When I called the BMP a "tank" in the title I was trying to reach a larger civilian audience instead of calling it the by the book correct term which is an "infantry fighting vehicle" most civilians don't know about what an "IFV" is. I was in a mechanized infantry unit so I understand the fine level of detail there. I was in a Stryker vehicle which technically we can go one step deeper there and say the Stryker isn't an IFV, it's an Infantry Carrier Vehicle. I rethought the title and decided the criticism is valid, it doesn't work so I changed it, thanks for your feedback on that everyone!
The more clicks you get the better. your channel is great. My comment was mostly for people who already came here as a clarification, not to diss you. Creating high quality video content like yours takes a lot of time and dedication. All the best.
Everything getting called a tank in the Ukraine, good decision to change these vids educate us not follow the masses. Not sure on gyro stabilisation for BMP3 turret weaponry, any clips showing it so claim of accurate on the move can be substantiated? Cheers
As a civilian trying to educate myself I appreciate the fine detail. I will still refer to armored vehicles with a turret looking thing as a tank but now I understand that I am incorrect
I was a BMP1 driver, here is my experience: BMP is not a tank, it has not made for fighting, it was made to transport infantry to the front line as fast as possible and cover them for a while if necessary. So it is basically just for fast transportation or a hit and run weapon if anything. Crossing lakes and rivers is surprisingly safe, some leaks here and there but nothing that could be dangerous even in half an hour, so that never was a concern. I have never experienced that nose-heaviness, never stuck anywhere because of that, so that was not a concern either. Our concerns were: the fuel tank in the middle of the crew space between the seats, that made everyone VERY uneasy, the additional fuel tanks in the doors at the back, that are either filled with fuel so then the vehicle is completely unable to get into action or filled with sand that make the whole design useless, the tracks tend to dislocate at sharp turns on hard, frozen and uneven ground, the protective grille around the tower inside the vehicle could catch gears, weapons or limbs of inattentive soldiers sitting by it, thus not cause not only damages and injuries but also interrupts the turning of the tower and last but not least, the ridiculously weak armour. The best chance for a BMP to survive in an actively hostile enviroment is to keep on moving very fast so the enemy cannot deliver a hit, or to hide behind cover. It was nicked "Bunny Bus" since the infantry was just called "rabbits" :)
hey sorry I missed this, I titled it a "tank" because I wanted to reach a larger civilian audience and usually a lot of civilians do not know what a "infantry fighting vehicle" is and they don't know what it means. but they know what a tracked 'tank' is. But you're absolutely correct it's not a "tank" I've changed the title to reflect that
A lot of people REALLY like the idea of these being fighting vehicles. Terms like "just a battlefield taxi" are usually said with derision and you'll get laughed at for favouring more troops over a bigger gun with more ammo. I never liked this attitude, because troops still have to get around and it's better they get around in an armoured vehicle than walk or ride in unarmoured trucks/humvees. But it seems there's a shitload of tankers out there who see these vehicles almost exclusively in terms of how they can directly fight the enemy and troop transport is an afterthought. I heard someone say "You're stupid, it's got a huge auto-cannon, that's way better than a few more troops" they only accept that these vehicles should have the minimum number of troops to defend these vehicles.
Nicely done video but missed on a key point. BMP's were never designed to be the lone front-runner in an assault, they were supposed to be operating either in conjunction with front line armour/tanks or behind them. They were also not built to withstand a RPG, let alone an anti tank missile because of weight constraints. In urban warfare as seen in Ukraine, most BMPs are hit because they were operating alone in an urban warfare and hit by multiple RPG or other rocket launchers such as the German Panzerfaust 3 (free delievery by the west), some even hit by Javelins which in my view is a waste of a Javelin. BMP is a devasting anti infantry weapon platform specially at long ranges but is particularly under threat working alone in an urban setting surrounded by tall buildings and constantly under attack with anti-tank weapons which it was never designed to handle. Now I'm feeling that I have wasted 10 minutes in typing this as probably no one will read this, so curtailing my comment here.
one other thing, the BMP-1's 73mm cannon did not shoot AP, it fired HE frag and HEAT. it's muzzle velocity was too low to get any sort of meaningful penetrating power from a kinetic round. Also, that gun is more for combatting other light vehicles and dismounted infantry rather than proper tanks.
Yeah, couple that with badly maintained vehicles and a crew that probably don't even want to fight against their neighbors and you have the recipe for disaster for the Russians.
@@11kungfu11 What genocide ? You mean the insurgents that tries to fight the government in the east ? If i and some of my countrymen decide that we do not want the government to rule over the land we live on, i can guarantee you that the government is not going to just give it up, nor should they
The problem with the BMP Tank is that the BMP isn't a Tank. Anymore than a Stryker is a tank. Anyone trying to use it as a tank is probably not someone you want in your platoon
In fact, if he have a turret, it is considered as a light tank. BMP2 have a 75 mm canon, so it's a light tank... But anyway, chris have never seen one in his life, or only those in irak, who are not russian, but russian made for exportation...
@@ACNNOMOREBLUFF BMPs were very useful in the 1971 Bangladesh war where they basically circled enemy formations by going through rivers where the enemy didn't expect any attack from.
I served in the US Marine Corps as an infantry officer for 21 years with 3 years in combat from 1968-1989. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69 and I can tell you that the Amtrack of that time really sucked. It didn't have much armor but the worst part was that it used gasoline instead of diesel which meant that when it hit a mine or and RPG, it became and instant fireball killing everyone inside. Therefore, for the time I was in Vietnam, it wasn't allowed to carry Marines inside. Instead, we had to sit on top to move from point A to point B. Not an ideal situation incase of an ambush--sitting ducks. And when it hit a mine, Marines were thrown in all directs with most having broken bones and other injuries, but mostly still alive, unlike the Amtrack crew. However, the Vietnam era Amtracks were good at resupply and bringing the mail, but it couldn't handle rice paddies, jungles, or mountains. So it was pretty much useless in Vietnam. Some former crew members may say differently, but from an infantry perspective, it sucked. Subsequent redesigns of the Amtrack were not much better. To be fair, it's hard to design an armored vehicle that can be launched from amphibious ships, brave the ocean dangers, land against a defended beach, and then support the dismounted Marines in the fight. The other major deficiencies were that it had no capability to land Marines at night or in weather with limited visibility. That may have been solved by now, but I can find nothing on the internet describing a Marine night landing exercise or Marines practicing in foul weather. I participated on a number of amphibious landing exercises, but they were all choreographed in perfect weather and calm seas, and the beaches were marked so the crews knew where they needed to land. In combat, there is a lot of chaos, smoke, incoming rounds, and Amtracks will not likely land exactly where they are supposed to and so units get mixed up and out of place. I can definitely confirm that combat is chaos, deadly, and difficult to communicate with subordinate units, at least when I was in combat. For example, my platoon only had one radio which was mine to connect with the company commander 24/7. In my early days in Vietnam, there were no radios for squads on patrol. That was later fixed, but squad leaders were often inexperienced Lance Corporals who didn't know how to call in artillery or air support. I tried to train them in the field, but the turnover rate from killed, wounded, and rotating back to the US made it impossible for them to gain any proficiency, so I went on squad patrols to "evaluate their tactics" when really I felt I had to be there to call in artillery and air support in case we needed it. That's not the way to run a platoon and it was impossible for me to be on every patrol, but I tried to be on the ones that were the most dangerous to get artillery and air support if needed. There were a few times when I had an artillery forward observer and an even rarer time when the company commander attached a tactical air controller, I can count on three fingers the number of times that happened. I digress. Just my personal opinion, but I don't think either the Army or the Marines have yet found the right formula for an infantry fighting vehicle. There is no such thing as an IFV that is perfect--it's always a tradeoff of protection, mobility, and cost. And here is the other thing. In 3 years of combat, I never fought in terrain where and IFV or tank would have been any benefit. In Vietnam, 98% or more of the terrain was hostile to Amtracks and tanks. The other two years I spent in combat was in Latin America supporting the host nation in counter-insurgency operations with the host nation Army and Navy. Tanks and IFV's were useless because the terrain was too rough. In the mountainous fighting in the Korean War, the Army and Marines used horses and pack mules to carry ammo and heavy weapons up the mountains to the fighting positions. I'm not sure we have anything more effective today. We do have all terrain vehicles, but they can't carry as much as a horse or a mule nor can they negotiate the terrain as well. I'm off topic here, but as hard as DoD tries to fix problems they continually miss the mark. Sometimes a low tech solution like horses and mules is better than expensive vehicles that can't do the same job. While I was in Vietnam, my platoon was given what was then "high technology" that were complete failures, simply because the PhD's who came up with the ideas had no idea what was really needed on the battlefield. We did have the first generation of night vision called the Starlight Scope that displayed very blurry images in a green light, but there were never enough batteries to make them useful and I only had one for my platoon which when we did have batteries I'd always give to my squad who I thought had the most dangerous avenue of approach. My apologies for the long post, but its a topic that means a lot to me because I lost so many good Marines in combat because the gear and technology just wasn't there.
@@nonautemrexchristus5637 Vietnam Vets were not welcomed home when they returned from deployment. Welcoming them home now or anytime is a sign of respect and a show of gratitude for their service. They are not forgotten and deserve recognition.
I once observed a failed US beach-landing during a military exercise in Norway. It was supposed to be a 'perfect' landing. Sadly for the US General standing on the beach of the fjord, the fjord had frozen over during the night, so the landing craft and amphibious vehicles got stuck in the middle of the fjord, not able to get on shore. To the General's even greater dismay, I commented on how disastrous it would be if there were National Guard playing weekend warriors with AT-weaponry from each side of the fjord. The General didn't say much, but the same night a MASSIVE deployment by helicopter happened. During that night a whole battalion was transferred far into the country. Funny how a bit of ice can cock up somebody's 'perfect' planning.
Not sure how the jungle in Vietnam compares to in Malaysia but the Imperial Japanese Army were however able to deploy tanks into the latter when conquering the area in WW2, surprising the defending British forces there
After Cappy's "quirks and features" comment, now I really, REALLY want to see Doug DeMuro do a review on the Russian BMP... and also give it a Doug Score.
“In the Weekend category, the BMP is roomy enough to carry your friends around, but it is very uncomfortable, loud, and difficult to park, and it gets a 6.”
Forgot to add that the back hatches for the BMP-1/2 was used to store fuel to extend range but in combat was supposed to be drained. However this wasn't practiced as much because the needed range to operate in Afghanistan. So when they got hit with RPGs or incendiary rounds near there it turned the doors into literal fire exits or cause fires to the rest of the vehicle.
@@MlTGLIED Um sorry if you get diesel hot enought or you shock it significantly it will ignite. A pressure wave, in the right place, from a blast will also do the same thing. Its a known weakness of the BMP's.
@@MlTGLIED IF it was loaded with Diesel. However, like most militaries the Russian Armed Forces uses Jet fuel aka kerosene on everything for simplified logistics. Kinda like how US and other western countries uses JP-8 (or similar) on every military vehicle. The difference is that Russian military grade is more volatile than JP-8 as a side effect of being tailored for improved cold weather performance (lower freezing point).
In Vietnam, the Marine LVT had a similar problem. It used gas instead of diesel which when hit or tripped a mine the inside of it became an inferno that you couldn't escape. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69 and the inside of the LVT was used to carry cargo only and Marines rode on top of the LVT--not a good place to be in an ambush--and when it hit a mine, it threw everyone off the vehicle causing serious injuries both from the blast and the fall with heavy equipment. It was OK for resupplying us with C-Rations, mail, and ammo, but no one wanted to ride on it. Besides, the terrain we operated in could only be resupplied by helicopter, which always gave our position away to the enemy. That was a hard year. Lost a lot of good Marines.
@@BMF6889 jesus its so nice to read a comment from someone who knows what their talking about! You must he getting up there in age so i wish you lots of health and thank you for your service! KC National Incident Management Systems All-Hazard Counciations Unit Leader
As, former Soviet infantry man, I can tell you why. Because it was Soviet design, as we would say in Soviet Union- design through somebody's ass. The vehicle was made for bringing troops to battle field fast and that is it. It was not made to protect troops for good, just against rifle fire. It was not designed for carrying troops around, no, only to bring troops to the Frontline.
Without even watching video and being Russian, who as the kid got the chance to play on the military bases in Russia (my father was "technical" officer in USSR), I can tell you why they are so shitty. - BMPs was designed for swift take over in the nuclear conflict. - That's right. It was designed with really good CBRN protection for the soldiers to jump out and take over for whatever was left after tactical nukes was used to saturate the enemy. Obviously being amphibious is also necessary for that to happen, so you can swiftly bring in the troops across many rivers in Europe. However obviously that came with the huge price of the actual protection. In Russia BMP is called "Bratskaya Mogila Pekhoty" - "Mass grave (of) Infantry". This is why you see BMP dismounts riding on the top of it, since being inside and on the battlefield like in Ukraine, it is guaranteed being nicely cooked, especially with two fuel tanks for the doors in the back.
Just wanted to add, fuel is also a good radiation shield. In the nuclear battlefield if the vehicle got hit all the men were probably dead anyway, so give them better radiation shielding and carry extra fuel because if the BMP got hit survivability was pretty much zero in that environment reguardless
being ouside the vehicle on the move or being inside and kinda protected by armor - an eternal discussion between the professionals in military activities. None of the armored vehicles can provide absolute protection - RPG proven. Even those MRAPs sometimes make me laugh, for they are the absolute embodiment of the term "sitting duck" (i would rather name it "Riding Barn").
