 2S25 "Sprut-SD" - did not forget to leave.
                    "Carnations" are already being removed from our armament, and everything else, except for "NONA", is still almost "exotic"
                3. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 17 November 2014 21: 20
                  0
                  Quote: New Communist
                  You forgot about artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and other weapons. BMPs crossing the other side will not make a significant contribution to the offensive because their offensive capabilities are not great.


                  Why so? Their task, together with the infantry, is to create at least some kind of protected bridgehead, and then, under the guise of artillery and air defense, a pontoon ferry will be deployed. The latter is induced by trained l / s very quickly.
              3. tomket
                tomket 15 November 2014 21: 55
                0
                Quote: svp67
                The main issue in the fight for the bridgehead is the speed of the buildup of forces by both sides, and therefore the side defending the coast is in more favorable conditions, since it does not need to overcome a water barrier every time, but

                Do you seriously think in terms of WWII ???? Any concentration on the bridgehead of armored groups or something else, according to the classic scenario of the Second World War, will be the tidbit for all kinds of MLRS, attack aircraft, helicopters, and even tactical nuclear weapons, if the turmoil is serious.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 15 November 2014 22: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: tomket
                  Any concentration on the bridgehead of armored groups or something else, according to the classical scenario of the Second World War, will be the most tasty morsel for all kinds of MLRS


                  However, then any concentration of engineering equipment will become a tidbit for various MLRS or aircraft. How then to overcome large rivers? If we deny the possibility of concentration of forces, that is, the war takes on a maneuverable character, then all BMPs must be floating. To cross water barriers in small groups in different places. But something tells me that the experience of the Second World War is still useful to us. Or do you think that the troops who took Koenigsberg and Berlin could not have taken Grozny?
                  1. tomket
                    tomket 15 November 2014 22: 41
                    0
                    Quote: bot.su
                    However, then any concentration of engineering equipment will become a tidbit for various MLRS or aircraft. How then to overcome large rivers? If we deny the possibility of concentration of forces, that is, the war takes on a maneuverable character, then all BMPs must be floating. To cross water barriers in small groups in different places. But something tells me that the experience of the Second World War is still useful to us. Or do you think that the troops who took Koenigsberg and Berlin could not have taken Grozny?

                    I believe that with a competent operation, the crossing may not be noticed at all. According to the same experience of the Second World War. example, the Germans crossing the Dnieper in 41. If you so want to take the crossing on the move, you can build a limited number of special equipment. The same experience of WWII and Ford GPA. Notice that after the appearance of the Ford GPA, the Soviet army did not immediately surrender all of their Willis and Dodge three quarters to the scrap. Although, according to your logic, that was exactly what they should have done. Still, how about storming them ???
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 15 November 2014 23: 29
                      0
                      And if we have floating BMPs, then we can’t competently conduct operations? You have interesting logic. What does Ford GPA have to do with it? Could we physically replace all the jeeps with this Ford GPU? There were no more important tasks?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 15 November 2014 23: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: bot.su
                        And if we have floating BMPs, then we can’t competently conduct operations?


                        If our requirements for "swimming" prevent the creation of machines with normal security, then we do not know how to correctly prioritize. That's the problem, the priorities.
                    2. svp67
                      svp67 16 November 2014 05: 23
                      +2
                      Quote: tomket
                      I believe, with proper operation, the crossing may remain completely unnoticed
                      You are telling such a TALE that arguing with you is simply not interesting. The creation of a bridgehead is primarily necessary for the normal functioning of combat units. Where are you going to get fuel and ammunition for the war? Where to send the wounded and equipment for repair. Where to place artillery positions? What you offer is good for the RDG, but not for the actions of the line troops.
                      Quote: tomket
                      .By the same experience of the Second World War. example, Germans crossing the Dnieper in 41g
                      in 1941 our troops "did not notice" a lot, due to the poor organization of intelligence and communications ...
          4. new communist
            new communist 15 November 2014 13: 05
            +4
            To read about how, during the off-season (spring-autumn), Red Army fighters crossed the Dnieper on hastily put together rafts, on raincoats, tents, gymnasts, on their own pants stuffed with straw and dry leaves, and how many soldiers died while drowning in icy water, and not having reached the opposite shore?
            Because the width of the Dnieper in most places of its channel in those years was about 600 tons, and the ferry crossings were sorely lacking for the troops .---------------- You write this and right, but you don’t need to take bad experience from despair, And here's a simple question for you, But how did the Nazis force these rivers during their advance, swam awkwardly with dry leaves in their pants ???
            1. tomket
              tomket 15 November 2014 22: 03
              +1
              Quote: New Communist
              And how did the Nazis force these rivers during their offensive, floating around with dry leaves in their pants ???

              The Germans did not bother the width of the Dnieper, as did the defense of the Red Army in this section. They made a crossing, and the pontoon bridge turned out to be huge. They secretly threw the hull, and our intelligence overslept the concentration of this hull, and arranged the largest 41 boiler of the year.
              1. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 15 November 2014 23: 14
                0
                Quote: tomket
                The Germans did not bother the width of the Dnieper, as did the defense of the Red Army in this section. They made a crossing, and the pontoon bridge turned out to be huge.


                When the Kiev boiler of the 41st year arose, the Red Army had a clear control of troops this time, German air power was dominated by two, and most of the USSR Air Force aviation was lost in the first weeks of the war. In addition, the remaining aviation units barely managed to repel continuous raids on the most threatened areas, as well as they experienced a severe shortage of material and technical means and there was no question of conducting high-quality air reconnaissance.
                It is difficult to say whether the Germans were cheated or not near Kremenchug, but the Red Army was not able to deliver a qualitative counter-strike. If infantry and artillery were still enough, then tanks and aircraft were clearly not enough for this.
                Here are the numbers: On September 1, the South-Western Front, without front reserves, spare parts and rear, there were 752-760 thousand people, 3923 guns and mortars, 114 tanks and 167 combat aircraft (and this is for 5 armies) . (quote from Wikipedia)
                And again: on September 10, in order to cover the right flank of the South-Western Front from the north and surround Soviet troops in the Kiev region, the 2nd Panzer Group made a deep breakthrough at the junction with the Bryansk Front in the Konotop-Novgorod-Seversky section, partly penetrating the Romn region . The enemy crossed the Desna in areas east of Chernigov and on the perunin direction, the Dnieper at Kremenchug and southeast. By this time, the reserve of the Southwestern Front was completely exhausted. (Ibid.)
                1. tomket
                  tomket 16 November 2014 01: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: wanderer_032
                  When the Kiev boiler of the 41 of the year arose, the Red Army had a clear control over the troops this time, the air was dominated by German aviation, two, and most of the aircraft of the USSR Air Force were lost in the first weeks of the war.

                  Whose problems are these and what does the crossing have to do with it? If there was aviation, then would it be smashed to pieces?
                  1. wanderer_032
                    wanderer_032 16 November 2014 14: 30
                    0
                    Quote: tomket
                    If there was aviation, then would it be smashed to pieces?


                    Of course. In addition, if the crossing guidance for the 17th Army of the Germans had been discovered and stopped in time, the Kiev boiler could have been avoided, but unfortunately this did not happen.
                    By the way, from the idea that if the Germans at that time would have been armed with floating armored personnel carriers, it becomes creepy.
                2. new communist
                  new communist 16 November 2014 10: 47
                  0
                  And the offensive, and even more so with the forcing of rivers, is possible only with an overwhelming advantage, which the Germans demonstrated.
          5. TeR
            TeR 15 November 2014 13: 39
            +2
            - The argument is zero, some unfounded statements.
          6. tchoni
            tchoni 15 November 2014 15: 13
            +7
            Have you heard about such a war as the Great Patriotic War?

            I dare say that in the Wehrmacht there were no amphibious tanks at all. But the engineering service was. Forcing the river right away? - I advise you to travel along the rivers and pay attention to the state of the coast. The stars should very well coincide, so that there would be an entrance to the river and a gentle exit. And so without engineering training - you do not force nichrome.
          7. Pervusha Isaev
            Pervusha Isaev 15 November 2014 19: 37
            -1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            To read about how, during the off-season (spring-autumn), Red Army fighters crossed the Dnieper on hastily put together rafts, on raincoats, tents, gymnasts, on their own pants stuffed with straw and dry leaves, and how many soldiers died while drowning in icy water, and not having reached the opposite shore?



            link to the studio, why is there such a crossing?
          8. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 15 November 2014 21: 05
            +1
            Have you heard anything about attachments to overcome water barriers? Installation and preparation takes a few minutes, in the stowed position - additional protection for the crew and landing! What is the use of forcing on the move if the result is only a smoke screen with interior lighting ?! Preserving the crews, you can force the oceans! Not like rivers! And, this, catch the minus, deserve it!
          9. tomket
            tomket 15 November 2014 21: 37
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            And about the forcing of such rivers as the Dnieper 1943, Vistula and Oder 1944-1945, apart from all the others, have you read?

            And here it’s already minus the rear pilots or engineers who should provide the crossings. The Americans, however, were concerned about the development and use of the landing barges to force the La Manshatak as well as the production of the Ford GPA for example. And we have? Roly on a raincoat tent swim?
          10. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 15 November 2014 22: 01
            0
            It seems that the minuses are put by those who do not read what I wrote simply out of a sense of herd instinct. Without going into details.
            Do not care about the minuses, just put the pros below for the same thing. Nonsense...
            Minushers, you will already decide what point of view you support, otherwise you get it like in that saying "for the company and ... hanged himself."
            1. Pervusha Isaev
              Pervusha Isaev 15 November 2014 23: 07
              -1
              Quote: wanderer_032
              It seems that the minuses are put by those who do not read what I wrote simply out of a sense of herd instinct. Without going into details.
              Do not care about the minuses, just put the pros below for the same thing. Nonsense...
              Minushers, you will already decide what point of view you support, otherwise you get it like in that saying "for the company and ... hanged himself."



              Well, why the worthless one about our crossing the Dnieper, is it all a lie?
              1. wanderer_032
                wanderer_032 16 November 2014 14: 37
                0
                Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                Well, why the worthless one about our crossing the Dnieper, is it all a lie?


                About the Battle of the Dnieper 1943 there are so many books and films that if all of them are listed, a whole day is not enough.