@@rodiculous9464 will never happen due to "mutually assured destruction". Basically the British and French wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Russia firing a nuke at Ukrainian or them. So they would shoot every single nuke they have at Russian. Basically if a single nuke launch is detected every single nuke on the planet will be fired!
Reminds me when I was in a Bradley in a Cav unit. We called the Bradly the aluminum death trap, or the aluminum coffin. However, none of these APCs were meant to take anything larger the. A .50 cal round so these Nick names aren’t always fair.
While in Bosnia in 00-01, we did some ‘crossover’ training with Russian unit in an adjacent sector. It was actually kind of cool. Got to shoot a Dragonov sniper rifle, and PKM and a DShK. Then came the vehicles. My god, those things were absolute crap. In all fairness, it could have been a maintenance issue (sound familiar?) They rode rough and the engines ran terrible. The BTR-80 broke down right at the start, The BRDMs transmission was so weak it could barely make a headway on a dirt road. We did get to see a BMP in action, but the final drive failed in the mud. In addition, none of the vehicles we saw had working intercom for the crew. We asked “How’s the crew going to talk to each other in combat?” The Russians just shrugged. It was some officers problem, not theirs. Don’t get me wrong, if their stuff was properly maintained, they’d give us a run for our money, and the individual Russian soldier is HARD AF, but their equipment and maintenance practices were way below western standards.
Russian soldiers are the dirt of their society, pay protection money to the state run mob and are forced into prostitution by their own superiors. Literally the most cucked army out there.
As a reserve tank Lt in the Cypriot National Guard we used the BMP-3 and is reliable, basicily we absuse them a lot! but you are correct being in the back of that thing makes you feel like a sitting duck. Its scary almost because in a battlefiled you pray to not get hit in the back on that thing and the doors get jammed.
Ive also been in a Bulgarian BMP2 or 1 when I was younger. Sitting there felt cramped even as a 16 yo. And the fuel tank was siting behind your back. Even if the doors dont get jammed and that fuel ignites from whatever shot at it you would be toast.
@@enen1220 Then the BMP-3 is even shorter, puts you back to the ammo, sits you on top of the engine, and shoves your shoulder to the fuel. Ukraine would be a living minefield if the Ukrainians were ever pushed back past their fallback line. In that situation, I would much prefer riding in a BMP-2 to a BMP-3.
Adding riding in one, is like a marble in a tin can, specially buttonuped, no room to stretch out, fumes, mines, IEDs. That is why you see so many pictures of squad members riding up top. They risk their lives exposed there too. No heaters in Russian armored vehicles, one of the reasons for frost bite. That steel gets pretty cold and Russian vehicles are not known for crew comfort.
My Dad was an XO of a Mechanized Infantry Battalion in West Germany during the 1970s. He told me after watching this video that NATO was not afraid of Soviet armored vehicles, it was the number of vehicles they would have to face. He is 84 now and remembers taking us older kids to the border of East/West and scaring us with "If anything happens, it is going to be here." Geez, thanks, Dad.
1982 to 1985 my unit B co 2/36 INF was near Bad Herschfeld on thefulda gap, we were at a little point called freedom tower. We could piss in East Germany. They told us the tower was already registered with Soviet artillery. My unit had a life expectancy of about 10 minutes.
That is one savvy Dad you have! My Dad told me and my three brothers about being in the 84 Division in the battle of the bulge, where he received numerous medals including the bronz star! Lesson learned? FREEDOM is NOT FREE. Thanks Dad! When my two young sons, asked their Grandad if it was fun being in the Army, he replied yes, if you liked to see your friends get their heads blown off !
11:15 The reason they might claim such impressive range could be because the BMP can store extra fuel. In it's rear doors. As absurd as it sounds, the bulbous rear doors are actually auxiliary fuel tanks (not connected to the BMP's fuel system, but simply there to transport extra fuel).
BMP is not a tank, it's a tracked support for a mech section. you have an analog for recoiless SPG9 with HEAT and FRAG rounds, ATGM and GPMG. As long as you use it as support, you are fine. If you try to do tanky things with it, you get obliterated.
True and true. i compare it to the bradley, and still underperforms in every single category and the russians still need it. It's the purpose it serves. Carry troops, loiter, occasionally provide support fire. It's not the BMPs fault, it was designed to be bear; the world changed, and now the forest is full of hunters. Remember when USSR invaded Afghanistan and the US gave talibans a bunch of RPGs. I think we'll think back the same way of America giving NLAWs to the Ukrainians. I wasnt with it before, but now i think i kinda get it: when people say armor is dead. In war, the balance of power tips the scales; armor is the acceptance of the possibility of failure. Anti-armor munition is a power multiplier. It's so simple, it's stupid.
@@victorradu9645 Wrong!!! BMP-3 armour is barely capable of stopping .50AP apart from frontally & it's 100mm gun/launcher is inadequate against ANY current model MBT.
Have you ever been inside a BMP ? If you amputate your head and lower legs, its possible to fit inside. Fighting from it ? You are newer hitting anything, but using ammo and despite fume extractors, the space gets filled with toxic fumes.
I knew a man who was in the 101st Airborne in the early 1970's. He trained on a BMP which the Airborne unit had obtained by means not discussed. Everybody wanted BMP's. As a battlefield taxi, above all. This of course does not address its adequacy as an infantry support system even then, let alone in the current battlefield. Many powerful systems, even the most modern main battle tanks, are less effective in environments they were not designed for. A tank which is excellent in rapid shock combat may be a sitting duck if you try to use it in "asymmetric" warfare, where your less heavily armed opponents have time to set up a raid or ambush, after observing you extensively to spot patterns and bad habits they can exploit.
In the 70's-80's the BMP was the "must have" every Army needed. The Germans built their Mader and everybody said "I gotta have one". That's the way procurement goes...as a by the way....there's reason the Army doesn't allow Sergeants to "drive" the procurement process...we'd wind up with gar that actually worked.
@@brianfoley4328 Yes, it is much better to have the politicians and bureaucrats driving procurement. That way we wind up with kit whose manufacturers provide jobs to the "right" people and regions.
From what I recall reading. In the Middle East over the past few years, BMPs have had mixed results. The BMP 1s generally get chewed up, the BMP 2s tend to be okay as long as the crew and infantry are good (so not often), but none of them seem to be suitable for long grinding combat.
BMPs had mixed results in a setting that had RPG-7s at best. Now Russian models of ERA are facing modern weapons and being found wanting. BMP-3s are no more immune. Combine that with the fact any of the BMPs can't outrun an NLAW (even if they weren't all fish in a barrel in muddy, gummed-up convoys) and that's the biggest shocker in terms of performance.
Coaxial machine guns aren't "antiquated". Coaxial machineguns are co-located with the main armament to provide the vehicle with options to engage soft targets and infantry. They're standard on pretty much every turreted AFV.
I know the Warrior AFV has Coaxial Machine Gun. Fairly sure the Challenger 2 MBT has the same if memory serves me correctly Don't know about the Challenger 3 which is just been rolled out to some units
@@Predator20357 Yeah. That's because you don't want to lob a main gun round at a group of spread-out infantry, whereas a coaxial MG is purpose built for suppressing infantry.
I was in the Army around the time the BMP came out. We were still running around in M114's and M113's. So it looked really impressive. Then we got the Bradley. 😁
@@noyb7920 You are incredibly ignorant about IFVs if you think the Bradley is badly designed. Get your information from soldiers who actually served on these vehicles, not Hollywood.
I was a Bradley gunner during desert storm and the 2nd invasion. Well I was TC by then. I was a cav scout with 2ACR. I shot the hell out of the BMP. They don't stand a chance against the Bradley. I also smoked 3 T72 and 2 T64 with the TOW2. Russian equipment is poorly designed. Cant reload when the turret is traversing and the gun has to detent to reload and the turrets are to low and struggle to engage anything on a lower grade. The autoloaders in the tanks suck too. They can't find other targets because the turrets have to sit still for the loader to work properly. Otherwise it will jam. The crews have no room to work in get fatigued very quick. I think tankers in the russian army can't be taller than 5-7" any taller they cant fit. The bmp caught fire easily and the infantry inside is basically sitting on the fuel tanks. Maybe some of this has been corrected since 2006 which was my last go in iraq. But between desert storm and the 2nd invasion they made no changes. Russians are conscripts and commie governments see people as nothing more than a gear in the machine and don't give a shit about their men.
@@noyb7920 I spent 16 years operating the Bradley and whoever told u it was poorly designed is a fool, liar, and never operated one. During desert storm we killed more armoured vehicles in our Bradley's than the Abrams. And I destroyed multiple BMP and several tanks including T72. Bradley is an outstanding weapon system and once we got the M3A3 with the new armour the machine was a beast. With the new armour and era the Bradley can handle RPG hits. Especially in the frontal arc and can handle 30mm AP of all variants but the distance is classified. At least when I was in it was classified. But the Bradley not being a good system is bull shit. And it was politics that caused that rumor and politicians that think an IFV is a tank and expected the Bradley to perform like a tank. Most politicians don't serve in the military and have no clue what they are talking about. And the same can be said about all the experts on the internet. They know everything about everything and their experience is call of duty and battlefield. True experts lmao
Did some liaison work with the Kuwaiti Army in the late 90's. They had all three models- but I can only speak to the tech they had some 25 years ago. In general, the crews and commands really liked the BMP-1 and BMP-2. Especially the BMP-2. Very reliable, could go anywhere, fast... at least in Kuwait's terrain. (oh, yes, and they did maintain their vehicles). They really loved that the BMP-2 had so much elevation on the turret weaponry, not just because you could potentially engage copters, but mostly so you could super elevate in case of cook-offs due to heat which is pretty common in the Kuwaiti desert. [safety wasn't a big thing with them at the time, so this was the limit of safety that they did to not shoot their friends while in convoy] Their dismounts did everything they could to NOT be in the back of those things. Tiny little tubes of sweating grunts jammed in like a sausage tubing... now add the heat of the Kuwaiti desert. The BMP-3 was "special". At the time, they had early models with massive teething problems. The most glaring one is the extractor on the 100mm didn't work. So after firing the 100mm, the driver or commander had to exit, walk out on the deck, and use a ramrod down the barrel to push the casing out of the breech. Pretty hilarious. BMP-3 crews preferred the BMP-2.
Coaxial machine guns aren't "welded" to the vehicle, they aren't "antiquated" as almost every armored vehicle with a turret, both the east and the west, has one, and at least on tanks, its one of the more heavily utilized weapon systems.
Yes, look at the M2 .50 browning mounted coaxially in the M1 tank. The M1 fire control system makes the 100 year old M2 a frighteningly accurate machine gun at range.
The great thing about the BMP 3 is the armor on the top of the hull. It is aluminum. So when a BMP 3 burns after being hit with a missile, the top completely burns away. This makes the dead hulk lighter so that it can be hauled away to the scrap yard easier.
Technically it just melts, it's really hard to ignite aluminum if it's not powdered. And the aluminum is the most valuable part, so it's extra effort to pick the melted aluminum out of the dirt.
It all comes down to training and maintenance. Yes, the BMP does have some short comings, but ultimately training your units and maintaining your vehicles will eliminate 80% of your problems.
Doctrine has a lot to do with it too. I would say that the poor performance in Ukraine is a perfect storm of poor training, no money, inadequate maintenance, doctrine, poor leadership, lack of motivation, bad logistics, etc....
That's where the issue comes with Russia. They can't maintain their equipment and when they conducted training a few months back, one unit commander sold all the fuel provided for his unit to train with and he pocketed the money. Russian military is ass
@@nonamesplease6288 the Sun-Tzu has several questions about who would win. One of the most cryptic answers is "The king who has the Tao will win" Tao is translated by "the way" in the book I have. I feel this should be interpreted as "the king who is right". Like: Putin lied to the world about not attacking, and now the world is against him. He lied to his troops, and now they are mentally not ready. He never really opposed corruption, rather nurtured it, and now his tanks lack maintenance, updated radio's, new IR scanners, sometimes ERA is paid for but only bags filled with cardboard are installed.... I can just imagine a guy checking a unit, and reporting "twenty tanks and fourty trucks" without noticing the absent items. Any idiot, me included, can tell a tank from a truck, but it takes an expert to tell if a radio is the latest type, and he has to get inside each tank to see it, and how to tell real ERA from fake?
This video is full of misinformation. Starting with the fact that BMP-2M and BMP-3 have thermal sights and no BMP has ERA. To the little fact that Ukraine and DPR + LPR use BMP's too (especially older BMP-1's and BMP-2's)! ERA works perfectly against Javelins, especially since Javelin does not have a tandem charge. Though ERA blocks are more rare on roofs of tanks, but the fact remains Javelin needs perfect center mass (penetrating) hit on order to take out a Russian or Soviet tank. There are videos of Russian tank getting hit by like 3 Javelins and only the 3rd hit blew it up, just as the crew jumped out before the 3rd hit. Also there are now Russian tankers reporting that they were able to continue fighting after being hit by a Javelin. Considering that these are extremely expensive anti-tank weapons, they really have not paid off for Ukraine (neither have their drones after the initial week of the war before most were shot down).