                Here is one of them:

          11. kplayer
            kplayer 17 November 2014 18: 44
            +2
            You stayed somewhere in the 70s-80s of the last century with the doctrinal principles of combat operations of the SA, which in our time can only be afforded by the PLA with its mobilization capabilities, and with 1,6 million regular ground forces and a fleet of combat-ready armored vehicles, pr-in which China is able to quickly build up if necessary. Judging by the magnitude, on the whole length of the rivers, you approach forcing them, then China should be wary of the Russian invasion through the Amur, Argun, Ussuri despite any drift there, excitement, a high opposite shore, a muddy bottom , and to perfectly visible and perfectly struck from the ground and air low-speed targets on the water (that’s not rough terrain). You don’t even understand that it’s better to prepare (including the capture of the bridgehead) and protect several crossings (air defense, barrage fire of the PA and aviation) rather than on the move and on a wide area that is more difficult to cover, to swim in poorly protected infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers without MBT support. I repeat, the general naval buoyancy of the BBM is all a consequence of the Soviet doctrine of the massive use of tank troops without regard to losses.
            It is likely that after forcing a couple of motorized rifle battles on a BMP during forcing, from fire exposure, including large-caliber machine guns and sniper rifles, from loss of stability during close explosions of high-explosive fragmentation ordnance (art., Or aviation NAR), then sobering will come. By the way, according to the modern requirements you mentioned, the order to sail only after the engineering reconnaissance of water barriers (ford crossings when planning and staging the BZ), unless of course you are going to fight in our vast territory, and stop the enemy near Moscow, and in Europe by ours tanks would have liked an abundance of roads and bridges at one time.
            1. MGD
              MGD 23 November 2014 16: 26
              0
              Do not underestimate the Chinese !!! Only 2 countries have high-speed, semi-planing BMMPs: SSHA and China, only the states are blown away, and the Chinese are modernizing and building ...
          12. The comment was deleted.
          13. The comment was deleted.
        2. pv1005
          pv1005 15 November 2014 12: 15
          +2
          Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
          And again, in those future wars that I see buoyancy I didn’t rest. I don’t need it either in the steppe or in the desert or in the mountains.

          What is "WAR IN THE Enemy's Territory" again? It seems this has already passed? Why then invest in ferry facilities
          Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
          she is not needed either in the steppe or in the desert or in the mountains.
          ?
        3. Denis
          Denis 15 November 2014 13: 06
          +2
          Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
          when was the last time they saw infantry massively force rivers?

          There are a lot of rivers in Europe! Yes, and I can swear that I didn’t make up the technical task
        4. terrible
          terrible 15 November 2014 15: 31
          0
          and how to force the Dnieper?
          1. Denis
            Denis 15 November 2014 21: 52
            0
            Quote: formidable
            and how to force the Dnieper?

            They crossed the cannon and rafted the cannons, while they obviously didn’t carry it to the raft
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Strashila
        Strashila 15 November 2014 08: 40
        +4
        With the technical task, it all starts ... the customer must decide how he will use the equipment and where to operate it.
      4. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 15 November 2014 09: 58
        0
        Quote: Denis
        Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
        replace the rollers with reinforced and put instead of the usual float boards reinforced

        Then she won’t swim for sure. Will the task miss this?

        Yes, it’s better not to swim. You can’t cross a snake and a hedgehog
      5. RUSS
        RUSS 15 November 2014 10: 12
        +2
        Quote: Denis
        Then she won’t swim for sure. Will the task miss this?


        Better protection than the ability to swim, especially since you rarely have to swim, especially somewhere in the Caucasus .....
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 15 November 2014 10: 16
      +15
      Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
      To behi ceased to be graves must be set as MINIMUM

      It’s decidedly impossible to get by with a minimum here. No.
      Here, first of all
      1. Be able to fight, i.e. tactically wisely use light BTT, including BMP.
      2. For battles in cities, cities, etc. adopt a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (BTR), an assault tank, and revive parts similar to assault engineering brigades of WWII.
      3. To carry out, after a thorough study of the effectiveness of the issue, R&D and testing, the modernization of the BMP-2 by adopting sets of mounted additional protection in the form of armor screens, gratings, possibly DZ, systems for setting smoke (aerosol) curtains, IR masking. these kits should be hung by forces of military units depending on the tasks.
      More than once, they have daldonili about the security of the BTT, but still it does not reach "some civilians" that it is impossible to escape from modern weapons in a light armored vehicle, no matter what you do there.
      MBT and heavy armored personnel carriers are much better protected, but they are also quite vulnerable. The development of TCP does not stand still.
      Only competent combat use can minimize the loss of equipment and people.
      But what about armor, protection? Is importantof course but it the last chance.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 15 November 2014 13: 32
        +5
        Plus, dear. Perhaps I will say heresy, but IMHO, there is no immortality, and any BT can be destroyed. Even a sophisticated Jewish tin. For example, I would love to look at the vaunted Jewish wunderwaffles when they were covered with hail, like dill near Zelenopolis. Something tells me that there would be no less broken iron. And even more so in a city or in an ambush war, if the enemy has enough light vehicles. For fighting in the city, light infantry is needed, not BT. BT should play the role of mobile bunkers to control the occupied territory and fire support. By the way, the same Jews act just like that. Infantry is ahead, followed by BTs, which cover each other. As for the cover of the columns, it is also important here not the armor cover, but good combat security and planning the movement of the column. For example, the same compartment of light infantry on ATVs, which, having great mobility, will be able to inspect places convenient for ambushes on the route, which should be identified in advance at the stage of planning the march.
        1. tomket
          tomket 15 November 2014 22: 07
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          so any BT can be destroyed. Even a sophisticated Jewish tin. For example, I would love to look at the praised ev

          So far, we hear about the effectiveness of Israeli armored personnel carriers in urban battles, and about "Mass infantry graves"
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 16 November 2014 10: 47
            0
            When our infantry fighting vehicles were used just as competently as the Jewish ones, they too were not graves. The effectiveness of Jewish BT is based on a well-developed interaction with the infantry. Those. this BT does not travel alone through the streets, covering with its armor the Jewish supermachos, and the supermachos cover the armor, which covers them with fire and, if necessary, maneuver.
            By the way, I understand that cinema is cinema. But if you take the film "Stormy Gates", then the boxes worked perfectly there (an example with the evacuation of a machine-gun crew) up to the moment when they went into a "psychic attack", where they were all burned. Those. you need to work not with armor, but with your head. That the Jews, unfortunately, have learned well.
            1. MGD
              MGD 23 November 2014 16: 28
              0
              The thickness of the armor is unforgettable - merkava and other tanks in the source !!!
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 15 November 2014 18: 36
      +2
      Quote: Prikaz4ikov1992
      To behi ceased to be graves .......

      It is necessary to apply them as intended.
      The BMP was created according to the technical task given by the military and fully corresponds to them. Where there are a lot of mines, MRAP type machines should be used, where there is a chance to collide with artillery - a tank.

      Making a car for all occasions is impossible.
  4. Gans1234
    Gans1234 15 November 2014 08: 15
    +15
    It is high time to consider the combat experience of Israel and your own.
    And change either the degree of reservation of our BMP / BTR, or change this class in principle to BTR-T
    You can hang on cool guns as much as you like, this does not change the fact that the armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles are not capable of fulfilling their initial task - to protect soldiers with their armor - both inside themselves, when transporting motorized infantry, and in battle.
    Ride aluminum colanders. And on top of them are brave soldiers. With an increased risk to life.
    Yes, but they upgraded the BTR-80.
    It was necessary to move the dviglo to the center, to carry the BM ammunition out, and in the rear there was an airborne compartment with exits in the stern / ceiling / barrels. / increase in armor at least by 20 mm, so that the armored personnel carrier would not come from AK.
    Most recently in Ukraine they said how a brave militia burned an APC from SVD!
    Bravo, of course, but our guys drive the same cars!
    And what they got in practice - the good old APC with new fluff and the new 82 index.
    Similar to aluminum BMD-4 and BMP-4.
    Sailing - great. And armor is the tenth thing.

    Israel switched to heavy armored personnel carriers. The Swedes made their heavy armored personnel carrier, and the Germans, and our dill) 10 pieces in service). Americans extended service life for M113, Bradley. New Strikers are modernizing rapidly, because the slag is anthologous to our armored personnel carriers - they will serve while the development of a new heavy armored personnel carrier for the American army is ongoing. And then they will replace this entire sieve park with new armored personnel carriers, which are difficult to take as a border. For some reason, I have no doubt about it. MRAPS for transporting soldiers they already have a lot.
    And how long. How many typhoons of the Russian Defense Ministry ordered - 49, 80 - but definitely less than 100. And among amers and all others, they were licked by px thousands since the beginning of the 90x.
    And in the meantime, discussions will continue in our country, and to put more and more cool new fluffs on the very same equipment, whose concept appeared in the 60x.
    Yes, they swim - nishtyak. But in choosing between the ability to swim and armor, you must choose armor (only for BMD an exception.). modern engineering troops build bridges very quickly and thoroughly. These coffins will cross the river, but on the shore they will be burned in no time with the boys.
    I understand that our army is expensive and in general a lot of trouble. And our fighters on board the BMP look extremely cool - these are real cowboys, not like mattresses. But 60 has been riding from year to year, when all other countries carry people inside.
    Maybe we’ll stop changing guns on cars, start changing the essence of cars?
    Maybe we will change from "coffins" to machines that save the bodies of our guys with armor from enemy bullets?
    Maybe we will finally change the role of our soldiers from "riders" to "passengers"?
    Maybe we will start hearing such speeches from our generals and other "experts" responsible for the development of the army?
    Let them not swim, but the guys will be alive ....
    1. i80186
      i80186 15 November 2014 09: 25
      +22
      In infantry combat, there is nothing to do inside the vehicle. On the march of protection against ambushes, mines, and aircraft, armor cannot be provided in any case. Israel is actually fighting against partisans, and in the desert, without the need for long-distance marches with the crossing of water barriers every 30-50 kilometers. There are no swampy, soft soils. The Middle East is a little not Europe. Do not give the experience of Israel as an example.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2014 10: 52
        +7
        Quote: i80186
        In infantry combat, there is nothing to do inside the vehicle.

        I’m afraid it’s easier to improve the protection of infantry fighting vehicles than to grow genetically modified infantry through biotechnology that can accompany attacking tanks on foot.

        There are two funny lines: the line of transition to the attack and the line of dismounting. The BMP task is to bring infantry from the first to the second under enemy artillery fire
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 15 November 2014 11: 10
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          under enemy artillery fire

          here --- this is the main thing for infantry fighting vehicles, and also support fire, at the turn of deployment of infantry .....
          In the meantime, BMP-1,2 (((Soviet, not Russian)))))
          BMP will cease to be "mass grave of the infantry"?

          with a fence, in the Armed Forces, on the Ruin .....
          direct hit in BMP-2 (((mines 120 mm, 122 mm OFS)))) but the car is in the trash, along with the crew ....
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 20
            +1
            Why are they hitting anywhere? What did the BMP forget?
        2. i80186
          i80186 15 November 2014 12: 06
          +7
          Quote: Spade
          There are two funny lines: the line of transition to attack and the line of dismounting

          That is, in your opinion, is it necessary, to overcome 2-3 km between these lines, to give a damn about mobility of connections and start building monsters with protection at least at the level of modern tanks? How do you imagine protection from shells / min with a caliber greater than 100 mm? How do you imagine crossing such monsters across numerous rivers, rivulets, swampy ravines, etc.? What will be their size, how much will they require fuel for the march, the number of railway platforms for the transfer of which, not to mention the price of these wunderwaffles smile
          PS Following your logic, each paratrooper must be dropped from the stealth fighter of the 5th generation, and at supersonic. laughing
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 47
            +3
            Quote: i80186
            don't care about mobility of connections

            Mobility? laughing If you are not planning to give up tanks, then what, in fact, are we talking about? "Monsters" will definitely not be less mobile.

            Quote: i80186
            What will be their size, how much will they require fuel for the march, the number of railway platforms for the transfer of which, not to mention the price of these wunderwaffles

            Are you sure that the death of trained foot soldiers is economically justified?

            Quote: i80186
            How do you imagine protection from shells / min with a caliber greater than 100 mm?

            Of course. Maybe this is a discovery for you, but the probability of a direct hit of a shell in a tank is rather low.
            Unlike tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and anti-tank vehicles, the means of defense of their artillery will not fire at specific targets. It will be lines, mobile and motionless, of a barrage. The task is to cut off the infantry from the tanks.

            And the more light the transport of infantry, the less it will reach the line of dismount. And the less infantry reaches this line, the less likely it is that tanks will overcome enemy positions.
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 15 November 2014 13: 00
              +9
              Quote: Spade
              . It will be lines, mobile and motionless, of a barrage. The task is to cut off the infantry from the tanks.
              And the more light the transport of infantry, the less it will reach the line of dismount. And the less infantry reaches this line, the less likely it is that tanks will overcome enemy positions.

              it was this thought that led to the creation of the Akhzarites in the IDF. The fact is that after the defeat in Lebanon for 82 years, the Syrians created powerful fortifications in the Damascus region, when analyzing them, it became clear that the infantry on the M-113 would not be able to follow the tanks, and the tank without infantry was doomed, as the actions of our tankers in war in 73, where the Egyptians, armed with "babies", burned them in dozens in Sinai. I had to create a vehicle that could deliver the infantry almost to the enemy's SDs.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 08
                +3
                About that and speech.

                With a large army, there is, of course, the opportunity to give a tank to an infantry platoon; someone will reach the line of dismounting ... But in modern conditions this is unacceptable.
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 15 November 2014 17: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: Spade
                  About that and speech.

                  With a large army, there is, of course, the opportunity to give a tank to an infantry platoon; someone will reach the line of dismounting ... But in modern conditions this is unacceptable.

                  Again, everything is extremely individual. Almost everything depends on the tactics and tasks assigned to the unit. But if we take the IDF specifically, then our t / company and the infantry almost always operate in tandem. It has already been written here that while studying someone else's experience, one cannot copy it because the conditions of each country and its armed forces are always out of the "standard". So, for example, in the RA the main tactical unit is the mech / Br, and in Israel the t / Br. Simply put, with full deployment, we have more tank brigades than mechanized ones, so more often the infantry works for tanks than tanks for the infantry, again, with the exception of urban battles, the situation there is mirror-like.
              2. The fat man
                The fat man 15 November 2014 13: 21
                +1
                I had to create a car that could deliver infantry almost to the enemy’s URs.
                there is one but
                though it is an exception. The late Sharon puzzled how to transport tanks across the canal and the pontoon bridge was mounted under shelling for a very long time.

                or maybe the conclusion is that floating Btr and bmp are not so bad?
                1. tomket
                  tomket 15 November 2014 22: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: Fat Man
                  Sharon puzzled

                  Sharon cost dozens of trophy items 76. Notice, for this operation, Israel did not have to saturate with thousands and tens of thousands of units of lightly armored vehicles
            2. i80186
              i80186 15 November 2014 13: 00
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              If you are not planning to give up tanks, then what, in fact, are we talking about? "Monsters" will definitely not be less mobile.

              In a tank, it is necessary to protect 3 people without weapons and equipment, in an infantry fighting vehicle
              9-12 in full gear.
              Quote: Spade
              Maybe this is a discovery for you, but the probability of a direct hit of a shell in a tank is rather low.

              Maybe this is a discovery for you, but the probability of a shell getting into an infantry fighting vehicle is even lower than in a tank.
              Quote: Spade
              Are you sure that the death of trained foot soldiers is economically justified?

              Naturally, the impossibility of concentrating the required group in the right place at the right time entails an automatic defeat with terrible losses. 1941-1943 year is a good example.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 14
                +3
                Quote: i80186
                In the tank, it is necessary to protect 3 people without weapons and equipment, in the BMP 9-12.

                But didn’t I say that it’s not worth installing tank towers with 125 mm guns at TBMP? My mistake.


                Quote: i80186
                Maybe this is a discovery for you, but the hit of a projectile in an infantry fighting vehicle is even lower than in a tank.

                Differences within the limits of statistical error.
                But at the same time, IFVs are much less resistant to the fire of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and combat vehicles, and to close artillery ruptures. shells.


                Quote: i80186
                Naturally

                Original. In the style of "women still give birth, but where can I find horses for you"


                Quote: i80186
                the inability to concentrate the desired grouping in the right place

                Once again: are you planning to abandon the tanks?
                1. i80186
                  i80186 15 November 2014 13: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  But didn’t I say that it’s not worth installing tank towers with 125 mm guns at TBMP? My mistake.

                  Machine weight 60+ tons, Porsche approves.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Original. In the style of "women still give birth, but where can I find horses for you"

                  Life is a cruel and unhealthy thing in general, they die from it.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Once again: are you planning to abandon the tanks?

                  Are you planning on 60-70 ton monsters easy and fun to drive along country roads?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 56
                    +3
                    Quote: i80186
                    Machine weight 60+ tons, Porsche approves.

                    ? If you remove a tower from a tank, will its weight increase? BMO-T, if you are not in the know, weighs 44 tons.

                    Quote: i80186
                    Life is a cruel and unhealthy thing in general, they die from it.

                    Somehow it's very sofa.

                    Quote: i80186
                    Are you planning on 60-70 ton monsters easy and fun to drive along country roads?

                    Well, they ride. Say also that Leopard-2A6, weighing 60 tons "tank only for asphalt" Or Israeli "Namer" with the same weight ...
                  2. MGD
                    MGD 23 November 2014 16: 32
                    0
                    I don’t know how the roads are, and the beams of some bridges over streams and 250t. will withstand
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 23 November 2014 16: 34
                      0
                      Quote: MGD
                      and the beams of some bridges over streams and 250t. will withstand
                      they can withstand it. and everything else? I perfectly remember the feeling when a reinforced concrete bridge literally walks under your tank. You know, the feeling is not the most pleasant.
            3. cosmos111
              cosmos111 15 November 2014 13: 10
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              And the more light the transport of infantry, the less it will reach the line of dismount. And the less infantry reaches this milestone, the less likely it is that tanks will overcome the positions of the enemy

              BMP, for infantry in motorized infantry brigades, can be navigable, with appropriate training ....
              As an example, the South Korean BMP- K 21


              BMP-F, for the Navy marines, it is critically important for them to have good navigability of the BMP (((which in the Navy is now 000ZZZ)))) .....
              1. Bayonet
                Bayonet 15 November 2014 21: 32
                +1
                Quote: cosmos111
                BMP, for infantry in motorized infantry brigades, can be navigable, with appropriate training ....
                As an example, the South Korean BMP- K 21

                An interesting solution! Above the water level, the floats are covered on top with some kind of no armor, at least from bullets and fragments.
            4. alicante11
              alicante11 15 November 2014 13: 42
              +4
              Dear Shovels. But do not you think that artillery should be involved in overcoming these distances? After all, somehow our troops fought in WWII without an armored personnel carrier, and the Germans, in spite of the presence of armored personnel carriers, mainly used trucks for their motorized infantry. To approach the trenches / fortifications of the enemy, it is necessary to follow the advancing fire. To suppress enemy fire. Under these conditions, light means of VET are basically useless, since they cannot be used on purpose. Also, artillery fire will not be so massive. And from the fragments of individual shells will save and the existing types of BMP-BTR. Direct hits will be rare. If the enemy’s fire is not suppressed, then I’m afraid that even heavily armored vehicles will be destroyed by anti-tank artillery and guided missiles.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2014 14: 07
                +3
                Quote: alicante11
                But do not you think that artillery should be involved in overcoming these distances?

                Maybe artillery. Mobile fire zone. 160 guns per kilometer of the front.

                Apart from those that will be engaged in counter-battery combat, prohibiting the approach of reserves, destroying command centers, air defense positions and other important goals.
              2. Kassandra
                Kassandra 2 December 2014 11: 14
                0
                History teaches that it teaches nothing ... or are you here from the Russians again doing fools?

                somehow having fought, they suffered 5-6 times greater manpower losses than the Wehrmacht ... because the latter in the attack passed the zone of massive mortar shelling precisely inside the armored personnel carrier
                German half-armored armored personnel carrier was essentially an infantry fighting vehicle, and by the way, it was superior in terms of armor reservation.
                to simply support the attackers in the Second World War, the same tanks and (much more often) Su-76M self-propelled guns were used, only the infantry was so whipped with mortar fragments in the stuffing that when it reached the German trenches on the fifth attempt there was almost nothing to support ...
          2. tomket
            tomket 15 November 2014 22: 21
            0
            Quote: i80186
            Your opinion is necessary to overcome the 2-3km between these lines, do not give a damn about the mobility of the connections and start building monsters with protection at least at the level of modern tanks?

            In my opinion, in the army, with the seeming variety of models, in service there is essentially one type of armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, as you wish. That BTR-80, that BMP 2, that BMP 3, that BMD placer, in fact the protection of the crew and the landing, and in efficiency in battle differ only in nuances.
        3. Kunar
          Kunar 15 November 2014 16: 36
          +1
          Categorical plus)))
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 15 November 2014 12: 29
        +5
        Quote: i80186
        In infantry combat, there is nothing to do inside the vehicle.

        That's right!
        It's not a boy, but a husband! yes
        Everything itches in the individual with the idea that it is possible to achieve that "under the formidable armor, he (the infantryman) does not know wounds."
        Once again I affirm - this is a amateurish delusion.
        What to do with the 14 ton BMP-2, neither MRAP nor MBT will work out of it.
        Well, something to enhance the reservation, as part of security, can and should be done.
        But wouldn’t it be easier then instead of sending an IFV to send an MRAP attack with a height of 3,5 m (so that the mine would not jam so much)? lol
        This moronic conclusion suggests itself when reading some comments of people who stubbornly do not want to understand that all BTT is made to perform tasks specific to this class of machines.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 51
          +5
          Quote: Alekseev
          Once again I affirm - this is a amateurish delusion.