As a former Bradley guy I never feared the BMP. I knew that most of the BMPs armor was only 14 mm and 8 mm on the top, so you could shoot through it with a 50 Cal. The increased armor on the BMP two was only in the turret and the turret it is a very small space on the IFV. I always saw it as a death machine for its own crew. There were BMPs with the Iraqi army sharing the joint security station with us and I would not be caught dead in one of those outside the wire if they asked me to. It had fuel filled doors!!!
The Brad ain't really known for its bullet stopping ability.. That 30mm will punch right through it.. and don't even get me started about the ramp on the Brad.. I had the honor of taking the swim barriers off in 96..
It doesn’t really matter, BMPs will shoot right through any bradley too. The doors were more like auxiliary fuel tanks that according to the Russians should be drained before entering combat, although people seems to ignore that
I have said it before, and I will now say it again here: The issue is not the age of the BMP, the issue is the tactics. At the end of the day, if even the most modern tanks were impacted by the most modern ATGM-systems, they'd fair no better.
your exactly right. Russia has the gear but for some reason basic tactics are missing. Maybe it is the lack of full timers or careerists that study and practice warfare. They fill the ranks with draftees and mercenaries ,,neither of which learns life long lessons never mind fully learning air land battle. America went with pros after Vietnam and it has made a difference making us one of the best forces. It is a profession with skilled intelligent people who have a lifetime of developed skills backed with desire to be the best ...America is blessed in this....really is our greatest resource....our soldiers
@@ronj4994 Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Finland, Switzerland, Estonia, Austria, Singapore have conscription though but the training is Western but these militaries are defensive most of the time hence the large reserve pool.
@@Joshua_N-A yes conscripts in defensive operations usually preform well plus a man defending his home fights harder than one far away from it usually, its just when you use them for massed offensive operations that isn't filling in gaps or as reserve and backline troops that they start to fall apart
I wasn't aware that anyone considered co ax machine guns to be obsolete. They're not just welded to the turret, they point where the main gun points. What you have is a machine gun using the same fire control system as the main gun with an (almost) unlimited amount of ammo. They are devastating at ranges well beyond what an infantry deployed mg mounted on a bipod is.
Most MBTs now have separate sights (including thermal etc) for their MGs. In addition, the concept of using the coaxial MG as a ranging aid for the main gun is outdated.
@@thefreeaccount0 The coaxial gun wasn't a welded on gun. It's called a coaxial because it sits besides and is parallel to the main gun's axis of fire and usually setup so that it coincides directly in the path of the main gun. Using the gun as a sighting/ranging aid was an old WWII early post WWII down and dirty ranging trick some crews of the old British and few U.S. tanks used. The primary purpose of the coax is conserving main gun ammunition and engaging dismounted infantry. Why waste an HE or HEAT round on a singular poor soul who found themselves in front of your cross-hairs by themselves? Your main gun rounds are more useful flushing infantry out of dug in positions and cover or engaging other hardened targets. The remote guns you're thinking of on most MBTs are traditionally the tank commander's station. This allows the tank commander to engage infantry independently of the gunner with one of the roof MGs instead of having the gunner have to turn the turret and use the coax. Many tanks also have another gun for the loader if they have a loader like the Abrams. Although it's usually not remotely operated.
Just a quick note on Russian usage of the 'term' reliability. It's completely different to western/nato usage. To Russia means the ease of repair and the ability for non-mechanics to repair maintenance issues easily and quickly. So when you see these 600+ mile claims it doesn't mean they wouldn't stop for repairs, just there would be no major maintenance needed and within that mileage the the crew would be able to deal with any issues easily and quickly.
1: Coax guns are still standart today. They arent simply welded to the turret but linked to the traverse mechanism that lays the gun on target. The most modern verison of the Abrams still uses it as do modern IFVs like Puma. 2: The BMP2 in its original form is old and limited in its fighting capabilitys for todays standarts, it however has a stabilizer. There is also an Upgrade Program in place for them adding the "Berezhok" Module to the vehicles, basicly a drastic overhaul of the turret, its components and weaponsystems, adding thermal sights, Automatic target track functions and state of the art missiles. The only BMP version that doesnt have stabs is the BMP1 and those are suposed to either be upgraded with new turrets(incorporating stabilizers) or pulled from frontline troops in Russian service. Again, BMP2 and 3 have stabilizers, BMP3 has laser rangefinders instaled for accurate targeting. Both variants exist in modernized form with imrpoved optics and weapon systems. BMP1 exists in improved form with a new turret incorporating similar upgrades of the other vehicles upgrades. 3: in Service there is only one Sub Variant of the BMP3 that actualy utilizes ERA, the vast majority of BMP3 dont. BMP1 and 2 dont have ERA as an option at all. 3.5: Javelin wouldnt be greatly affected by ERA.
Yeah none of that s*** would work on the javelin that thing is a monster from the abyss of hell. I don't think I've seen any of the Soviet equipment that could stand up to a direct hit from a javelin even their tanks.
@@jasonthomas9596 DONT U THINK THATS THE ANSWER FOR UR QUESTION WE ARE SEEING WHAT UKRAINE AND RUSSAI WANTS US TO SEE JUST LIKE CHIFTAN SAID ,I PERSONLY HAVNT SEEN ANY RAW FOOTAGE OF THOSE INCEDINTS SO DONT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OUT OF THIN AIR
@@jasonthomas9596 In direct Fire their modern tanks have a chance, the Mix of Relikt/Kontakt5 and the thick base armor can do the trick, ERA alone cant do shit. In top down its generaly game over if it doesnt hit the composite(towards the front of the turret) The Composite has a chance to nullify it if it strikes towards the turret front. the Jav aims center mass of a vehicle so if its a bit off it can miss the center of the turret, impact the engine or composite of the hull/turret. Big issue with Javelin is, in Top Down mode it basicly halves the effective range of the missile
One has to appreciate the breakthrough in doctrine BMP delivered to mechanised units. It was for the first time infantry was carried into the battle in a vehicle that could support squad with rapid-fire 76mm gun, ATGM , and provided full NBC protection, when needed. NATO forces were using .50 cal-armed M113 when this thing showed up.
The Bundeswehr had an IFV in the early '60s. The BMP was a COPY of the German design's intent. Both were based on their experiences in WW2. Panzergrenadiers would use SPWs (when they had them) as weapons platforms on the advance or withdrawal. This gave their troops some armor protection. The Red Army saw this and on occasion used the Lend Lease M2/M3s in the same way.
BMP-1 with the 2A38 is unstabilized the BMP-2 with the 2A42 is stabilized, i don’t know a single BMP-2 not having a stabilized autocannon besides a foreign nation gutting theirs like they did with the Asad Babil T-72’s
@@dylanmilne6683 Yeah this guy clearly did no research, he's just tying to use the russian invasion of ukraine to get views with this poorly researched trash video.
I was gonna say if its so "outdated" then why is this something we have seen all the way back to ww2? you think if that was the case they would have learned then that it "wasn't worth it" back then
@@PerfectTangent Well, he was infantry. There is no reason to assume that he's any more an expert on armored fighting vehicles than anyone else on TH-cam.
It also doesn't mean welded to the turret, it means elevates and depresses with the main gun instead of independently. I think he was trolling for comments.
BINGO... was waiting for this comment. Hence, the reason you see BMP's infantry dismounts riding on the top of vehicle instead of inside. No one wants to get fried if the fuel tanks take a hit.
If you were using them in the manner they had been designed for, being shot in the doors (which contained diesel so not as flammable as petrol) was a fairly low risk.
Coaxial machine guns had a specific purpose. The ballistics of their bullets very were similar to that of the larger gun. Thus a few grounds could be firing from the MG and when they were hitting the target, the larger gun would be fired and hit the same spot. Simple but fast and effective, especially at close range
My take on the apparent high loss rate of the BMP has more to do with the way it’s being used. Not that it’s a piece of junk. The Ukrainian army and forces are extremely familiar with these vehicles, and they know what their strengths and weaknesses are. They are responding accordingly. It also helps a whole bunch if the opposing guys can lay their hands on weapons which can effectively punch holes in the BMPs. If your going after a BMP, your weapon of choice is probably not going to a small 22 caliber varmint shooting gun. It’s going to be something with quite a bit more of a kick and punch to it. And that’s what they are using.
Basically anything other than small arms can go right through the armor, even heavy machine guns can go through the side armor on a BMP. With a battlefield littered with single shot disposable anti tank weapons like AT4s, NLAWs, and some RPG models, not even accounting for weapons systems that can be used repeatedly like RPG 7s, hell even HEDP grenades from underbarrel grenade launchers, it seems like every other infantrymen has a weapon that can punch straight through the armor so careful positioning is key to avoid vehicles getting knocked out
A humvee with .50 cal can eff up BMP 1 and 2 with ease either to the front or sides. - Of course that can work the other way around too, but BMP's armor is extremely thin since it was designed for being amphibious. Underbelly is especially thin and you could see it in one of the videos, where Ukrainian forces are using the skipping ricochet tactic by shooting at the ground in front of Russian BMPs and into its belly.
I never thought of that! Of course, the ukrainian army knows exactly what they are against and what weaknesess thw Russian equipment has! That is a huge advantage an maybe the worst enemy you could have in such a war.
@@Caliell ricochets may work because they are then hitting the armor square on instead of at an angle, I didn't know that was a thing. But just firing head on at a BMP with a .50 dosent work because the angle of the armor increases the relative thickness enough to stop those rounds. And besides just amphibious, the BMP was designed for the nuclear battlefield, where any penetration meant everyone inside was dead anyway, so the Soviets also opted for speed. Better to minimize exposure and cross open ground quickly than have too much armor that won't stop tank shells or ATGMs anyway
Worth noting that BMP1 and BMP2 are both highly vulnerable to 40mm HEDP grenades, as well as HMGs like the 12.7mm M2 from the side. That's a *lot* less armor than I think a lot of people would give them credit for at a glance.
Well yeah very few IFV's, APC's, AFV's, IMV's and what ever else armoured vehicles are resistant to 12.7mm munitions especially not the AP ammo. And with how common those weapons are getting i have to say I would prefer walking if ever pulled into a near peer fight. They are rolling coffins at that point. Especially now when the largest auto cannons is the 50mm and i think a 75mm version is coming out to. Give it a few years and you can just scrap most of the fleets of light armour unless good upgrade options become available for their protection.
Ukraine forces are using Javelins less and cheaper anti-armor more. They discovered a T-72 will be toast after 3 RPG hits unless it has additional armor added to it. Javelins are saved for the newer tank versions. With all the equipment flowing into Ukr they can pick & choose the weapon to use. One interesting development is disabling a track or a tire is enough to stop the vehicle and the column. The Russians don't like sitting in a disabled vehicle because they become rocket magnets, so the Russians bail out and run. Not making fun of them because they know they'll be dead if they stick around. Yesterday I saw a video of an open backed truck carrying a load of Russians. Looked straight out of WW2. They got caught in an ambush.
@@kenji214245 That's why the U.S. went with better optics and sensors on the Bradley. The original goal was to keep them as far away as possible and use their superior optics to target and engage at ridiculous ranges with their missiles and use their guns for infantry. Someone decades ago realized that trying to stack armor on an IFV was a losing game so they instead went with ensuring first-strike ability with better viewing ability and the sensors to back it up rather than relying purely on armor that isn't the greatest against even the upper end of small arms.
I understand the BMP 1 use significant quantities of magnesium in its armour so readily burned. I assume latter models had better quality armour. The M-113 was vulnerable to fire too. But it was not intended for anything more than protection from artillery. I can’t imagine the BMP 1 doing well as an IFV.
BMP-2s under Executive Outcomes captured the whole of North Eastern Angola in 1994 almost single-handedly. But the crews were led by extremely proficient soldiers of the former SADF who could practice mechanized warfare drills in their sleep so that helps…
@@paulmaartin yeah but they only won because of strategy. Despite Libya being shit Chad would have been destroyed in a head on assault. Their light trucks meant they could drive over mines as long as they went over 100km/h. So they were able to pierce the front lines and attack the Libyans from the rear under the cover of night. Libyans thought they were reinforcements till it was too late. Low visibility and the high speed of the assault made it hard for ground forces to counter and difficult for air to blow up the trucks. Proper use of strategy and playing to the strengths of your equipment no matter how “bad” is almost more important than the equipment itself. Good equipment used improperly will always lose agains poor equipment used effectively.
@@mechadonia exactly. That's why I never understand why people make a fuss about rifles etc. Imo as long as it does the job ie shoots straight and reliably that's enough. A million rails and sights won't make a substantial difference compared to support weapons and training which is what should be relied on. SOF is different
@@uraninite8151 One of my favorite memes is a guy stating that the AR is more accurate than the AK, to which the response was, "Yeah, but are YOU accurate enough for that to matter?" Angry NPC face afterwards.
In practice, at least the BMP1s that I got to use in exercises had: 1. Essentially no way for the crew to dismount from behind. (Only the troops carried could do so.) 2. No practical way to operate the gun. 3. Narrow ports, meaning that dismounting for the crew happened without their equipment. 4. Dangerous, fuel filled, back doors. 5. A nose that would dive in every ditch, jarring the troops carried, that remained unaware unless the crew warned constantly.
ad 4 - Back doors werent filled by fuel. It was a additional fuel tank and never used in this way. In combat those tanks should be filled with sand as armour, but in fact crews were just making wine inside them.