          Let you put on an infantry harness and run five kilometers at a speed of 30 km / h in order to prove that you are not an amateur ...

          Damn, you guys are all as simple as boots ... Do you even have the slightest idea of ​​the tactics of motorized rifle units?
          1. i80186
            i80186 15 November 2014 13: 10
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Let you put on your infantry harness

            It was necessary to go to the tank. smile
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 19
              +1
              But do you think the tanks are not mobile enough and they should not be abandoned in favor of cheap trucks?
              1. i80186
                i80186 15 November 2014 13: 43
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                But do you think the tanks are not mobile enough and they should not be abandoned in favor of cheap trucks?

                Well, if the car will weigh no more than 50 tons, and at the same time carry around a 125mm + gun, provide protection against weapons of mass destruction and 120mm + guns, then yes. And incomprehensible monstrous crap for the simple transportation of ten people are not needed.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 15 November 2014 14: 08
                  0
                  Quote: i80186
                  Well, if the car will weigh no more than 50 tons,

                  What for? They only need to bring infantry to the line of transition to the attack. And then the infantry will run after the tanks. At a speed of at least 30 km / h
                  1. i80186
                    i80186 15 November 2014 14: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    What for? They only need to bring infantry to the line of transition to the attack. And then the infantry will run after the tanks. At a speed of at least 30 km / h

                    Well, probably you don’t need to remember about tanks at all, why infantry, why tanks? You give tank stealth infantry at a speed of 30 km / h. Price, quality, reality, but what for. You give.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 15 November 2014 14: 33
                      0
                      Quote: i80186
                      Well, you probably don’t need to remember about tanks at all,

                      Oh yes, they are not sufficiently maneuverable, they must be abandoned. How could I forget?
          2. tomket
            tomket 15 November 2014 22: 30
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Damn, you guys are all as simple as boots ... Do you even have the slightest idea of ​​the tactics of motorized rifle units?

            in an infantry harness, an 2 infantry fighting vehicle is often problematic, especially if the fighter is tall and if you still have felt boots with different pea jackets and padded jackets, and then run through all this, even in the snow or in the muddy and rollicking chernozem, just a fairy tale))))
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 15 November 2014 23: 12
              0
              And they don't pay attention to this at all. I remember that we got a third of the "slides" division. Of course, all the mechanics of the KShMok got them for themselves. And here's the catch: literally a week later, their hoods were torn. About the hatch stopper.

              And gosp. They present a new uniform for Shoigu ... As an old experienced warrior and fashion designer, he decides that the hood that is retracted in the collar is not beautiful ... Let him hang ...
              1. tomket
                tomket 16 November 2014 00: 54
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                And somehow they generally do not pay attention to it.

                The fact of the matter is that since the days of the USSR it has been customary that the main thing is technology. And not the equipment is subordinated to the convenience of the crew and the landing, but the landing and the crew should adapt to the features of the equipment. Take the same notorious ramp. couldn’t it be installed in any way on domestic equipment? In conditions when the car is ambushed, and before the RPG is fired, just the speed of leaving the car plays a decisive role. I’m thinking what other losses or population reduction will be caused by military ranks and designers turn to face the infantryman and crew, relegating to the background the quantitative indicators of production.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. cosmos111
          cosmos111 15 November 2014 14: 18
          0
          Quote: Alekseev
          instead of BMP, send an 3,5 m high MRAP attack (so that the mine does not jam so much)?

          Now specialists, when eliminating militants in Dagestan, apply such .....
          armored KamAZ-4326

          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 15 November 2014 17: 57
            +1
            Quote: cosmos111
            Now specialists, when eliminating militants in Dagestan, apply such .....
            armored KamAZ-4326

            There is nothing to do with these KAMAZ trucks in battle formations. It’s one thing to bring a platoon of special forces to a locked house in which there are 5 militants with one machine gun, and the other attack
            1. cosmos111
              cosmos111 15 November 2014 20: 21
              +1
              Quote: Pilat2009
              , and another to attack

              well, that under the cover of bulletproof armored armored vehicles BTR70 / 80, BMP-1,2, they didn’t attack the hobbits and the 1-th Chechen in the Dagestan, the 1999, Chechen, 2 years ?????
      3. tomket
        tomket 15 November 2014 22: 17
        +2
        Quote: i80186
        In infantry combat, there is nothing to do inside the vehicle. On the march of protection against ambushes, mines, and aircraft, armor cannot be provided in any case. Israel is actually fighting against partisans, and in the desert, without the need for long-distance marches with the crossing of water barriers every 30-50 kilometers. There are no swampy, soft soils. The Middle East is a little not Europe. Do not give the experience of Israel as an example.

        And why in battle inside the car there is nothing to do? Because it’s not possible to leave the BMP normally in seconds for the entire landing. Because there is no ramp. the fact that we could not correctly ensure the movement of the columns, do not write down the advantages of sitting on the armor. The fact that Israel is now fighting with the partisans is the result of the war against the coalition of the Arab countries, they defeated everyone who can. Do not like the experience with the partisans, consider the Doomsday War or the 82 war of the year.
      4. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 November 2014 11: 43
        0
        "Israel is actually fighting against the partisans" ////

        Israel fights against people who use it intensively and skillfully
        RPGs and ATGMs against armored vehicles.
        Therefore, they came to a decision - a heavy armored personnel carrier, so that
        reduce infantry losses.
        There are really few rivers in the region, but there are plenty of deep ravines (waadi).
        It is sometimes no less difficult to overcome them than a river. therefore
        Engineer troops are always on hand with folding bridges and pontoons.

        As for floating equipment, the cheapest option is: as Americans
        made "Shermans" floating when landing in Normandy - attached to them
        on the sides are temporary floats. Then you can not save on armor.
    2. Death Nik1
      Death Nik1 15 November 2014 10: 36
      -1
      Quote: Gans1234
      It's time to consider Israel’s combat experience


      started.....
    3. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 15 November 2014 11: 02
      +3
      The experience of Israel is simply not suitable for us. With our TVD, the massive use of heavy infantry fighting vehicles is very problematic both from the point of view of technology and from the point of view of finance, no matter how regrettable it may be. You can’t put Bradley as an example, since this is complete .... Americans extend his life from despair. Well, they could not create anything worthwhile. In modern combat, this barn will not last long either. And most importantly, infantry in battle have nothing to do inside the BMP, this is not a pillbox. soldier
      1. Gans1234
        Gans1234 15 November 2014 11: 59
        0
        I agree that the amers are similar to our cars gamno.
        But they have a program to replace them and work is ongoing.
        But what about Kurgan? Atom? Promising armored personnel carrier based on Aramta, when Armata itself is not yet made in metal)
        These are just prototypes / projects, no more. Need to change the concept of the approach to the creation of armored personnel carriers and their application
        Yes, no one is calling on Israel to completely and completely take over from Israel.
        But also because it is in the desert and in general B.Vostok cannot be rejected
      2. cosmos111
        cosmos111 15 November 2014 12: 16
        +2
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        The experience of Israel is simply not suitable for us. With our TVD, the massive use of heavy BMPs is very problematic both from the point of view of technology and from the point of view of finance


        suitable-BUT not very ..... and TVD with finances do not play a primary role here .....

        1. A modern war on the Ruin with the massive use of RPGs / ATGMs, artillery, MLRS, MBT, there has not been such a war, WITH APPLICATION AND BMP, since the 70's, since the Arab-Israeli wars ....
        2. The wonders in Afghanistan and Chechnya 1,2, where BMP / APCs were used, were anti-terrorism, the enemy did not have heavy weapons ..... the main threat, for BMP / APCs, came from IEDs and RPTs, the enemy ....
        3.the modern war on the Ruin, it is just necessary to study in detail ((current stage))) and make adjustments to the Kurganets-25 project .....
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 23
        +3
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        With our TVD, the massive use of heavy bmp is very problematic

        ?


        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        and from the point of view of technology and from the point of view of finance, sadly as it may be.

        Sea of ​​tanks for remelting. Is it really difficult to cut them into TBMP and TBTR, rather than needles?
    4. pv1005
      pv1005 15 November 2014 13: 03
      0
      Quote: Gans1234
      Maybe we will finally change the role of our soldiers from "riders" to "passengers"?

      Never before in history did stagecoach passengers beat hussar riders.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 21
        +4
        Is it? And the "walk-town"?
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 15 November 2014 13: 48
          +1
          Walk-city is all the same a fortification, although with the property of mobility. And they did not give a decisive advantage in the offensive. Well, how quickly the fortifications being built in a fractional campaign on foreign territory were certainly priceless.
      2. Gans1234
        Gans1234 15 November 2014 15: 25
        +1
        Since then, much has changed - the stagecoaches had armor and guns, and the hussar, as there were checkers for the halo, remained)
        1. shuhartred
          shuhartred 15 November 2014 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: Gans1234
          and the hussar, as there were checkers for the halo, remained)

          And the hussars appeared RPGs and ATGMs. One one.
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 15 November 2014 08: 37
    +5
    The confrontation of armor is a projectile ... forever.
    There is an axiom ... everything burns.
    If you use the equipment in a dull ... no armor will help.
    Proof of this ... continued procurement of such equipment around the world in large volumes.
    For an example, look in a network action of the Syrian divisions with BMP in city conditions.
    1. Prapor-527
      Prapor-527 15 November 2014 08: 45
      +4
      Quote: Strashila
      The confrontation of armor is a projectile ... forever.
      There is an axiom ... everything burns.
      If you use the equipment in a dull ... no armor will help.
      Proof of this ... continued procurement of such equipment around the world in large volumes.
      For an example, look in a network action of the Syrian divisions with BMP in city conditions.

      Absolutely right! Need to reconsider the tactics of the use of infantry fighting vehicles, and determine that this is a transport for infantry in combined arms combat, or an infantry support vehicle for joint operations with tanks? ..
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2014 10: 53
        +5
        Quote: Prapor-527
        Absolutely right! Need to reconsider the tactics of the use of infantry fighting vehicles, and determine that this is a transport for infantry in combined arms combat, or an infantry support vehicle for joint operations with tanks? ..

        Why review it? Everything is already defined. An armored personnel carrier is a vehicle, an infantry fighting vehicle is a vehicle and a support tool for emergency infantry.
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 15 November 2014 11: 47
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          Why review it? Everything is already defined. An armored personnel carrier is a vehicle, an infantry fighting vehicle is a vehicle and a support tool for emergency infantry.


          reconsider .... wheeled and tracked BBM-BTR / BMP ... on the same platform, AGS BTR machine gun spark, installation of BMP cannon weapons ......

          and come to the fore, devices --- situational awareness, thermal imagers, panoramic sights .....

          booking, of course, is important, but come to the fore:
          1.tactics
          2.mobility
          3. Radar and situational stealth ...
          4. Reservation (((mine and ballistic defense))) for close combat .....
        2. Prapor-527
          Prapor-527 15 November 2014 14: 29
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          Why review it? Everything is already defined. An armored personnel carrier is a vehicle, an infantry fighting vehicle is a vehicle and a support tool for emergency infantry.