When I was an M-113 driver in the late 70's in West Germany, I would not have wanted to go up against one of them, as all mine had was a .50. I was also the Dragon Gunner, which meant I had to park, dismount, set up, shoot, get back inside, and scoot. They had an advantage then for sure.
Times have changed… I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near an armored vehicle on today’s battlefield, it’s become Patton’s monument to stupidity… Technology makes it all obsolete… And the Ukrainians don’t have any modern tech… The current tactical situation is unmanned and or stupidity fast… The Russians are still using radios with 50s technology for peats sake… They stood zero chance against even Raytheon’s obsolete gear… It makes me wonder why we spent so much on ultra advanced gear, seems (no pun intended) dramatic overkill…
@@robertw1871 Lmao russians are not even using proper combined armed tactics for them they are practicing restraint. If you lack knowledge on modren weapons and use frankly propaganda and special case sinarios as proof then dont talk about it.
@@arhumzia6360 Restraint? Yeah sure bud… If that’s what we are calling it… Not even being able to stop to collect your dead is a high form of restraint… They were using combined arms, it was getting them killed, now they cowardly resort to standoff siege bombardment of civilian targets, while getting flanked and overrun… Because they are using “restraint”…. It’s never wise to practice “restraint” on another man’s home… I suspect just like you their ignorance is why this happened, and I think that’s a damn good thing for the free world….
from my experience (Military service in 1996) the inline-MG is very important for communication. You use 30% tracer ammo and with this can point your dismounted infantry "there is the problem".
The main problems with the BMP-1 and 2s are more related to the Russian tactics rather than the vehicles themselves. The Greek army took delivery of few hundred Germanized BMP-1s in the '90s, from ex East German stocks and they were used until few years ago with out problems. I have been inside a BMP-3 in a defense exhibition in Greece around 2008. The thing is not designed to dismount troops, but rather to have troops fight from inside the vehicle with all the disadvantages this has. The armor gave protection against 30mm rounds from 500m, over a 60 deg. frontal ark and up to .50 cal from 20m all around. The fire control was good and if you overlook the fact that there are 22 rounds for the 100mm gun around the turret basket, the ergonomics of the vehicle were terrible. The Driver was in the middle with two machine gunners to his left and right. However these two soldiers could not leave the vehicle from the back because of the turret's basket size behind them and their only way in and out of the vehicle were their hatches. The turret had two seats for the commander and the gunner. The troop compartment was behind the turret with two of the seats facing inwards and five seats in line facing forward. For these troops to leave the vehicle two of the five seats had to e folded up and two small ladders had to be used to get over the engine compartment. Then two top side opening hatches had to be opened and the troops would have to run over the engine compartment (covered by the turret and the side hatches) to the rear of the BMP-3 and open two rear opening doors for everybody to jump off the vehicle from a height of about 4 feet. I didn't see how they could get back inside if the vehicle was not totally stopped. The latest version of the BMP-3 called DRAGOON, corrected this problem by moving the engine to the front and eliminating the two cramped machine gunner positions on each side of the driver. This made it easier for the troops to move in and out of the vehicle from a ramp, however as far as I know this was only a prototype. It might be possible that the Kurganets 25 is based on this vehicle design. Currently the Russian IFV turrets are going to be standardized with only a 30mm gun and 4 Kornet missiles. There is also an air defense / fire support version of the BMP-3 with a remote controlled 57mm automatic gun and 220 rounds. th-cam.com/video/Bb11zZhiIko/w-d-xo.html
Someone get this man a beer... It’s so f**king refreshing to read a comment from someone who’s actually well informed, well written and intelligent. I’m going to walk away from TH-cam now. I don’t want to read a moronic comment after reading this perfect one because it will put me in a terrible mood. Right now I feel like I’m floating around in the clouds on a breezy spring morning day. It’s so perfect I might just tear up. Gd bless you 🍻
You are right about armor of BMP-3. But the armor of BMP-1 and 2 is weaker. It can protect only against bullets (and I am not sure about .50cal). BMP-2 is the most common heavy APC in Russinan army.
@@СвинкаСкреппа This is why the BMP-3 was made, so that shortcomings of the previous designs could be corrected. In my opinion, the Dragoon version was a very good evolution of the BMP-3. BMP-1s earned a bad reputation in Afghanistan, specially because they had fuel tanks incorporated in the rear doors. It turned out to be a bad choice for the troops inside.
The concept of a tracked, armored, marine troop carrier was first realized in WW2 by America's LVT-"Alligator" which brought troops to shore and into cover while it covered them. It was designed primarily to transport marines ashore in amphibious landings. The concept of the BMP is more of a troop transport across land terrains, but the concept came in the Pacific War against the Empire of Japan.
Sorry, arguably the first A (armoured) PC was developed by Canadians removing the turrets from Priests, M3, M5's, Shermans and Rams and driving them straight into battle with M2's mounted on hull carrying 8 -12 troops with their heads down. The Alligator was never intended to be an APC but rather a marine landing and resupply vehicle. They were so unsuitable for land warfare they were withdrawn from service in 45. Research the "Kangaroos", named after a marsupial that carries it's baby in a pouch.
@@brustar5152 That's just a tank converted to an open air battle taxi to ride on top of. They wouldn't qualify as an APC because they don't have an armored internal troop carriage space. Otherwise any vehicle is an APC if troops can pile on top them, which would be nearly every tank since that was done widely back in the day(and it's still done in many places with tanks). An APC by definition has an armored carrying area inside the vehicle, (sometimes) with light armament for basic fire support or suppressive fire while the troops dismount. Even if the alligator had its shortcomings and failure points, it was still (admittedly lightly) armored and carried troops to the battle, and therefore - in my opinion - qualified as the first genuine APC. Though some of the German halftracks and their predecessors technically might also count, so I'd need to dig through some research to determine which one came absolutely first.
I think the BMP-3 would perform a lot better if they weren't using it in the worst possible terrain (Ukraine mud season. Makes the Normandy Bocage seem like kindergarten). If you can't go offroad you can't effectively use your firepower as a means of defense (because ideally you should maneuver so that new threats can only appear from one angle, and that angle is covered by your main gun).
Soviet vehicles where supused to be effective in snow and mud seasons, that's how they beared Hitler in WW2. Russian vehicles are smaller, lighter and with weirder chains and tires than west counter parts. I think the bad performance has more to do with corruption in the military command, terrible logistics and old outdated tactics compared with NATO standar tactics followed by Ukraine's army (Ukraine has been getting trained by US, UK and Canadian instructors for the last 8 years)
Makes you wonder why Putin chose the start of March to launch the operation. Nobody seems to get this, in terms of a lightning war that's the absolute worst time to go. But if you expected the operation to take months, then you'd want to start before the campaign season to get the most out of the summer.
@@samoldfield5220 Delays, dealing with riots in a friendly neighboring country, then waiting for Beijing winter olympics to end as to not overshadow the event China spent billions on.
@@MrPoogly OR, they calculated it would take about 6 months to achieve their goals against an uncooperative Zalensky and stiff resistance. Which means they expect to wrap this up in late August/early September, and not in 2 days like the idiots on TV say. The weirdest thing about the public conversation in the english speaking world hate is supposed to be for the enlisted while the educated take a more stoic view. Yet college educated journalists seem to think Russia is run by actual retards, while every vet I've spoken to is tying to see everything from all angles. The reason the Reddit batallions are so hilariously bad at war is because actual veterans do not see team Ukraine as anything worth fighting for.
The BMP was originally designed for atomic warfare. The boys were expected to be protected while tracking through devastated Europe that had no viable bridges. The gun ports were a morale boosting feature. The exhaust gases from AKs proved that they could not be used. BTW, the stink inside a BMP in warm weather is epic. The Soviets even had to limit the height of their BMP troops -- it's that tight inside. No-one could jump out the rear properly geared-up, either. (absolutely no back-packs) This was deemed okay, as dismounting was a last resort for BMP troops. A machine designed for atomic warfare, rapid advance, is today largely dead meat, roasted by Smart ATGMs. There is no cure. The Ukrainians are keeping theirs as taxis. They are still very handy for getting across rivers and lakes.
I'd agree with that. I have no military experience, but I think if I was handed out an IFV with 4 different weapon systems and NBC and amphibious capabilities and an auto-loader, I'd wonder what the hell I'm supposed to do with it. Ford a river, losing 10-20% of our vehicles to malfunctions, before offroading to death at 70 kmh in a paper-thin metal coffin, while the MBTs and fuel trucks stay behind because the bridge is broken? I just don't get how half of this stuff is supposed to be more useful in an actual combat scenario than proper armor and room for your infantry to do mechanized infantry things. Like dismounting with your equipment (It's crazy that soldiers even accept to get in metal cans they can't bail out of with all their stuff in 30s...). Also, something the video didn't mention... Does the 100mm gun on the BMP 3 means it's back to having terrible elevation?
@@Clebardman In many ways, the BMP series chased German WWII designs for their recon troops. (panzer divisions, elite panzer-grenadier divisions.) These were elites above the rest -- and at first started out with mere motorcycles. (!) Then mark II panzers were added, with early half-tracks. When, and as available, full-on proper recon machines were employed. (There were never enough of these expensive beasts -- though they are commonly found from news reel footage of the time.) Since mark II panzers were too slow, it was not long before dedicated rubber-tired fighting machines were ginned up. As time passed, these babies were systematically up-gunned -- to the point of impracticality. (75mm PAK) It's of the latter character that the BMP-3 seems. The Russians seemed to have aped the Germans in up-gunning their machines -- while being unable to drop anything. Heh. You just have to figure that BMP-3s don't do anything well. Worse, the cabin size has not grown to match the growth of Russian conscripts. They're getting bigger every year. This aspect is so pronounced in Red China that Beijing gave up on its old tanks. The big kids couldn't fit inside anymore. Heh. (Troop size explains why American tanks have been so big for decades.) This kind of crazy over-engineering is seen in American war machines all the time. One is reminded of street musicians that try to play too many instruments at the same time.
Our army still uses the BMP-1 and I just happen to ride a lot in it (MOS Rifleman and no I am not Russian or Ukrainian) and I absolutely hate it. Everything about it! I would trade all of them we have for a single Bradley. It's old Russian junk. In fact everything Russian made I have begun to hate. Rugged? Mass produced? It's JUNK! Total trash! US made stuff is light years away and I prefer them. Oh and screw the Ak 47. BuT MUh ReLiaBilIty! Screw that, I wish we had the M4+Acog, I would take care of it and it will take care of me and be laser-accurate, unlike the old trash AK we use currently. It's a disgrace to call ourselves members of NATO with such soviet trash in service.
@@aroperator3998 heh exept good old ak will actaully work more likely better than the m4 and the acog well they have hap it of frying after 3+ mags so yeah thanks that fried agoc then you dont have even iron sights
While stationed in fulda from 86-90 I spent my fair share of time in Graf and had an opportunity to see russian crap brought back from their afghan war. Didn't see any BMPs but did see a few tanks and being a mechanic I inspected the engine, and found out they welded the valve covers on when gaskets leaked because they apparently had a piss poor supply availability. With the decline of their economy now I am sure they will be right back where they were back then, out of luck and out of spare parts. But then again that might already be that way now considering they are abandoning equipment left and right due to breakdowns.
I'm impressed how fast the Ukrainians have evolved their tactics against Russian columns or individual vehicles. Now they try to disable one track or a front tire. The vehicles can't leave the road, they can't back up, so the crews and troops jump out and run for cover. From what I've seen Ukraine is as flat as North Dakota. You'd feel naked out there with no real cover for miles. Any rate, the Ukr folks learned to not blast vehicles to pieces unless they need to. One said the Russians are our best supplier right now. Videos of them of them salvaging wrecks look like kids on an Easter egg hunt.
from what i recall, earlier soviet design criteria centred around the ability to mass produce the entire vehicle rapidly, which also led to an operational doctrine based on rapid repair in the field and less reliance on replacement of parts... that was a doctrine created out of the necessities of ww2, which was a time when the soviet union was far more economically independant from the west and All manufacturing had been shifted to the far east so, rather than replace personel and equipment at the unit level as losses were taken, they just created new formations with new personel and new equipment ,.. (note that "new" also meant salvagable equipment and personel from previously "extinguished" formations) the reason the US adopted a greater reliance on parts supply and required more attention to maintenance is because they didnt place any emphasis on the potential to lose their manufacturing capacity... and although they had mass production, it was more expedient/effuicient for them to transport a ship full of various parts, than completed tanks , so they relied on recovery teams and then refitted their equipment with parts in europe... its easier to see/understand how the slight distinctions between US and soviets played a role in post war doctrine when you look at the germans manufacturing techniques and the supply issues they faced, in fact they were so over impressed with their capabilities and technical prowess, they ignored placing an emphasis on rapid manufacturing as both soviet and US / UK did the degree of technical skill required in the germans design criteria in the early years of the war was eventually changed after the germans suffered heavy losses in the east, to the point they drafted most of their highly skilled workers onto the front line in regards to afghanistan, it was invaded for multiple reasons, one of those was to use it as a training ground and as a means of testing different doctrines/equipment in "real world conditions" (part of what the soviets called a "simulation") ... the US did the same, but had the advantage of all the soviet experience as they say, the easrly bird might get the worm but its the second mouse that gets the cheese ;)
@@umenhuman7573 produce in mass, attack in mass worked in the past. Technology has changed the parameters and Russia stuck with the old ways because they could not fully improve their economy post ussr collapse. I will admit that on the surface Putin gave the country a positive outlook when he won his presidency, but he has hidden the flaws in his promises. And as oligarchs got richer Putin wanted a bigger slice of the pie, but sadly for himself and not for his country. He started as an elected and will end as a dictator and the only end to this fiasco will come from within Russia or we face another protracted Cold War that will isolate Russia again.
2:05 It dont think its a coincide that West Germany developed the first IFV. Afaik the German Army in WWII used their halftracks already a lot like IFVs, with them providing fire support and even being uses as a mobile shooting platforms for infantry on the move. So its probably no surprise that both Germany and the SU saw the value of IFVs after the war.
Add to that, the germans also heavily used both their halftrack troop carriersor trucks inc ombination with the kettenkrad or similar gear to tow small field guns or mortars at the same speed. So when it came time to fight the infantry had acess to pretty good mobile fire support for the time. The IFV took that idea, added more armor around the troop carrier, and stuck the towed field gun on top of the vehicle to up mobility even further.
I remember being taught all about BMP-1s, 2s and BRDMs in the late 80s and 90s as a light infantry officer in the Australian army. If we'd known how shit they were I'd have been more aggressive in my TEWTs and on exercise. We thought our SRAAWS and Carl Gustavs would have just pissed them off and so we'd plan to hide from them and hit the rear echelon. In hindsight we'd have just found a nice hill and picked them off for shits and giggles until actual armour turned up.
Most russian vehicles cant really aim their main armaments up. Its designed to fight on the european plane where its flat. So pretty much if its standing on a hill it cant aim at you, if you are standing on a hill it cant aim at you.
@@enen1220 The BMP-2 autocannon was built to counter this - in addition to expected AAA duties it was meant to have a high elevating gun because of the steep canyons of the sandbox the BMP-1 was getting eaten in.
We had the opposite problem with units attending combined arms exercises at 29 palms in the CA desert. A 50cal with slap can kill a bmp at 500 yards. Most units would open fire at 1000 yards and get upset when we wouldn't give them a kill just because they were hitting the plywood targets. It was almost impossible to convince them that the 50cal couldn't kill a bmp at that range.
BMP stands for "infantry fighting vehicle". In fact, this is just a jeep hung with light armor and equipped with a machine gun / cannon. It's not a tank, IT'S ARMORED CAR!
@@PerfectTangent Many snowmobiles and some tractors have tracks. Tracks are just a thing that will help you not get stuck on the roads and better distribute the weight on the ground. Tracks will not make a tank out of a motorcycle *and yes, both the BMP and the tank can be put on wheels.
It is its own classification of vehicle. An armour car is as it says an armour car. This is an APC (armoured personal carrier) two different purposes and doctrines.
@@Человекнеотмирасего It's just a technical term. Armored cars need to be wheeled (T17E1). Tracks don't make something a tank though, you're right. The BMP is an APC/IFV.
Do you know what the difference between a BMP and a BTR is? Chris raised the question but never answered it. Google translates BMP to Infantry Fighting Vehicle and BTR to Armoured Personnel Carrier however the BTRs also seem to have significant armament and some of the videos coming out of Ukraine show BTRs being used as IFVs and successfully engaging BMPs. Is there any practical difference between an 8x8 BTR and BMP other than the tracks vs wheels?
Most of the destroyed BMPs I've seen over the past month have been BMP 1s & BMP 2s. So it's hard to comment on the BMP 3 because from what I've seen it hasn't been deployed in any sort of quantity.
@@darson100 Recommend a book that came out a long time ago (Inside the Soviet Army) by Viktor Suvorov. One of the points he stressed was using the least capable men and machines in the early phases of an engagement to degrade enemy forces, then follow up with more capable units.
@@darson100 Why? For a few reasons. The biggest is that doing so puts them at risk to losing these vehicles to the enemy, which will reveal certain secrets of the weapons that don’t want to be known. Another one is that Russia massively underestimated the Ukrainians, and so as of now they are recouping and refueling, I saw a recent video, and I made sure to check the validity, it showed Russian BMP-3’s on trains heading towards the front in Ukraine.
Isn't the BMD basically BMP with less of the "P" part (P standing for "pekhota" or "Infantry")? Seems like all the other non-APC aspects like armor and armament are almost identical and all the differences in dimensions are about making it fit inside AN-12 at the cost of troop capacity and comfort (or what little "comfort" even the already cramped and uncomfortable BMP offers).
@@Sseltraeh89 there is absolutely no comfort in BMD. What was meant to be feature of VDV units, became their bug. Why most elite and battle-ready units have to fight on vehicles, which were designed to sacrifice everything to be capable of airdrop landing? It is incredible asset when you are thrown behind enemy lines by parachute, and just mobile 30mm auto cannon in other cases.
@@renedekart5069 the regular BMP is already cramped, i can imagine how bad the BMD, with half the actual room for troops (but inexplicably still carrying six men compared to BMP's eight) would be.
@@renedekart5069 I would actually say that the BMD is the downfall of the VDV. The best feature of airborne forces is the LGOPP (little groups of pissed off paratroopers). Ad-hoc small units running around the countryside accomplishing objectives as best they can. When you add vehicles to this in airborne forces, you actually reduce their mobility. You force them to stick with their vehicles and their logistics chain, and in the case of the VDV recently, they get pummeled by MLRS because they are too concentrated.
when it first appeared in the 1960's it shocked the west. Fully amphibious, low, fast and armed with a 73 mm smooth bore gun and firing ports in the hull for the troops. The western countries began a catch up. German Marder I and later Bradley were both developed to counter them. The BMP was cramped inside and the diesel fumes and the motion in the cramped rear resulted in sea sick troops.
German Spaehpanzer Luchs! (Scout Tank Lynx) Ultra quiet. The Spahpanzer Luchs is a 1970s West German reconnaisance armored car that replaced the West German M41 Walker Bulldogs and the Spz 11-2 Kurz in armored reconnaisance companies. The Luchs is a swift 8x8 all-wheel drive armored car with an additional fully-amphibious capability, with a 390 HP engine propelling the 20-ton vehicle with a horsepower-ton ratio of about 20 and top speeds of about 90kmh and 10kmh on land and in water, respectively.
@@Joshua_N-A - Sounds like it will, though, they are likely to try and hold onto both vehicle types separately. It would be honestly easier and cheaper to have component commonality than parts, because then there is less compromise with the designs. That and the new AAV is pretty dang big.
Seems nothing has changed. I visited the Russian Airborne Brigade in Bosnia in 1996. They were using a BMP as their front gate. Literally driving it back and forth to let vehicles in and out of the compound. Their motor pool had about 120 BMPs sitting there. I asked an English speaking Russian soldier why are the vehicles were just sitting there and not out on "peace keeping" missions. He told me that none of the vehicles ran because they had no spare parts or maintenance personnel. The only one that ran was the "front gate". Mind blowing.
Hard for me to believe that our commentator is the average infantry soldier. He sounds like an experience infantry officer or noncommissioned officer who is now a intelligence officer. He’s practical knowledge of what happens in the field and his detailed information about Russian equipment is quite impressive also his ability to communicate clearly yet in an entertaining way is outstanding. Thank you very much for this video I learned a lot
8:30 Myth. Putting the AK in mud and it being fine. Sounds great - absolutely no basis in reality. No, the laws of physics don't work differently for Russian arms. Good - f'ing - grief.
Depends how you define "mud" Garand Thumb's test with thick, gritty Pacific NW mud, yeah, that didn't turn out so well. Immersed and then removed from muddy river water? Yeah, it will probably still work.
@@jamesfrankiewicz5768 It also depends on whether the dust cover/safety is engaged or not. If mud gets into the guts of any firearm, it's pretty much screwed.
@@lelostimulus9995 Yeah, I know that weapons stop working in mud. Because of course they fecking do! I'm familiar with both weapons and mud. Would knowing my rank help?
Hey Chris, the first Brads had portholes too. The Mech Plt in my first Co. Team still had the special, stockless rifles for shooting out of them... and yes, they laughed at them.
you know South Korean Army is operating considerable size of BMP-3s since late 90s. we love its firepower and amphibious capability, and made it as reference for K-21 IFV. but I think the armour is unreliable to confront against various battlefiled threats.
If we compare the armour of the BMP-3 (~22 mm of steel, 60 mm of aluminium, 70 mm of air) with previous models (~20 mm of steel), then it was a big improvement.
Neither is the Bradley or most other IFV/APCs armor reliable against any AT threats, they are not breakthrough vehicles. That's not what they were made for and that's why you see so many of them busted open, they wouldn't stop a WW2 Bazooka let alone a Javelin or NLAW.
Korea has some T-80s and BMP-3s as debt payment. If they employ it for their Marines.... well, these are LIGHT vehicles, and having well maintained and communicated T-80 and BMP-3 at landing zone beats anything North can produce and can stand up to any other vehicle. And surely beats having nothing!
@@samsonsoturian6013 All armies have loads of equipment that is older than the men operating. While all equipment has a functional lifetime, maintenance is essential. If corrupt officers skip equipment maintenance and pocket the money, you get rotted tires and leaking seals.
The Coax MG is something still used today. The reason for it s that a MG is very good at keeping heads down and because it only shoots 7.62mm rounds, you can usually carry substantial amounts of it, like about 1500+ rounds of it, so you can be quite liberal with it. Compare that to 300-500 rounds for most autocannon IFVs/APCs or the 12-40 rounds that most MBTs carry and it make sense, especially when you consider that a rifle caliber MG is quite small compared other vehicle born weapons and that large round count for the coax is done while carrying the larger gun and it’s ammo, and the other things that an AFV must have. The only concept that would be antiquated in regards to the MG is a hull mounted MG, like those found in most tanks from the 20s till the late 40s.
The anti-aircraft MG that you still see on some tanks (where you need a crewmember to be exposed from the tank hatch) is also outdated. If you really want a heavy MG these days, to shoot back at helicopters and strafing aircraft, you should go with a remotely operated one.
Actually we in CZ still have these, modernized with 30mm autocannons, and yes, these are incredibly front heavy. What happened once to one soldier I knew, they were lying on the ground and this should cross over them, but the driver suddenly stopped which forced the front dramatically forward and pressed the soldiers head into the dirt, he survived, but.... No, you never want to experience anything like that...
@@MrNicoJac Not sure, however his fellows called him T1000, military guy as can be, heard he had some epilepsy attacks afterwards, though tried to stay in army, it is long time ago, so not sure how is he doing now. However it was some international military training and the guys from abroad, when they saw him taken out from below the BMP, they all turned pale...
@Matthew Morycinski Some videos here, especially when you are full on with brakes, somewhere at the beginning of the video: th-cam.com/video/dg12w1tKQVE/w-d-xo.html
@@BountyFlamor Asked my sources, and the guy is fine and still in the army. Epilepsy was temporary and caused by the injury and once he recovered, epilepsy attacks stopped, so he was able to stay in the army. As of now he was on several missions abroad. Actually also asked my source how common it is, that the soldiers lie on the dirt and BMP or tank runs over them (of course not running over them with its tracks) and servicemen around 40 years of age confirmed this used to be common practise for all of them during various trainings and excersises, however not sure if it is still a part of common training now. If you do not believe me, I am fine with that....
Riddle me this: If the BMP's effectiveness in agrarian pursuits is so questionable, why do Ukrainian farmers keep stealing them? Who needs a combine when you have Combined Arms?
The farmers don't have to declare any Russian equipment on their taxes. Too muddy to do field work so might as well get the junk off the road. The Russian trucks usually have useful goodies in them like food and ammo.
Also they can use the engine for spare parts. This is the most likely use if you see how Sov era mil vehicles are utilised in the old Sov satellite states.
I did my national service in Poland (91' - 92') as a driver of BMP1. And it's crap. But driving this machine off road gives you a lot of joy... Even if infantry on the back have a quite opposite opinion...
All large armies make the mistake of forgetting that only the infantry corps can seize and hold ground and repel attack by day or by night regardless of season, weather or terrain. Infantry is infantry. Armour is armour Artillery are sheep shaggers etc. The role of true light infantry is always forgotten until real war starts. The Ukrainians are winning because of their infantry battalions on the ground fighting like infantry not because of their armoured vehicles or heavy weapons. Even in flat steppe terrain, highly skilled infantry win wars, everyone else is there to make the party look pretty.
Idk how you define winning? To me it feels like no one is winning. How is Russia going to take Kyiv? It seems impossible. Maybe they've changed their objectives and will just take a land bridge from Crimea? That seems doable. And Ukraine fights intelligently and bravely but to me it doesn't seem like they have the power to push the Russians back.
We have BMP:s in our military. We also produced a more modern APC. Its actually better suitable for peace keeping missions, and that is how we market it and make it a great export. However, if we run into real war, we rather rely on BMP than the nationally produced APC. Our APC is designed to keep the crew safe even if the vehicle runs into a mine. But the APC is wheeled as where as the BMP is tracked and have superior off road capability. In our country off road capability in a real war setting is a huge plus. Moreover the BMP has a much lower silhouette making it a harder target, also a huge plus for a real war setting.
I am your average infantry officer (now retired), and therefore spend a lot of time thinking about logistics. The capability of the BMP to haul supplies off-road has the potential to make it a key logistical asset. It is unfortunate that the video did not consider its capability for hauling cargo.