          When a motorized rifle division advances, this is one thing, but when a tank company is fighting with the support of infantry fighting vehicles and infantry, it is completely different. The BMP delivered the vehicle to the site and proceeds to support the tanks ... In its current form, it does this with huge losses. We need to decide what will "float" and what will work side by side with tanks ... My opinion. hi
      2. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 15 November 2014 12: 05
        +1
        Quote: Prapor-527
        Need to reconsider the tactics of the use of infantry fighting vehicles, and determine that this is a transport for infantry in combined arms combat, or an infantry support vehicle for joint operations with tanks? ..

        For organized advancement, deployment and simultaneous transition to an attack to a platoon, an extension route, starting point, deployment point to platoon columns, the line of transition to the attack, the line of safe removal, and when attacking on foot for a motorized rifle platoon, are also assigned a dismounting line.
        ...
        The deployment line into platoon columns is assigned in order to ensure a consistent and organized deployment of the company from marching to battle formation. With access to this line, the platoon continues to advance along an independent route. Usually, the deployment line into platoon columns is assigned beyond the folds of the terrain and at such a distance that would exclude the enemy’s impact on the deployed company with mostly anti-tank weapons.
        ...
        The line of dismounting (for branches - the place of dismounting) is assigned as close as possible to the front edge of the enemy's defense. Places for dismounting the personnel of the detachments with infantry fighting vehicles (APCs) at the same time are selected behind the folds of the area that protect it from small arms fire, and combat vehicles from anti-tank means of close combat of the enemy. Given the necessary protection against explosions of their shells from the experience of exercises, the removal of the line of dismounting from the front edge of the enemy’s defense can be 300 m or more.
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 15 November 2014 13: 44
          +2
          Quote: Aleksys2
          For organized advancement, deployment and simultaneous transition to an attack to a platoon, an extension route, a starting point, a deployment point to platoon columns, a line of transition to an attack, a line of safe removal, and when attacking on foot for a motorized infantry platoon, are assigned, in addition to

          we need modern situational awareness devices and sights ...

          as an example, RG-34 with DUBM- RT - B25 armed gun 25 mm ATK M242 machine gun 7,62-mm M240 ....

          and here’s the most important thing that makes this BBM MODERN-DUBM equipped with a viewfinder, the latest generation of electronic-optical systems able to determine targets on the 3000 met during the day and 1500 met at night ...
          ORT also includes three FOV daytime cameras, a thermal imaging camera for detecting targets up to 8000 met at any time of the day, a laser rangefinder with a range of more than 10 km with an accuracy of up to 5 met !!!!

          that’s what a modern BMP is simply necessary !!!!! without all this, it’s just a bunch of expensive scrap metal ...
          info s:http://desarrolloydefensa.blogspot.ru/2013/12/vehiculo-multiproposito-rg34-sudaf

          rica.html
        2. korjik
          korjik 15 November 2014 14: 46
          +1
          QUOTE Prapor 527 - "For the organized advancement, deployment and simultaneous transition to the attack, the platoon is assigned a route of advancement, a starting point, a point of deployment in platoon columns, a line of transition to an attack, a line of safe removal, and when attacking on foot for a motorized rifle platoon, in addition , dismounting line ... "

          You would add my friend, - Aine battalion marshiren ... lol And so well started, - "We need to reconsider the tactics of using BMP." But judging by the following lines, you are preparing to attack on foot, platoon, on the enemy's fortified line of defense. As a jacket I will say - nonsense !!! GLOW MALE !!!
          In my opinion, BMP, this is a mobile sniper position, armed with high-precision and powerful weapons. This will be the support of the infantry!
  6. Bosk
    Bosk 15 November 2014 08: 40
    +7
    Or it may just not use the BMP as tanks, it’s a minibus for infantry, but it does have fluff, but that doesn’t mean that it needs to be driven into the thick of it. Well, if there really is a desire to raise protection and firepower, then why not go the way the Israelites went ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 November 2014 10: 41
      +2
      Quote: Bosk
      this is a minibus for infantry

      "Minibus for infantry" is an armored personnel carrier, the BMP has slightly different functions.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bosk
        Bosk 15 November 2014 11: 22
        0
        Perhaps ... but after all, the means of destruction do not stand still, and today the BMP, figuratively speaking, can be punched at close range and from the "Kalash" ... I mean that the tactics in this regard also need to be changed somehow and maybe I and I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a "single" transport-combat platform is not suitable for modern combat ... maybe it's time to switch to light, medium and heavy types?, because, for example, what is suitable for airborne assault is not suitable for a frontal attack ... Again But there are fears of "being late", on the example of the same Russo-Japanese War that ours fought badly? -that's not good, but the fact that the bayonets fade into the background and the "density of fire" comes to the fore, but these mistakes are life and considerable ...
    2. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 15 November 2014 11: 08
      +2
      That's right, you just need to see how these BMPs show themselves in the fall and winter and with the condition that the bridges are blown up.
  7. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 15 November 2014 09: 23
    +8
    Quote: Bosk
    Or it may just not use the BMP as tanks, it’s a minibus for infantry, but it does have fluff, but that doesn’t mean that it needs to be driven into the thick of it. Well, if there really is a desire to raise protection and firepower, then why not go the way the Israelites went ...

    Then the comrades from Israel just said that they didn’t specifically put anything heavier on the heavy machine guns — so that the commanders did not want to use it instead of a tank.
    1. Death Nik1
      Death Nik1 15 November 2014 10: 44
      +8
      Quote: Achtuba1970
      Then the comrades from Israel just said that they didn’t specifically put anything heavier on the heavy machine guns — so that the commanders did not want to use it instead of a tank.


      Not only. Heavier weapons are a few extra tons of weight + armor to protect it. Minus general armor protection.
      How did Ahzarite. T-55 minus tank gun plus ~ 15 tons of extra. armor. The speed and maneuverability of the Soviet tank is preserved, and the armor protection (so good) is even more enhanced. It turned out pretty well.
      1. The fat man
        The fat man 15 November 2014 13: 16
        +1
        It turned out pretty well.

        for the time being
        the question is price of course. Achzarite service for 1000 hours is not so cheap.
        But I intend just right. cheaper to maintain components and assemblies are identical to merkava.
        and protection is incomparably better
  8. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 15 November 2014 10: 16
    +1
    However, it is worth remembering that the Kurgan will not immediately get into all the available motorized rifle units, so the task of modifying the BMPs available in the troops is still urgent. (Quote)

    Since "things are still there", the military itself, at the level of the commanders of the MRBR and MRB, as well as the deputy potekhov, can tackle this pressing problem using the capabilities of the repair units at the military unit and the available materials.
    Indeed, people with higher engineering specialized education are in the positions of deputy technicians and may well cope with this task.
    This problem can be solved if we take into account the combat experience that has been gained since the time of the war in Afghanistan and to this day. And also if it is good to study the methods and experience of the armed forces of other states in improving the protection of armored vehicles of motorized infantry units, with accessible materials with minimal production capabilities or in the field.
    In general, "The rescue of drowning people is the work of the drowning people themselves." Hope for higher "authorities" apparently is not worth it for a long time, but it will be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the assigned combat missions anyway.
    The principle "give me what I need, and then I will do what I am supposed to" is not about our army and this is a fact.
    In our army, the principle is different "use what is at hand and do not look for something else for yourself", but at the same time "even die, but do it."
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 15 November 2014 11: 12
      +2
      If the military themselves do this, it will be squalor. Look at the art of dill in the Donbass. Weight is added, and the protection is bye-bye. request
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 16 November 2014 15: 31
        0
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        If the military themselves do this, it will be squalor.


        Why for?

        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        Look at the art of dill in the Donbass.


        Found with whom to take an example.
  9. korjik
    korjik 15 November 2014 11: 23
    0
    An armored personnel carrier, as I understand it, is intended for transporting troops to the battlefield and supporting infantry in attack! The tank is more heavily armored, but it is also practically powerless against mines and grenade launchers. Maybe instead of armored personnel carriers they will start using presidential cars. That's who is protected.
  10. Vadim237
    Vadim237 15 November 2014 11: 30
    +1
    Dynamic protection for infantry fighting vehicles can protect against tandem ammunition.
  11. raid14
    raid14 15 November 2014 11: 48
    0
    Significantly increase the protection of LBT, without increasing the mass, electrodynamic and electrothermal protection can.
  12. activator
    activator 15 November 2014 11: 55
    +4
    And why not reinvent the wheel, and use the experience of the same Israelis and remake the old tanks in the BMP, most likely it will be cheaper and easier and armor protection will be on the level.
    1. andrey-ivanov
      andrey-ivanov 15 November 2014 12: 42
      +2
      You can not stupidly use the experience of Israel, not the conditions we have. Yes, and the Israelis are doing on the basis of old tanks, not even BMPs, but heavy armored personnel carriers. The task for the BMP and the APCs are different.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2014 12: 54
        +6
        BMP based on the T-64 tank
        1. activator
          activator 15 November 2014 13: 08
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          BMP based on the T-64 tank

          Yes, I’ve seen it, but they don’t exist in the Armed Forces and are unlikely to be there. In Russia, I don’t know, something like that was developed, but they aren’t in the troops either, and this, as you know, is the main indicator.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 22
            +2
            Nevertheless, a tank-based BMP can be made.
            1. cosmos111
              cosmos111 15 November 2014 14: 07
              +5
              Quote: Spade
              Nevertheless, a tank-based BMP can be made.

              but it’s also just necessary ..... excellent MBT armored hulls are written off, with high-quality Soviet swearing ...
              several dozens of BMO / BTR, this is a drop in the ocean ..... and during assault actions in the urban development of the T-BMP with 23-30 mm, a gun with an elevation angle of 70 degrees ... could reduce infantry and MBT losses, with 2 Grozny's assaults at times ((((I don’t write tactical miscalculations of the command ... separate topic))))
            2. activator
              activator 15 November 2014 14: 33
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              Nevertheless, a tank-based BMP can be made.