@@MrGrusome Not all that new. The most produced armoured fighting vehicle in history is the Second World War era Universal Carrier. Sometimes nicknamed "BREN gun carrier" because of its mounting for that LMG. The "Universal" part of its name is because it was designed to carry both personnel and cargo. As the saying goes, "amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics."
@@kevinlove4356 in truth it's an interesting idea somebody's done convoy operations none of those vehicles that are hauling cargo was particularly up armored accepting they cab of the vehicle. I mean it's an interesting concept the idea of using something like that as a cargo Carrier. The only problem with it is is how much cargo can you haul what type of cargo would you use it for most bulk cargo for a unit literally requires it being transported by lmtv, mtv, hmtv, and PLS's. And let's not forget to try and trude hemmit cargo carrier,and super hit. superhead
In truth there's actually a mathematical equation built into it that when you think about it cargo has to get somewhere fairly quickly it has to be hauled enough cargo to do something you could create an armored carrier but if you made it to armored you take away the space that other cargo would be using in truth I can see it being used for specialized stuff but not freaking normal cargo and forth actually bring enough supplies to be effective and have to be huge.
@@kevinlove4356 My father fought in northern Europe in 1940 and 1944/5, and he said the same. He generally disliked the Universal carrier, but said it was invaluable for hauling loads across country near the enemy, although not as good ATV as a tank because of its unusual transmission.
Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30: Rejecting American doctrine that an armored personnel carrier should serve as a "battlefield taxi" and not as an assault vehicle, the Germans developed the HS.30 as a vehicle to fight alongside tanks and from which their mechanized infantry could fight from under cover. The German military came to this decision as a result of its World War II experience with Panzergrenadiere (armored infantry). German doctrine saw the SPz 12-3 as part of the squad's equipment, and the squad was trained to fight with the vehicle in both offense and defense. Unlike the American M113, the HS.30 could not float, but as German doctrine envisaged the HS.30 as a component in operations combined with main battle tanks that also lacked such a capability, this was not seen as a grave disadvantage. ... but suffered from teething problems. (from wiki)
As I recall from my training decades ago, original soviet doctrine was to concentrate an assault on a small front, penetrate deeply and then expand outwards in the enemy rear. Hence the whole thing about firing ports; probably intended for "spray and pray" suppression of likely anti-tank weapons crews out to the sides. Maybe in WW2, but perhaps not such a good idea on a modern, battlefield. Coaxial MGs? The biggest problem with them is if the system design allows the nasty gases from firing to build up inside the crew compartment. This was not such a problem with the classic Browning designs, because they were recoil operated and had no requirement for a method of venting a gas system. Roof / turret-mounted remote system solve that until there is a stoppage on the MG. Also they require a remote AIMING system and "drive system"; more electronics. They also raise the effective silhouette of the vehicle and can and will "snag" in close woodlands or urban areas. All that falling rubble and foliage will degrade reliability. And when the lead is flying, NOBODY is likely to be going outside to clear the problem.
@@bruceinoz8002 the fumes of coaxial guns are about as much of a problem, as the fumes of the main gun. No problem. There are ventilation systems sucking the fumes away
West Germany (and Nato) also planned, trained, and equipped for fighting a defensive war. Russia planned on offense against the west, hence the fordability designed into most Russian vehicles, to ford the many small streams and rivers they would find going west. Of course you still need to have sound banks to ford. Just look at the abrams... there are strategic limitations to it just because it weighs so much you have to be careful what bridge you use. Many of the older Russian designs had low silhouttes to add additional protection (smaller and "harder" to hit), to compensate for their lighter armor. The BMP/BMD/BTR have generally light armor, I think max 18mm rhs equivalent if my memory serves.
The first IFVs were the armored halftracks of WW2. They were open topped and lightly armored, but they offered some protection to mechanized infantry while allowing them the mobility to keep up to the tanks on or off road (though not great in mud/snow etc.), but they also allowed the infantry in the back to fire over the sides while still have some protection and continuing to move. I'm not suggesting it was safe, but a lot better than a truck!
The difference is in terminology. IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) have heavier weapons, such as an autocannon and, perhaps. ATGMs, for extra fire support if needed. Whereas APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers) were mainly the armored "battle taxis" which generally toted a heavy machinegun or two and a few more foot-sloggers. The halftracks were (often open-topped) APCs.
The precursors of these armored infantry transport vehicles were the Germans in World War II with the half-tracked light armored vehicles that transported the panzer grenadiers. These vehicles were intended to go off the road accompanying the tanks, and the grenadiers landed during combat to protect the tanks. The difference is that these vehicles are currently covered and have greater firepower. Tanks have limited vision and during an attack they need to be accompanied by infantry who will follow the tanks in these vehicles to enemy positions when they will disembark to protect the tanks and clear the area. It is necessary to understand that armored vehicles do not fight on the roads, but in the fields, and the road is just a means of reaching the place of combat. If they are being shot on the roads it is because there was bad planning.
@@digglerdsrecordings9680 Yes, the battles are off road and the displacement is on the road. The battlefield in both the past and the present is wide, disregarding houses or roads. The opposing troops, attackers and defenders are arranged in a vast area of kilometers across fields, villages, and obstacles of all kinds. If the defenders just stay on the road they will be easily bypassed. What we are seeing in Ukraine, for example, is not combat between armies for which these vehicles were designed, but small ambush actions on the roads. And what is noticeable is the lack of action by the Russian reconnaissance units that precede the armies. And it is these units that avoid ambushes. When approaching urban areas, infantry must dismount and accompany the armored vehicles. Otherwise vehicles are subject to ambush. Armor without infantry support is armor destroyed.
The BMP might do splendidly in conventional warfare with the tactics they were made for. But it kind of sucks when you're stuck on straight, elevated roads going in columns and any tactical formations becomes impossible.
And why are they on elevated roads? Because the fields have not dried out. So it doesn't appear they are all that good in mud. Deep Ukrainian springtime mud, bog, swamp.
@@donaldkasper8346 the tracks are skinny. Those will get stuck in mud. Wonder why they designed it that way. The T34 was good in mud because of the wide track.
@@donaldkasper8346 end of the day if you're not engaged and you're offered a road you're probably gonna take it. To a western power with proper intel this would be fairly safe, but Russia seems to be driving blind down roads into ambushes.
Even if it didn’t the .50 is more than capable of destroying periscopes and other optics and laser designators. Reducing situational awareness substantially
@@alfaromeo6985 if you shoot first you can still win with an Toyota Truck against a BMP, you have probably even better visibility and it's much easier to spot an enemy
You should read the stories of the Mark 1 tank crews. There's a famous bit of footage where the first Mark 1 crests a small cutting and slams down hard when it reaches it's center of gravity. That was a demonstration for King George, 4 of the 8 men inside were knocked unconscious, all of them were injured, the King was very impressed.
@@sssd3461 Both, the contract went to the Swiss branch of Hispanio Suiza which hadn't build cars since before ww2 and never an amoured or tracked one (and is not mentioned with a single word in the English version of the companies wiki page). Apparently the company gave some generous donations to the CDU/CSU party, plenty of people involved turned up dead in suspicious circumstances in the following decades. Part of the construction was given to a British company that never build vehicles before and just handed the production to another company which build trucks and busses.
I have ride an armored vehicle, Korean K-21 IFV with 40mm auto canon in my service. It is strongly influenced by BMP-3 (like amphibious capability) I am very impressed with its versatility and theater effectiveness for its cost (1/3 of main battle tank). If I have budget for 10 tanks, I will buy 3 tanks and 20 K-21's (similar cost)
Dude. During testing the floating capability of K-21 soldiers died. This is not a BMP-1. It's not 13t. Not even close to floating capable Polish version of the 8x8 IFV AMW Patria - 19t. (APC is only 16t) K-21 has weight of 26t and really needs this pontoon around and reliable draining pumps, plus reliable wave plate.
Well Mr. Clever Clogs, have you factored in all the additional costs of owning and fielding 23 vehicles rather than 10? There's a lot more to the costs than just the sticker price. You'll have to train, house, feed, and pay extra crew to man the extra vehicles. We'll assume the parts side of maintenance cost follows the same ratio, so that's OK. But having 2.3x the number of vehicles also means you'll need more space to store them and that larger store of parts. Larger machine shops to perform the additional work for the larger motor pool you'll require. Larger command and control staff for them, as well as support staff for all these additional crew/mechanic/command groups. But wait, you need to get these extra vehicles and personnel to the operational theater as well. Maybe that's just fuel cost, but probably we're talking additional trains, ships, and maybe planes. And the people to run them too. And does the K-21 require 1/3 the POL's of whatever MBT you're discussing? And on and on.
The mention of high up targets in Afghanistan reminded me of a movie I just recently saw about a Soviet tank & crew in their Afghan war and there is a scene where they can't aim high enough to target enemies up on the cliffs. The movie is called The Beast and its really quite good and very interesting, its available free if you have Prime Video. Think it would be particularly interesting for people who like this channel / video.
I found out about the soviet’s afghanistan campaign thru this movie many years ago. Before that I the only soviet that I know is in command & conquer 2.
As a civilian (here in Australia), I had no idea what a BMP was. I can't speak for all civilians but the title stood out 'because' i didn't know it. Cheers!
In 2016 I was on the receiving end of two bmp2, while one got successfully hit and set ablaze the other one was hiding behind this destroyed farm building that only had one brick wall left and was firing its 30mm through this wall. If u think of a terminator movie where one of them melted down into a puddle on the floor, that's how I felt laying down behind that wall, I did say my last prayer that time and was expecting to get flanked from both sides of that long-ass building. (it was quite a walk back to our positions and we kept guessing why they didn't flank us) we only had two rpg26 left. One of the guys smoothly like a cat got on one knee and calmly took it out. Miraculously none of us was wounded. Bmp1 is crap but bmp2 is super effective if used right.
BMP-1 entered service in 1966. But Sweden had been using the Pbv-301 since 1961. In 1966 Sweden fielded the much upgraded Pbv-302, which is still in limited service. With 20mm guns and hatches from which the infantry can fight mounted, it makes these IVFs rather than APCs.
Yeah, compared to an m113 it's just no contest. It seems to have some big issues compared to more modern designs though. From things I have heard around places, this is especially true one you start looking past the major bullet points and into things like ergonomics and target acquisition and command and control and things like that.
As a former member of the Croatian home guard, i managed to destroy a number of the Yugo copies called the MVP i think from memory...I used mainly Zolya's, armbursts but did use PKM firing API at the rear doors because they were fuel cells...pretty crappy IFV's but revolutionary in their time.
I missed the mentions on the airborne variant of this combat vehicle, the BMD family. Its quite similar in weaponry to the army BMP series, but its lighter and more suited for airborne assault operations (including being air-dropped from transport aircrafts such as the Antonov An-12, the jet-powered Ilyushin Il-76 and from heavy transport helicopters such as the Mil Mi-6 Hook).
Dude... it is NOT A TANK... are Americans that stupid that they cannot get basic concepts? Its like saying a bus is slower than a sports car thus the bus is bad.
Information at the beginning is incorrect. During WWII, Germans had specialized half-track IFV. Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 or Sd.Kfz. 251. Usually equipped with MG42 or MG43 on the top.
I can't tell you how many debates I got into on Qaura and other forums with people in regards to Russian tanks and armor capability, I constantly told them they were far behind Western standards and didn't have night vision targeting equipment and many other needed things on their units, and they would always argue with me and say "I fell for Western propaganda and it was some of the best in the world, and I didn't know what I was talking about" etc...... When the Soviet Union collapsed, we learned a great deal about where the Soviet Union actually was on military tech and capabilities. We found that the "bomber gap" wasn't really athing, just a lot of smoke and mirrors. Their submarine Tech was at least 10 years behind the United States, they're fighter aircraft were not as advanced, the Mig-25 proved to be much less sophisticated than we thought, after a pilot defected with one to the West and we got a chance to look at it up close.. The thing used glass tubes! Propaganda has done a great job selling the perceived capabilities of Russian Tech, but I think a lot of it has to do with the defense industry gladly promoting a much more capable Russia and Soviet military, because it allowed greater budgets and projects by the West and the United States, which is not a bad thing overall honestly, because it has put the U.S. and Western forces way more ahead of the curve than people realize. Which will be crucial in regards to China. I used to build Apache helicopter's designed to kill these things, so I made it a point to learn quite a bit about them and their capabilities. In fact, their capabilities have severely lacking for decades...in the eighties as well, had they tried to cross the gap into Germany during the cold war, they would have been completely lit up and deceimitated.
The Soviet-now-Russian take on technology strikes me as something that the military leadership just doesn't understand. As a good "for example", the recent AK variants were designed with rail mounts to incorporate optics, lasers, and all the other technogadgets that hang off of modern infantry weapons. But as the footage is coming out of Ukraine, almost no Russian soldier has any, aside from a few vintage WW2 scopes and a handful AKs captured from KIA Russian special forces that had optics.
@@Maria_Erias It appears it was mostly promoted as a PR stunt, with no mass real world application of these upgrades. SOF as always had toys. It's when the average grun is trained and equipped, that it becomes a true force multiplier.
@@TheBelrick This has nothing to do in my post, however.... " Half of Ukraine" isn't captured, not even close. They still haven't taken a major city. As far as their advance, it absolutely HAS been halted. They're now digging in. nice try at sarcasm, but it has to be rooted in actual facts 1st.
MiG-25 was meant to be simple from the start. But MiG-31, its successor ? Pretty advanced or state-of-the-art, as some say. And submarines... Don't know much about them, but projects like 945 Barrakuda were quite exceptional.
I actually expected performance of the BMP series to be less in Ukraine. After all, urban combat and asymmetric warfare are very effective against armour. Lack of maintenance only make things worse.
Add to that they gave it to conscripts and those conscripts though they'd only be doing training which caused relaxed maintenance and it's not a wonder they're screwing up
old soviet doctrine revolves around replacing formations, not units .. thats true for both personel and equipment .. so they will use up a formation, then replace the entire formation with another thats how they became known to attack in "waves", ,,(doesnt mean they wont recycle the "waste" left over from the previous wave into the next, its just not a part of thier doctirne to focus on replacing "parts" of anything (again, that means they didnt make it a priority to replace personel at the unit level or supplying replacement parts for equipment.. whilst one formation was being used in attack, they kept one in reserve whilst another was being formed from scratch ... much like how the NVA operated in south vietnam ;)
@@jimbothegymbro7086 Sure if you listen to Ukrainian propaganda like a complete idiot. Let me guess: when Al Quaida captures an US soldier, you also believe every shit they torture out of him, yes?
One thing I've noticed over the last 20 years is tactics and certain equipment are paramount. Super powers can't take over smaller less equipped countries anymore. War seems to be changing.
It has - and likely always will be - a relatively cheap, light, amphibious, multi purpose platform for troop transport and AT capability. I think it's got plenty still going for it
I remember the tactic against going against a BMP-1 was to attack it from its 10 o'clock due to its inability to traverse its coaxial mg and main gun due to its IR spotlight in that location. Probably why they were removed from that location in later models.
Having found and played with some of these in gulf 1 I found them to be fun to play with but wouldn’t want to go to war in one. To be amphibious it needs low weight which means thin armour
small correction, germany never rly used the "battletaxi doctrine/tactic". even in WWII, Panzergrenadier's would fight with the Halftracks and now obviously with the IFV's
German panzergrenadiers (even the cold war west german versions) would use more heavily armoured vehicles (the Marder I for example, really similar to our Pbv302 in that it had a bigger autocannon than most NATO troop transports), but if I remember it correctly germany also used quite a lot of battletaxi vehicles like the Fuchs.
@@fiendishrabbit8259 The Marder came later. I'd also trace that type of vehicle back to the German WW2 half tracks. They also had a door in the back. As far as I know, the Schützenpanzer lang was just a bad construction.
When I called the BMP a "tank" in the title I was trying to reach a larger civilian audience instead of calling it the by the book correct term which is an "infantry fighting vehicle" most civilians don't know about what an "IFV" is. I was in a mechanized infantry unit so I understand the fine level of detail there. I was in a Stryker vehicle which technically we can go one step deeper there and say the Stryker isn't an IFV, it's an Infantry Carrier Vehicle. I rethought the title and decided the criticism is valid, it doesn't work so I changed it, thanks for your feedback on that everyone!
The more clicks you get the better. your channel is great. My comment was mostly for people who already came here as a clarification, not to diss you. Creating high quality video content like yours takes a lot of time and dedication. All the best.
Everything getting called a tank in the Ukraine, good decision to change these vids educate us not follow the masses. Not sure on gyro stabilisation for BMP3 turret weaponry, any clips showing it so claim of accurate on the move can be substantiated? Cheers
As a civilian trying to educate myself I appreciate the fine detail. I will still refer to armored vehicles with a turret looking thing as a tank but now I understand that I am incorrect
Make video on bmpt terminator
What a pathetic horseshit answer!
I was a BMP1 driver, here is my experience: BMP is not a tank, it has not made for fighting, it was made to transport infantry to the front line as fast as possible and cover them for a while if necessary. So it is basically just for fast transportation or a hit and run weapon if anything.
Crossing lakes and rivers is surprisingly safe, some leaks here and there but nothing that could be dangerous even in half an hour, so that never was a concern. I have never experienced that nose-heaviness, never stuck anywhere because of that, so that was not a concern either.
Our concerns were: the fuel tank in the middle of the crew space between the seats, that made everyone VERY uneasy, the additional fuel tanks in the doors at the back, that are either filled with fuel so then the vehicle is completely unable to get into action or filled with sand that make the whole design useless, the tracks tend to dislocate at sharp turns on hard, frozen and uneven ground, the protective grille around the tower inside the vehicle could catch gears, weapons or limbs of inattentive soldiers sitting by it, thus not cause not only damages and injuries but also interrupts the turning of the tower and last but not least, the ridiculously weak armour. The best chance for a BMP to survive in an actively hostile enviroment is to keep on moving very fast so the enemy cannot deliver a hit, or to hide behind cover.
It was nicked "Bunny Bus" since the infantry was just called "rabbits" :)
Armed battlefield taxi...
No "IFV" is a tank, but the BMP3 tried hard to blur the line between "IFV" and "Light Tank" (which aren't really tanks either)
hey sorry I missed this, I titled it a "tank" because I wanted to reach a larger civilian audience and usually a lot of civilians do not know what a "infantry fighting vehicle" is and they don't know what it means. but they know what a tracked 'tank' is. But you're absolutely correct it's not a "tank" I've changed the title to reflect that
Thanks for your end user perspective. Enlightening.
A lot of people REALLY like the idea of these being fighting vehicles. Terms like "just a battlefield taxi" are usually said with derision and you'll get laughed at for favouring more troops over a bigger gun with more ammo.
I never liked this attitude, because troops still have to get around and it's better they get around in an armoured vehicle than walk or ride in unarmoured trucks/humvees. But it seems there's a shitload of tankers out there who see these vehicles almost exclusively in terms of how they can directly fight the enemy and troop transport is an afterthought.
I heard someone say "You're stupid, it's got a huge auto-cannon, that's way better than a few more troops" they only accept that these vehicles should have the minimum number of troops to defend these vehicles.
Nicely done video but missed on a key point. BMP's were never designed to be the lone front-runner in an assault, they were supposed to be operating either in conjunction with front line armour/tanks or behind them. They were also not built to withstand a RPG, let alone an anti tank missile because of weight constraints. In urban warfare as seen in Ukraine, most BMPs are hit because they were operating alone in an urban warfare and hit by multiple RPG or other rocket launchers such as the German Panzerfaust 3 (free delievery by the west), some even hit by Javelins which in my view is a waste of a Javelin. BMP is a devasting anti infantry weapon platform specially at long ranges but is particularly under threat working alone in an urban setting surrounded by tall buildings and constantly under attack with anti-tank weapons which it was never designed to handle.
Now I'm feeling that I have wasted 10 minutes in typing this as probably no one will read this, so curtailing my comment here.
one other thing, the BMP-1's 73mm cannon did not shoot AP, it fired HE frag and HEAT. it's muzzle velocity was too low to get any sort of meaningful penetrating power from a kinetic round. Also, that gun is more for combatting other light vehicles and dismounted infantry rather than proper tanks.
Yeah, couple that with badly maintained vehicles and a crew that probably don't even want to fight against their neighbors and you have the recipe for disaster for the Russians.
@@JohnDoe-bd5sz How are you so ignorant of the genocide for the last 8 years since the US backed coup in 2014???
You didn't waste your time , Here I am reading your rely , Killing BMP with Javelin is not waste because some soldier very hard to get closer the BMP
@@11kungfu11 What genocide ?
You mean the insurgents that tries to fight the government in the east ?
If i and some of my countrymen decide that we do not want the government to rule over the land we live on, i can guarantee you that the government is not going to just give it up, nor should they
The problem with the BMP Tank is that the BMP isn't a Tank. Anymore than a Stryker is a tank.
Anyone trying to use it as a tank is probably not someone you want in your platoon
Exactly, BMP stands for Boyevaya Mashina Pjehoty ( infantry combat vehicle )
In fact, if he have a turret, it is considered as a light tank. BMP2 have a 75 mm canon, so it's a light tank... But anyway, chris have never seen one in his life, or only those in irak, who are not russian, but russian made for exportation...
@@ACNNOMOREBLUFF bmp2 has a 30mm autocannon
@@ACNNOMOREBLUFF BMPs were very useful in the 1971 Bangladesh war where they basically circled enemy formations by going through rivers where the enemy didn't expect any attack from.
Yeah, I figured a channel like this would have known better when I read the title.
I served in the US Marine Corps as an infantry officer for 21 years with 3 years in combat from 1968-1989. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69 and I can tell you that the Amtrack of that time really sucked. It didn't have much armor but the worst part was that it used gasoline instead of diesel which meant that when it hit a mine or and RPG, it became and instant fireball killing everyone inside. Therefore, for the time I was in Vietnam, it wasn't allowed to carry Marines inside. Instead, we had to sit on top to move from point A to point B. Not an ideal situation incase of an ambush--sitting ducks. And when it hit a mine, Marines were thrown in all directs with most having broken bones and other injuries, but mostly still alive, unlike the Amtrack crew.
However, the Vietnam era Amtracks were good at resupply and bringing the mail, but it couldn't handle rice paddies, jungles, or mountains. So it was pretty much useless in Vietnam. Some former crew members may say differently, but from an infantry perspective, it sucked.
Subsequent redesigns of the Amtrack were not much better. To be fair, it's hard to design an armored vehicle that can be launched from amphibious ships, brave the ocean dangers, land against a defended beach, and then support the dismounted Marines in the fight.
The other major deficiencies were that it had no capability to land Marines at night or in weather with limited visibility. That may have been solved by now, but I can find nothing on the internet describing a Marine night landing exercise or Marines practicing in foul weather.
I participated on a number of amphibious landing exercises, but they were all choreographed in perfect weather and calm seas, and the beaches were marked so the crews knew where they needed to land. In combat, there is a lot of chaos, smoke, incoming rounds, and Amtracks will not likely land exactly where they are supposed to and so units get mixed up and out of place.
I can definitely confirm that combat is chaos, deadly, and difficult to communicate with subordinate units, at least when I was in combat. For example, my platoon only had one radio which was mine to connect with the company commander 24/7. In my early days in Vietnam, there were no radios for squads on patrol. That was later fixed, but squad leaders were often inexperienced Lance Corporals who didn't know how to call in artillery or air support. I tried to train them in the field, but the turnover rate from killed, wounded, and rotating back to the US made it impossible for them to gain any proficiency, so I went on squad patrols to "evaluate their tactics" when really I felt I had to be there to call in artillery and air support in case we needed it.
That's not the way to run a platoon and it was impossible for me to be on every patrol, but I tried to be on the ones that were the most dangerous to get artillery and air support if needed.
There were a few times when I had an artillery forward observer and an even rarer time when the company commander attached a tactical air controller, I can count on three fingers the number of times that happened.
I digress.
Just my personal opinion, but I don't think either the Army or the Marines have yet found the right formula for an infantry fighting vehicle. There is no such thing as an IFV that is perfect--it's always a tradeoff of protection, mobility, and cost.
And here is the other thing. In 3 years of combat, I never fought in terrain where and IFV or tank would have been any benefit. In Vietnam, 98% or more of the terrain was hostile to Amtracks and tanks. The other two years I spent in combat was in Latin America supporting the host nation in counter-insurgency operations with the host nation Army and Navy. Tanks and IFV's were useless because the terrain was too rough.
In the mountainous fighting in the Korean War, the Army and Marines used horses and pack mules to carry ammo and heavy weapons up the mountains to the fighting positions. I'm not sure we have anything more effective today. We do have all terrain vehicles, but they can't carry as much as a horse or a mule nor can they negotiate the terrain as well.
I'm off topic here, but as hard as DoD tries to fix problems they continually miss the mark. Sometimes a low tech solution like horses and mules is better than expensive vehicles that can't do the same job.
While I was in Vietnam, my platoon was given what was then "high technology" that were complete failures, simply because the PhD's who came up with the ideas had no idea what was really needed on the battlefield. We did have the first generation of night vision called the Starlight Scope that displayed very blurry images in a green light, but there were never enough batteries to make them useful and I only had one for my platoon which when we did have batteries I'd always give to my squad who I thought had the most dangerous avenue of approach.
My apologies for the long post, but its a topic that means a lot to me because I lost so many good Marines in combat because the gear and technology just wasn't there.
Thank you for your service and welcome home!
@@andyleotell man's been home for 30 years
@@nonautemrexchristus5637 Vietnam Vets were not welcomed home when they returned from deployment. Welcoming them home now or anytime is a sign of respect and a show of gratitude for their service. They are not forgotten and deserve recognition.
I once observed a failed US beach-landing during a military exercise in Norway. It was supposed to be a 'perfect' landing. Sadly for the US General standing on the beach of the fjord, the fjord had frozen over during the night, so the landing craft and amphibious vehicles got stuck in the middle of the fjord, not able to get on shore. To the General's even greater dismay, I commented on how disastrous it would be if there were National Guard playing weekend warriors with AT-weaponry from each side of the fjord. The General didn't say much, but the same night a MASSIVE deployment by helicopter happened. During that night a whole battalion was transferred far into the country.
Funny how a bit of ice can cock up somebody's 'perfect' planning.
Not sure how the jungle in Vietnam compares to in Malaysia but the Imperial Japanese Army were however able to deploy tanks into the latter when conquering the area in WW2, surprising the defending British forces there
As a special truck mechanic i can tell you, every machinery needs maintenance. No matter what a engineer tells you.
you're telling me that my ar15 is NOT self cleaning? /s
When you put a hat in a tank to protect it
You know that you are in a deep s
The only thing missing in a Russian tank is a Mexican Sombrero
@T.J. Kong That is such an engineering answer. 😂
The only exceptions are lunar and Martian rovers, and if you’re designing a truck like a rover you’re doing it wrong
WOT? You mean me and a couple of mates can't fix this thing if it was in my drive way? Sounds German, not Russian!