              Yes, this must be done all the more based on the experience of Israel and Syria, where under the guise of tanks, BMPs bring fighters to clean buildings.
          2. Gans1234
            Gans1234 15 November 2014 15: 26
            +1
            There is 10 BTO-T based on T-72, 10 pcs, for flamethrowers they remade BTR-T
        2. gallville
          gallville 15 November 2014 14: 37
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          BMP based on the T-64 tank

          The exact same thing can be done on the basis of the t-72. This was even mentioned at the factory.
          Despite this, the SV of the Russian Federation chose the development of Almaty, although UVZ with their financing I would make a similar unit is noticeably better. Where (meaning armata), the tank also has a rear engine, and a BMP at its base has a front engine.
          Here the idea is the same (in BMPT-64 and 72 engine in front) only platforms are older.
          How urgent is the emergency, I would say convulsive, development of a new platform as opposed to the old (t72 / 90) I can not judge.
          But the replacement of the Russian Armed Forces on the scale of a heavy BTT (tanks, Brams, spreaders, imr, t-bmp additive) is grandiose.
  13. captain
    captain 15 November 2014 12: 54
    +14
    The author brings down from a sick head to a healthy one. It is necessary to understand him at the beginning, for which the BMP was designed. Let me remind you; Infantry fighting vehicle, BMP - an armored fighting vehicle designed to transport personnel to the place of the mission, to increase its mobility, armament and security on the battlefield in the context of the use of nuclear weapons and joint operations with tanks in battle. Armored personnel carrier (armored personnel carrier, armored personnel carrier) - an armored fighting vehicle, a carrier designed for the delivery of personnel (riflemen) of motorized rifle (infantry, motorized infantry, landing and so on) units, materiel to the place of the mission and evacuation of the wounded and injured battlefield.

    In exceptional cases, if the enemy does not have anti-tank weapons, an APC can support infantry troops (infantry, MP, airborne forces) with machine-gun fire onboard. I fought in Afghanistan and did not hear that the BMP would be considered the mass grave of infantry. If BMP (BTR) is used as a tank, then naturally their losses will be large since they are not intended for this. And if applied as intended, then the losses are much less. If the commanders have no mind and they fly into the city where they are waiting for the BMP, then these commanders must be judged. There is a charter, there is the experience of various wars described in memoirs and instructions. It says that tanks, infantry fighting vehicles follow the infantry and support it with fire. And who is to blame for the fact that there are people who wear epaulets with big and small stars and occupy high positions, but are not really military? In our country, there are no infantry units for conducting military operations in cities and in rugged terrain, we even have brigades created for operations in the mountains that have almost the same military equipment as ordinary motorized rifles. I remember how in Afghanistan my 3 In operations, the GMSB 181MSP reached the mountains on an armored personnel carrier, and then in the mountains it pulled everything on itself like a mountain pack battalion. We have half the country in the forests, but there are no jaeger units. We have battalion exercises held in the Far East and Siberia on specially selected level fields. It will be interesting to fight in the same fields or in the forests? And why write such articles and make fools of our designers. I am engaged in cargo transportation and I carry goods for enterprises of the military-industrial complex, SO ATTENTION; when we sell tanks and infantry fighting vehicles abroad, we install air conditioners there, but not ours. They explained to me at the factory that our generals believed that this was unnecessary for our soldiers. But in the KShM they put it for the headquarters. The article was written by a man who himself is very far from the army.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 00
      0
      Quote: captain
      In our country, there are no infantry units for conducting military operations in cities and on rugged terrain

      Are you sure?
      1. captain
        captain 15 November 2014 13: 06
        +1
        Yes, not just sure, but I know.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 15 November 2014 13: 33
          +2
          And, for example, the 33rd and 34th brigades are not mountain enough or not enough infantry? 8th brigade?

          There is also the 7th Guards Airborne Assault Division ... True, they are not enough infantry. Like the recent retraining on Daryal, the mountain battalion of the Black Sea Fleet UBO ...
    2. new communist
      new communist 15 November 2014 13: 26
      -1
      You write correctly, the only problem is that our BMP has supplanted other types of equipment. For example, armored cars, they are cheaper than infantry fighting vehicles, armed no worse, much more comfortable and better suited to supply unit posts and other tasks unusual for infantry fighting vehicles. Then it is not clear to me how the crew and the landing force are crossing the river, either at the rear of the BMP or inside. It is much easier and better to transport infantry separately and BMP separately. Especially now in any sporting goods store of inflatable boats there are no measures, and life jackets too.
  14. Steel loli
    Steel loli 15 November 2014 13: 52
    +11
    When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?

    When the government begins to value the lives of its citizens, then this happy moment will come.

    Back in the 2000s, BMP-3 models were developed with protection against rockets and grenades, which pose the greatest threat to any BMP.
    BMP-3 with KOEP "Blind-1".

    BMP-3 with DZ "Cactus".

    BMP-3M with armor screens and the Arena-E active defense complex.

    Developed. Conducted successful trials. At exhibitions showed.
    The answer came from the Moscow Region: cheap meat in cheap tin cans is the future of the Russian army.
    1. new communist
      new communist 15 November 2014 14: 20
      +2
      The Chinese made their BMP-3, there is little meat to see.
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 15 November 2014 20: 48
        0
        Quote: Steel Loli
        answer from Moscow Region: cheap meat in cheap tin cans is the future of the Russian army.

        strongly said ..... nothing to add .....

        Quote: New Communist
        The Chinese made their BMP-3, there is little meat to see.

        see 1,6 lard-little ..... stamp new BMP, almost annually .....
        the latest models, clearly the T-BMP / T-BTR ..... with the bow arrangement of the MTO .....
  15. gallville
    gallville 15 November 2014 14: 24
    +4
    The article reminds of the saying "We started for health, finished for peace."
    It has long been clear that the BMP-2 and BMP-1 do not have a built-in chassis capacity to increase weight. Hence, the increase in armor leads to an increase in weight that does not pull the chassis, and if it does, it loses the basic characteristics of "buoyancy".
    Therefore, the idea of ​​modernizing the BMP-2 (yes, in principle, the same problem in the BTR-80) rests on the replacement or "upgrade" of combat modules. What is actually observed.
    In fact, that BTR-80, that BMP-2 are hopelessly outdated. They need to be changed, which is joyful, and the afftor of the article informed us.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 15 November 2014 21: 04
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      In fact, that BTR-80, that BMP-2 are hopelessly outdated. They need to be changed, which is joyful, and the afftor of the article informed us.


      are outdated .... but it is necessary to modernize ..... new ones if they appear, then not earlier than the 20 year, and in the army even that ... than we will fight ....
      BMP, then something that is not laid down in the design of the BTR-80 / 82 .... this is the aft input-output ...
      1 .. to equip with modern optical fiber optics and sights, day to night, thermal imagers, all-round cameras .....
      2. With buoyancy it is natural to have to leave ... improve armor and mine protection ..... due to modern armored ceramics ....

      combat module "Cleaver", with a slight upgrade, is a solution to the 1st issue, with combat effectiveness .....

      info from: http: //desarrolloydefensa.blogspot.ru/2013/12/vehiculo-multiproposito-rg34-su
      dafrica.html
      1. gallville
        gallville 16 November 2014 02: 41
        0
        Quote: cosmos111
        BMP, then something that is not laid down in the design of the BTR-80/82 .... this is the aft input-output.

        Given the armor of the BMP and the armored personnel carrier, their exit is extremely convenient on the ground from the roof request
        Quote: cosmos111
        1.. Equip with modern optical fiber optics and sights, day to night, thermal imagers, all-round cameras

        Cram your computer into a Cossack? I admit to update the stabilization of the guns, put unpretentious modern Sights are desirable with the simplest thermal imager and make control of the armor from under the armor. BUT circular cameras ??? To this kalymagu? It is better to invest in fighters on broniki and individual communication.
        Quote: cosmos111
        2. With buoyancy it is natural to have to leave ... improve armor and mine protection ..... due to modern armored ceramics ....

        Will not save.
        1. Will have to change the entire armor housing. A huge waste of money in this case is compared with the construction of a new car.
        2. The chassis will die out, the skating rinks and other things will fly especially on bumps on the road. It’s not even up to buoyancy here it will be dangerous to drive along a rural road.

        Quote: cosmos111
        combat module "Cleaver", with a slight upgrade, is a solution to the 1st issue, with combat effectiveness ....

        Well then, immediately the Age. It will be possible to rearrange it even for the next generation.
        Age:
        http://vpk.name/news/95667_obnarodovana_informaciya_o_perspektivnom_boevom_modul

        e_epoch.html
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 16 November 2014 13: 01
          +1
          Quote: gallville
          Cram your computer into a Cossack?

          over constipation, let the ancient dill think what to do .....

          and BMP-1,2, they are modernizing and very successfully, Czechs and Slovaks ......
          you can borrow their best practices in this thread ......

          the rest of you listed (((it was good -You have)))) but everything rests on the reluctance of the Ministry of Defense to modernize the BMP (((and not a thorough repair, as it is now))))
  16. Horst78
    Horst78 15 November 2014 14: 33
    +2
    Only a small number of BMP-2D remained in service with the 201 Motorized Rifle Division in Afghanistan.
    After that I stopped reading THIS Nonsense. negative Author BIG "-"
  17. padded jacket
    padded jacket 15 November 2014 15: 00
    +1
    Lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles, this is a global trend (compare for example BMP - 2 with Bradley, Warrior or AMX - 10 all of them are lightly armored).
    So the USSR / Russia is on an equal footing with other manufacturers of military equipment.
    And at the expense of modernization, remember what happened after the collapse of the USSR almost to the present day.
    What kind of modernization of BMP is there, the question was about the existence of the country itself called Russia.
    Therefore, we will wait for Kurganets. But the old BMP - 2 will also be slightly updated:
    The Ministry of Defense decided to modernize 3 thousand infantry fighting vehicles - BMP-2. This is the main tracked combat vehicle of the Russian army, despite the fact that its release was discontinued in the late 1980s. Until the end of the decade, it should be replaced by a new armored vehicle "Kurganets", the production of which will begin in 2016. However, while the Ground Forces have to fight on the old BMP-2.
    Modernization will consist of two stages. First, the machine will be disassembled, the health of the mechanisms checked (engine, main clutch, radio equipment, planetary gears), the parts that cannot be repaired will be replaced with new ones.
    http://izvestia.ru/news/547971
  18. Messiah
    Messiah 15 November 2014 15: 17
    +1
    Yes, a new weapon is needed, but I would not want to take "a half step forward"! Today we throw out billions (it looks like another budget cut!), And then ?, - again, "catch up"! Stepping on someone else's rake ?, as with intermediate cartridges 5,6 mm and 5,45 mm, instead of 6,5 \ 6,8 mm or 6 \ 49 mm! Or as with the “super” T95 tank, we make it easier (“Armata”), where instead of the developed “super-fluff” in 152 mm, we put the gun in 125mm, and it is already at the “limit”! What about Wunderwaffles in the form of Terminators? What are they for? If you need a tank for the city, then he needs a dump, a big tower with “Bahcey” or better with “New Bahcey”, in the form of a pair of 120 mm \ 40-45 mm (Nona \ Vienna). The 30 \ 165 mm guns are not enough! You need an elevation angle of up to 75-85%, plus a machine gun, on the 12,7 mm turret (.338, .400-416) - a remotely controlled machine gun and an 40-45 mm grenade launcher in the area of ​​the rear overhang, plus powerful protection, especially the roof and rear . Why? Because the city needs a mortar and a powerful landmine, the ability to shoot point-blank up and through walls, plus, sometimes at 10-50 meters, it’s safe for your infantry! For one, from 40-45 mm guns on BMP \ BTR and helicopters, and 120 mm ("Kitolov-2?", "Reflex?", "Combat?") Missile through the barrel - on helicopters / tanks. And in the “field”, such a “unit” will be cooler than “Terminators”! But you can put “100 mm” instead of 76,2 mm in “Bahce-New-Bahce”, on the basis of the 57 mm (С-60) machine, plus the paired 14,5-30 \ 40-45 mm gun and in the “side dish” - machine guns 7,62 \ 12,7mm and 40-45mm grenade launcher, with sliding from the turret and MANPADS, we get BMPT \ ZSU front edge - a hunter for ATGM and helicopters! With a “working” range of up to 10 km! Like ZSU from Abrams and the Italian Otomatik! And everything is already there! 57 and 76 mm shells have the same shell and dimensions, but 76 mm HE shells are more than 2 times (2,8 and 6-7 kg!) More powerful, and with the same 90-150 shells! Choose a muzzle brake and all! The radio fuse in the 76,2 mm projectile, ejector and BOPS is also not a problem, for how the "density of work" will increase along the front edge of the enemy! Quick and effective destruction of any targets (except for MBT in the forehead)! By the way, 76 mm - Zis-3, - the best gun 2-th MV, with a range of up to 13 more than kilometers! And how many more shells are left in the warehouses!
  19. Messiah
    Messiah 15 November 2014 15: 18
    +1
    "Tunguska" and "Pantsyr" are good, but wherever they are on the battlefield - they will instantly turn into a sieve! But tanks \ BMP \ BTR need to be protected, especially from the calculations of anti-tank systems and helicopters. In addition, the T-64 \ 72 \ 80 \ 90 as a platform will still serve both there and there! Well this is some kind of saving, we don’t measure them! Further, is it not time to remember that the tank is also a tractor! So why do not make an armored trailer to the tank (BMP \ BTR \ SAU), with a manual loading arrow, a small (1-2l) ICE with a generator. Maybe from the cases T54 \ 55 \ 62, redoing the roof and sawing off the MTO? A kind of armored suitcase, where it is possible to load 1-2 full ammunition, fuel for 500-1000 km, where, if necessary, unloading the ammunition, you can equip 3-4 bedridden, "sleeping" places. All this on the frame, with one steered wheelset and two or three pairs of tank rollers, where you can even pull a couple of pieces of a spare track, which will be a plus for cross-country ability and as a repair reserve, just in case, the suspension is on standard or lightweight torsion bars. Inside, install an internal communication device with the crew and the ability to connect a field telephone. Such a "summer residence", where the tank crew (BAT \ IMR \ SAU?) Can even sleep in a "bad weather", will increase autonomy and combat readiness in two! And if you make loopholes in a circle, then you can even carry the landing squad, and install screens that fold back and close the trailer on the tank. Moreover, it is not yet known what is safer for an assault to go into battle behind the back of an armored monster or under the protection of “conditional” armor BTR70 \ 80 \ BMP-1 \ 2 \ 3! Changing the tactics and rules of conducting and organizing a battle? Почему нет? Today our BTR \ BMP is an easy target! Maybe in general the current armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles can sometimes be left in the trenches or "green", even if they are supported by ATGMs and guns from the spot, while the ATGMs / RPGs and "large barrels", tanks and infantry traveling in the "trailer" are not cleaned up? After all, there are no heavy infantry fighting vehicles to advance with tanks! And when will these BMP be enough in the troops? In how many years? And what is it worth adjusting the hitch, a couple of hinged screens on the back of the tank, and "carry armored storage"? Do not like it - instead, weld and implement an armored box in the form of a "coffin" with doors and put it on a frame with a rotary pair! The task is within the power of the Papuans! And if you make the "coffin" removable, it will turn into an "armored craft"! And there, in the future, you will see fifty or more universal vertical-launch missiles ATGM / MANPADS, it will be possible to "carry" and "bullet" it into the "adversaries"! And once they remembered about the landing and infantry, the question is - where is the 40-45 mm gun for the Kurgan? Again -30 mm - ka? And her, given the growth of protection BMP \ BTR potential enemy, is no longer enough! And the ATGMs located on its tower - practically without armor protection? One line or a couple of small fragments and everything will fail! We are not in the desert, where the "adversary", see for 3,5-5 km! We have "gully-river-crayfish", "greenback!" So, getting in the BMP \ BTR silhouette from 300-500 m a pair of sighting bursts of 7,62 \ 5,6 \ 5,45mm is not a question! And if "explode?" What will happen to the “people” inside? And there "overhead" because under 20 kg on each side! And the roof is only 12, well, 25 mm! ..... Is it hard to make the turret module larger and to mount the ATGM / SAM systems, as in the Belarusian 2T Stalker?
  20. Messiah
    Messiah 15 November 2014 15: 20
    +2
    They showed the Russian-French Atom, for whom? Why does he need a gun - 57 mm, with C-60 ballistics? Bury in the bushes and wait in ambush for a tank? If not, then only shoot jihad mobiles on the horizon in the desert / steppe! Our army needs new tanks with a new gun, modernized T-72 \ 90 and new “objects” based on them, new self-propelled guns, heavy (based on a new tank) BMP, and basic, floating armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles (about 20 tons) with a single , combat, uninhabited module, - gun 40-45mm \ ATGM \ MANPADS \ "single" machine gun \ 40-45 mm grenade launcher, active defense ("Blind", "Arena", "Standard", "Afghanistan", "Drozd-2 ", Etc.), with the possibility of a significant increase in all-round armor protection (from RPGs and 30-40mm guns) plus to them, floating fire support vehicles based on them: with Bakhchi or New Bakhchi ", With 120 mm" Nona \ Vienna ", with tank -125 mm, with light - 152 mm (projectile 36-38 kg, with 10-11 kg BB) howitzer, etc., and always headquarters and especially sanitary options , including the new one, protected from bullets (on 2-3 man. lying), with a low silhouette, floating, possibly tracked, remotely (robot?) controlled - TPK !. And do not forget, finally, to equip each “armored object” with an external telephone and connectors for connecting to internal communications and to a field telephone. Already the 21 century, how much can you beat on the "armor" during the battle, so that the infantry will be explained to the crew of the BMP \ BTR \ tank \ self-propelled guns? Why "clog the ether", making it easier for the enemy to "intercept information" when you are on the defensive or even on a halt? Or maybe “separation” should be reduced to 8-9 — these people in order to win in size, weight, increase the protection of BMP / BTR and put the “Bahcha-New-Bahcha” module there? And then we get 4 re squads in the platoon! And how will the power of a squad grow! Or add to the compartment (8 - 9 people) a tank and 3 tankers? Or to the tank compartment, as in the Second World War, and carry them in a trailer? Cool too! At the same time, it will be possible to have two interchangeable crews for infantry fighting vehicles and a tank, which is very cool in terms of endurance and restoration of combat readiness! Or increase the squad to 16 people, as part of the 2's BMP \ BTR? Need to think! Isn’t it time to equip the combat vehicles of the commanders, from a platoon and above - mini UAVs (15-30 cm in diameter, 15-20cm high, ring type) tethered (on 10-100м) and automatic, with 30-60 flight autonomy min., the height of the barrier in 10-300 meters to have a real-time battle picture from the top, which will allow you to effectively manage the unit, especially in difficult terrain and in the city. Timely identify firing points, ambushes and "large barrels."
  21. Technical engineer
    Technical engineer 15 November 2014 16: 03
    0
    I think power screens and laser tools would be good. The presence of suborbital engines and a naturally miniature reactor is imperative.
    Well, that clung to the BMP? Well, you can not create an unsupported BMP and BTR. Tank out on the battlefield lives 20 minutes. And here you talk about easy means. If the heavy BMP a la Bradley were so good, the Americans would not have the Strikers develop. Would you even talk about 60-ton BMP. And the soldiers, they will always die, because the soldiers and the fate of them to fight, and not participate in the safari. Enough to look at America. If they were looked at, then we and the T-34 would not have the T-54. And there would be huge and fig tanks a la M3 and M48.
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 15 November 2014 16: 50
      +1
      If it’s not clear why the Stryker BBM (8x8) and the corresponding formations (brigades / BBG - combat brigade groups) were included in the US Army, then no statements should be made. And if the soldiers you always will die, then to the dickers armored vehicles, huh !? And here we are breaking foolish heads and spears, to strengthen armor protection and increase the chances of fighters to survive and thus to perform combat missions? or is it easier to revise the outdated Soviet doctrine of the massive use of armored vehicles? so that you don’t have to break into the enemy’s defense (the same with respect to the oncoming battle), but focus on suppressing the enemy’s strike and fire (Iraq 1991/2003).
    2. The comment was deleted.
  22. Idel
    Idel 15 November 2014 16: 33
    +1
    First of all, you need to understand that the BMP is a means of transportation and fire support, not a bunker or a tank. In competition, the striking means is the armored object, the BMP will always lose. Getting carried away with increased booking is stupid, because deteriorating technical characteristics.
    The safety of personnel and equipment should be ensured by competent troop leadership. Each event must be carefully prepared. This is called commanding skill.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 15 November 2014 20: 53
      0
      Quote: Idel
      Getting carried away with increased booking is stupid, because deteriorating technical characteristics.

      reservation should provide protection at least from heavy machine guns
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 15 November 2014 21: 49
      +1
      Quote: Idel
      In competition, the striking means is the armored object, the BMP will always lose.

      The question is (personally important for me) from what caliber this "axiom" of yours will begin to operate 14,5x114, 20x139 (Marder), 23x152, 25x137 (Bradley), 30x165 (BMP-2), or 30x173 (MCV-80 Warrior) ? I hope to such destructive means as fragments, but it would be better if the BMP will not lose to the armor-piercing ammunition of small arms?
      Quote: Idel
      Getting carried away with increased reservations is stupid

      Stupid - this puts CAS on the BMP and the APC. If the industry has decent engines, and the undercarriage allows, i.e. designed with a margin for modernization, I would rather do just that.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  23. Tektor
    Tektor 15 November 2014 16: 54
    +1
    It seems to me that to modernize the BMP-2 in terms of its protection, one cannot get rid of one with passive, dynamic protection. It is necessary to have active protection, such as a cumulative jet from a helicopter mine. Approximately this type: a frame (or a metal mesh, or a cage) on which the sensors are mounted. A cumulative plasma charge can quickly target a specific sector of a sensor. Something flies up, touches the sensor (for example, interrupts the signal of the optocoupler), the cumulative standby min-min of the sector turns to the side of the sensor and detonates in the event of an active defense mode. A new mine takes the position of a trigger. Of course, you can have many video cameras with electronic pattern recognition as sensors ... But, it is expensive.
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 15 November 2014 21: 15
      +1
      I just wanted to write about active protection. During the fighting, everything is impossible to predict. And it easily turns out that in a few seconds the vehicle turns into a means of fire support. As for active defense, everything is much more complicated here and the tank version will not work, because people can be nearby (not only nearby, but also on the armor). It will be necessary to launch the anti-grenade, let’s say from a miniresotron or in another way, so as not to catch people nearby.
      As for bulletproof protection, the word here is for composites and multilayer armor with good stopping qualities and low weight.
  24. Varec
    Varec 15 November 2014 17: 33
    0
    Well, yes. Why do we need a floating infantry fighting vehicle, the Fleet’s MP will work even for divers am
  25. felixis69
    felixis69 15 November 2014 18: 21
    +3
    Yeah, guys ... About floating infantry fighting vehicles ... He served on object 219. I saw enough in the youth of films, and there everything was fast - the tanks rraz and slipped along the bottom of the river, and already on that side. And the reality turned out to be harsh and more dull. About WEEK was the installation of equipment on the tanks! They became more like boats - everything in the pipes, the cracks were carefully smeared! And all in order to cross the rivulet 50-80 meters wide, and at the same time the most convenient place was explored, the movement was adjusted from both banks, and still one car came in, which made traffic even more difficult. So pontoons, bridges, other engineering equipment - this is reality! And swimming BMP, underwater movement is for certain cases that may occur once during the entire armed conflict!
  26. padded jacket
    padded jacket 15 November 2014 18: 42
    +2
    felixis69 Today, 18:21
    And swimming BMP, underwater movement is for certain cases that may occur once during the entire armed conflict!


    Yes smile Do you need floating infantry fighting vehicles in Russia?
    It seems to me that with our climate and geographical features, we need it.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 16 November 2014 11: 11
      +1
      Imagine the situation: on this, if I may say so, "prospectus" a company on light infantry fighting vehicles left - and broke away from the main forces. It broke off because the tanks did not pass - more heavy - the Urals did not pass - the specific pressure on the ground is too large. So that company was left without fuel, ammunition, and elementary without food.
      In some cases, with proper preparation, such raids and units are needed and extremely effective, but in a mass order it is better, in my opinion, that something is more protected, although not floating. So it turns out that it was not BMP that should float, but all kinds of BRDM and similar-purpose vehicles.
    2. Manul
      Manul 16 November 2014 21: 00
      0
      Quote: quilted jacket
      It seems to me that with our climate and geographical features, we need it.

      About the clip good WONDERFUL! soldier
  27. Oden280
    Oden280 15 November 2014 19: 36
    0
    According to whose hell, any BMP is anyway, this is a mass grave of infantry. Whatever the need for protection at the level of the main battle tank and above. But this is not real.
  28. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 15 November 2014 21: 25
    0
    "When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be a" mass grave for the infantry "? - when they will be used for their intended purpose, and not try to replace tanks.
  29. Harin Oleg
    Harin Oleg 15 November 2014 22: 04
    0
    Quote: Pervusha Isaev
    When will Russian infantry fighting vehicles cease to be the "mass grave of infantry"?


    Well, probably when the tanks cease to be a grave, when they are fired at with RPGs, when the bunkers cease to be graves, when they are hollowed with concrete-piercing bombs, and of course when they cease to shoot completely ...

    Fuck, yes, when, such an eblanstvo get up off the couch.
  30. bublic82009
    bublic82009 16 November 2014 18: 36
    0
    hehe in Afghanistan why BMP and armored personnel carrier needed the ability to swim? there is bad water. somewhere in central Russia and important. But the same Nato refuse the buoyancy of the BMP or armored personnel carrier.
  31. Manul
    Manul 16 November 2014 20: 43
    +1
    Stupid hysterical article. I didn't give it any plus or minus, I read only the first two dozen comments (although comments are my favorite, I usually read everything to the end), and also without ratings (because I already know who and what will write). whether he wants to promote new models that are "not promoted", or cries about all the models that are terrible (in all) in the troops, and everywhere only in perspective.
    Any armor can burn. In a good landmine, even ... see. picture!
    An armored vehicle for transporting a salvage vehicle cannot be a slow tank. Its task is to quickly deliver fighters to the front line and pick them up just as quickly. Its task is to save people from bullets, fragments, and a low-powered mine. Our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are probably the most experienced in combat operations. I’m sure that they saved lives much more than military vehicles of other countries. Dude just decided to gain pluses. No work was done. Remembering the names of military vehicles and no performance characteristics, no comparisons with the analogues of military equipment of other countries. Another couch specialist.
    1. tomket
      tomket 16 November 2014 21: 01
      0
      Quote: Manul
      Its task is to save people from bullets, fragments, and low-power mines.

      How can our infantry fighting vehicles protect against shrapnel and bullets if you cannot drive a troop inside with any whip ??? Oh yes, probably there are power shields on the BMP.
      Quote: Manul
      Armor can burn any

      Any armor burns, of course, but there are much fewer burned Israeli armored personnel carriers than domestic burned BMPs. Even if you make comparisons within the framework of a single conflict or operation, with a comparable amount of equipment that took part in it. excuses about the Palestinian militant, as frivolous opponents are not accepted.
      Quote: Manul
      The author either wants to promote new models that are "not promoted"

      Tell me, why isn't the T-90 ms "advancing" in any way ??? Maybe he is also some kind? Like heavy infantry fighting vehicles, and generals dream of BT 7?
      Quote: Manul
      In a good land mine, it will fly to the clouds

      Exploding a landmine, this is minus sappers, and the organizers of the movement of the column.
      1. Manul
        Manul 17 November 2014 18: 22
        0
        Quote: tomket
        but there are much fewer burned Israeli armored personnel carriers than domestic burned BMPs.

        I admit - my post is harsh and in some ways categorical (I’ll even say the same to the author - wrong)hi But here is your phrase and something else that the article lacks. That is, the charge has been passed, but there is no evidence base. I love figures, facts. I understand that it’s true, I want to wind this truth on my head for future use. the idea is hard to use. Armor of arguments needed.
  32. mkpda
    mkpda 17 November 2014 14: 58
    +1
    The article is a minus, you need to know and be able to use existing weapons. The main losses of BMP from illiterate use. BMPs themselves have many advantages in experienced hands, the main thing is not to substitute people and equipment!
  33. Vlad Peel
    Vlad Peel 17 November 2014 23: 38
    +2
    Friends, with the same success, we can complain that the ISs and thirty-fours removed from the pedestals and restored by the skillful hands of the Donetsk and Lugansk people do not correspond to modern weapons, but they did their job. At the beginning of the 70s, we had infantry fighting vehicles in the tank regiment and were used in reconnaissance. Then it was a class. And now a new generation of cars is coming and they will protect our sons and grandchildren. Good luck to everyone!
  34. arslan23
    arslan23 18 November 2014 14: 24
    0
    If I were in the BMP, then between buoyancy and safety, I would choose security one hundred percent !!! You can cross to the other side in different ways, and dying from bullets of a heavy machine gun while sitting in an infantry fighting vehicle in the 21st century is stupid !!! In real life, you will be thrown into this hell with this BMP, and here you will take care and protection, and all will be remembered. What is buoyancy here ???? We will wait for the Kurgan. And spending money on infantry fighting vehicles and their modernization is unprofitable. Kurgan people on the way. 2020 is just around the corner. If you are certainly not going to fight in the next five years, then of course you need to upgrade. But something tells me that BMPs will not help us in this case, at least some.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 18 November 2014 14: 48
      0
      and I’d be wrong ... because in real life without a floating armored personnel carrier, you’ll go for the first large river on foot and any small fragment or needle shrapnel will kill you.
      in Israel there are simply no such rivers.
  35. Raven
    Raven 25 November 2014 16: 34
    0
    khe khe ...
    Dear author, before blanching the concept of the Soviet-era BMP, created long before his birth (probably), one should remember what conflict the Soviet army was preparing for then ...? Pral to the Vigorous!

    and here the question arises: were the Soviet designers so stupid that they did not know that their offspring could easily be disabled by any heavy machine gun .... and on board, and with a bullet that was the only one with armor-piercing ...? I don’t think ... they just solved a specific task - to saturate the infantry-fighting armies of the BBM capable of following the tanks in a nuclear war! and they brilliantly accomplished their task by creating the BTR-60 onwards and BMP-1, 2, 3 as well as the corresponding BMDs ...
    Lord! no one expected that the BMP will be introduced into the Afghan gorges and the streets of Grozny! their task was to follow the battle formations of the tanks after the enemy’s defense was scorched by tactical nuclear strikes and when any NATO infantryman with a machine gun or RPG would vomit their own insides while suffering from radiation sickness, and burnt burghers with falling hair would run around ... and here it becomes important the ability to cross this river and occupy the bridgehead while the tanks set up the ATVT and the sappers build bridges (if at all ((() this is why all BMPs starting with the BMP-1 were equipped with PAZ and FVU systems ... and were able to drag the infantry itself is exactly as long as it takes to slip through infected areas and reach densely populated areas deep in the NATO defense line ...
    that is why the prevailing opinion about treating soldiers as cannon fodder put in coffins is a clinical delirium ... just none of the military could admit the obvious - a colossal military group of 60 thousand armored infantry fighting forces capable of withstanding a nuclear strike and delivering troops outside the infected territory was not created for defense - and for the storming of Western Europe ... they were silent until the end, and when they realized that there would be no war, this fact simply ceased to bring young officers ... it was a shame that not only the Americans, but we wanted and could start a nuclear war. ..and then there was a feud and no one was engaged in the BMP / BTR concept in modern conditions ... moreover, BMP-3 and BMP-4 - struck by new types of ammunition from the regular NATO BMP in the forehead (!!!) looked at least an expensive toy , especially in those small quantities ... because the NATO BBM’s protection level is almost Tank, it allowed the winners to get out of the conditional conflict with BMP-3 (4) despite the superiority in the caliber of weapons .. But they are heavier ...)))
    We need to understand what kind of war we are preparing for ...
    In general - we are waiting for Armata ...
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 26 November 2014 16: 21
      0
      Booking BMP-1 approximately corresponds to the German half-tracked armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle since the 2nd World War. on them, the Wehrmacht in the attack passed the mortar shelling zone and therefore suffered 5-6 times less losses in the war.