After Cappy's "quirks and features" comment, now I really, REALLY want to see Doug DeMuro do a review on the Russian BMP... and also give it a Doug Score.
It would be awsome! Like a Hammer 1 evolution review
“In the Weekend category, the BMP is roomy enough to carry your friends around, but it is very uncomfortable, loud, and difficult to park, and it gets a 6.”
Very astute! Cheers Mr. Karl!
Aww that would be great! Tall ass Doug getting into a tank complaining about the comforts.
Yes
Forgot to add that the back hatches for the BMP-1/2 was used to store fuel to extend range but in combat was supposed to be drained. However this wasn't practiced as much because the needed range to operate in Afghanistan. So when they got hit with RPGs or incendiary rounds near there it turned the doors into literal fire exits or cause fires to the rest of the vehicle.
It's simply not true at all. Nothing would happen if you shoot at rear tanks, cuz it's diesel fuel inside. Even incendiary rounds couldn't ignite it.
@@MlTGLIED Um sorry if you get diesel hot enought or you shock it significantly it will ignite. A pressure wave, in the right place, from a blast will also do the same thing. Its a known weakness of the BMP's.
@@MlTGLIED IF it was loaded with Diesel. However, like most militaries the Russian Armed Forces uses Jet fuel aka kerosene on everything for simplified logistics. Kinda like how US and other western countries uses JP-8 (or similar) on every military vehicle. The difference is that Russian military grade is more volatile than JP-8 as a side effect of being tailored for improved cold weather performance (lower freezing point).
In Vietnam, the Marine LVT had a similar problem. It used gas instead of diesel which when hit or tripped a mine the inside of it became an inferno that you couldn't escape. I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-69 and the inside of the LVT was used to carry cargo only and Marines rode on top of the LVT--not a good place to be in an ambush--and when it hit a mine, it threw everyone off the vehicle causing serious injuries both from the blast and the fall with heavy equipment.
It was OK for resupplying us with C-Rations, mail, and ammo, but no one wanted to ride on it. Besides, the terrain we operated in could only be resupplied by helicopter, which always gave our position away to the enemy.
That was a hard year. Lost a lot of good Marines.
@@BMF6889 jesus its so nice to read a comment from someone who knows what their talking about! You must he getting up there in age so i wish you lots of health and thank you for your service!
KC
National Incident Management Systems
All-Hazard Counciations Unit Leader
As, former Soviet infantry man, I can tell you why. Because it was Soviet design, as we would say in Soviet Union- design through somebody's ass. The vehicle was made for bringing troops to battle field fast and that is it. It was not made to protect troops for good, just against rifle fire. It was not designed for carrying troops around, no, only to bring troops to the Frontline.
@LibtardsStillCantSilence Me21 I proud of my country.
That description sounds painfully accurate.
Without even watching video and being Russian, who as the kid got the chance to play on the military bases in Russia (my father was "technical" officer in USSR), I can tell you why they are so shitty. - BMPs was designed for swift take over in the nuclear conflict. - That's right. It was designed with really good CBRN protection for the soldiers to jump out and take over for whatever was left after tactical nukes was used to saturate the enemy. Obviously being amphibious is also necessary for that to happen, so you can swiftly bring in the troops across many rivers in Europe. However obviously that came with the huge price of the actual protection. In Russia BMP is called "Bratskaya Mogila Pekhoty" - "Mass grave (of) Infantry". This is why you see BMP dismounts riding on the top of it, since being inside and on the battlefield like in Ukraine, it is guaranteed being nicely cooked, especially with two fuel tanks for the doors in the back.
Just wanted to add, fuel is also a good radiation shield. In the nuclear battlefield if the vehicle got hit all the men were probably dead anyway, so give them better radiation shielding and carry extra fuel because if the BMP got hit survivability was pretty much zero in that environment reguardless
being ouside the vehicle on the move or being inside and kinda protected by armor - an eternal discussion between the professionals in military activities. None of the armored vehicles can provide absolute protection - RPG proven. Even those MRAPs sometimes make me laugh, for they are the absolute embodiment of the term "sitting duck" (i would rather name it "Riding Barn").
Putin might still use tactical nukes, so we unfortunately might see them performing in this environment.
@@rodiculous9464 will never happen due to "mutually assured destruction". Basically the British and French wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Russia firing a nuke at Ukrainian or them. So they would shoot every single nuke they have at Russian. Basically if a single nuke launch is detected every single nuke on the planet will be fired!
Reminds me when I was in a Bradley in a Cav unit. We called the Bradly the aluminum death trap, or the aluminum coffin. However, none of these APCs were meant to take anything larger the. A .50 cal round so these Nick names aren’t always fair.
While in Bosnia in 00-01, we did some ‘crossover’ training with Russian unit in an adjacent sector. It was actually kind of cool. Got to shoot a Dragonov sniper rifle, and PKM and a DShK. Then came the vehicles. My god, those things were absolute crap. In all fairness, it could have been a maintenance issue (sound familiar?) They rode rough and the engines ran terrible. The BTR-80 broke down right at the start, The BRDMs transmission was so weak it could barely make a headway on a dirt road. We did get to see a BMP in action, but the final drive failed in the mud. In addition, none of the vehicles we saw had working intercom for the crew. We asked “How’s the crew going to talk to each other in combat?” The Russians just shrugged. It was some officers problem, not theirs. Don’t get me wrong, if their stuff was properly maintained, they’d give us a run for our money, and the individual Russian soldier is HARD AF, but their equipment and maintenance practices were way below western standards.
you calling russian soldiers in ukraine hard as fuck? lmao
Russia doesn't have a great record of quality vehicles. Remember the Lada? Great firearms though.
They most likely sent their best over.
@@mewanksta11 he talking about their brain )
Russian soldiers are the dirt of their society, pay protection money to the state run mob and are forced into prostitution by their own superiors.
Literally the most cucked army out there.
As a reserve tank Lt in the Cypriot National Guard we used the BMP-3 and is reliable, basicily we absuse them a lot! but you are correct being in the back of that thing makes you feel like a sitting duck. Its scary almost because in a battlefiled you pray to not get hit in the back on that thing and the doors get jammed.
Ive also been in a Bulgarian BMP2 or 1 when I was younger. Sitting there felt cramped even as a 16 yo. And the fuel tank was siting behind your back. Even if the doors dont get jammed and that fuel ignites from whatever shot at it you would be toast.
@@enen1220 Then the BMP-3 is even shorter, puts you back to the ammo, sits you on top of the engine, and shoves your shoulder to the fuel.
Ukraine would be a living minefield if the Ukrainians were ever pushed back past their fallback line. In that situation, I would much prefer riding in a BMP-2 to a BMP-3.
Adding riding in one, is like a marble in a tin can, specially buttonuped, no room to stretch out, fumes, mines, IEDs. That is why you see so many pictures of squad members riding up top. They risk their lives exposed there too. No heaters in Russian armored vehicles, one of the reasons for frost bite. That steel gets pretty cold and Russian vehicles are not known for crew comfort.
@@denniswelch4908 what military vehicles is known for comfort?
I'd not be caught dead in ANY APC, they tend to go boom when hit.
My Dad was an XO of a Mechanized Infantry Battalion in West Germany during the 1970s. He told me after watching this video that NATO was not afraid of Soviet armored vehicles, it was the number of vehicles they would have to face. He is 84 now and remembers taking us older kids to the border of East/West and scaring us with "If anything happens, it is going to be here." Geez, thanks, Dad.
I’ve seen “here”. The Fulda Gap
@@dmpyron2 rgr that. Me and my older brother knew when we drove through the town of Fulda.
1982 to 1985 my unit B co 2/36 INF was near Bad Herschfeld on thefulda gap, we were at a little point called freedom tower. We could piss in East Germany. They told us the tower was already registered with Soviet artillery. My unit had a life expectancy of about 10 minutes.
That is one savvy Dad you have! My Dad told me and my three brothers about being in the 84 Division in the battle of the bulge, where he received numerous medals including the bronz star!
Lesson learned? FREEDOM is NOT FREE. Thanks Dad!
When my two young sons, asked their Grandad if it was fun being in the Army, he replied yes, if you liked to see your friends get their heads blown off !
@@dagger6467 And thats one thing NATO got right, if the soviets were to attack, they would have used the fulda gap
11:15 The reason they might claim such impressive range could be because the BMP can store extra fuel. In it's rear doors. As absurd as it sounds, the bulbous rear doors are actually auxiliary fuel tanks (not connected to the BMP's fuel system, but simply there to transport extra fuel).
Bad news for the crew if a rocket hits from behind.
It's also way lighter than the likes of the Bradley too less weight = more range.
Yeah we all know the crew loads their vodka in those rear doors "tanks".
@@johan.ohgren If a rocket is hitting you from behind you already have big problems.
@@SaturnusDK yes, but why add to it?
BMP is not a tank, it's a tracked support for a mech section. you have an analog for recoiless SPG9 with HEAT and FRAG rounds, ATGM and GPMG. As long as you use it as support, you are fine. If you try to do tanky things with it, you get obliterated.
To be fair that tactic is hit and miss. On one hand it conquered France with training vehicles, meth, and horsecarriages of fuel, on the other Italy.
Lol…tanky! Thank you for your perspective, makes me think about the many aspects of strategy and how the machines fit in
I think BMP3 is a tank already, with a 100mm cannon
True and true. i compare it to the bradley, and still underperforms in every single category and the russians still need it.
It's the purpose it serves. Carry troops, loiter, occasionally provide support fire.
It's not the BMPs fault, it was designed to be bear; the world changed, and now the forest is full of hunters.
Remember when USSR invaded Afghanistan and the US gave talibans a bunch of RPGs. I think we'll think back the same way of America giving NLAWs to the Ukrainians.
I wasnt with it before, but now i think i kinda get it: when people say armor is dead. In war, the balance of power tips the scales; armor is the acceptance of the possibility of failure. Anti-armor munition is a power multiplier. It's so simple, it's stupid.
@@victorradu9645 Wrong!!!
BMP-3 armour is barely capable of stopping .50AP apart from frontally & it's 100mm gun/launcher is inadequate against ANY current model MBT.
Have you ever been inside a BMP ?
If you amputate your head and lower legs, its possible to fit inside.
Fighting from it ?
You are newer hitting anything, but using ammo and despite fume extractors, the space gets filled with toxic fumes.
Even Sardines would think a fully equipped and manned BMP1 is cramped.
That's why russians ride on top.
Nobody rides inside them, there is no mine protection, so ours ride on armor (I'm talking about infantry, not crew).
At most, if you stand on the spot in the attacked column, so that the infantry can also fire, it is useless while driving
It's almost like not building a vehicle for comfort and usability just makes a bad vehicle.
I knew a man who was in the 101st Airborne in the early 1970's. He trained on a BMP which the Airborne unit had obtained by means not discussed. Everybody wanted BMP's. As a battlefield taxi, above all. This of course does not address its adequacy as an infantry support system even then, let alone in the current battlefield. Many powerful systems, even the most modern main battle tanks, are less effective in environments they were not designed for. A tank which is excellent in rapid shock combat may be a sitting duck if you try to use it in "asymmetric" warfare, where your less heavily armed opponents have time to set up a raid or ambush, after observing you extensively to spot patterns and bad habits they can exploit.
In the 70's-80's the BMP was the "must have" every Army needed. The Germans built their Mader and everybody said "I gotta have one". That's the way procurement goes...as a by the way....there's reason the Army doesn't allow Sergeants to "drive" the procurement process...we'd wind up with gar that actually worked.
@@brianfoley4328 Marder*
Indeed
Everyone wants a BMP until their backdoor gets penetraded ...
@@brianfoley4328 Yes, it is much better to have the politicians and bureaucrats driving procurement. That way we wind up with kit whose manufacturers provide jobs to the "right" people and regions.
From what I recall reading. In the Middle East over the past few years, BMPs have had mixed results. The BMP 1s generally get chewed up, the BMP 2s tend to be okay as long as the crew and infantry are good (so not often), but none of them seem to be suitable for long grinding combat.
I'm much more impressed how they can keep an old T-64 running, even while pumping out its own smoke screen.
Because they are not made for this. They are old by now.
BMPs had mixed results in a setting that had RPG-7s at best. Now Russian models of ERA are facing modern weapons and being found wanting. BMP-3s are no more immune. Combine that with the fact any of the BMPs can't outrun an NLAW (even if they weren't all fish in a barrel in muddy, gummed-up convoys) and that's the biggest shocker in terms of performance.
@@LuvBorderCollies that's the engine burning oil
@@denniswelch4908 Yeh I know.
Coaxial machine guns aren't "antiquated". Coaxial machineguns are co-located with the main armament to provide the vehicle with options to engage soft targets and infantry. They're standard on pretty much every turreted AFV.
Don’t Tanks also have Coaxial machine guns too? I presume you want to have at least something fast shooting to not get overwhelmed
@@Predator20357 Yes they do, usually something in 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R.
@@Predator20357 Usually yeah, they do.
I know the Warrior AFV has Coaxial Machine Gun. Fairly sure the Challenger 2 MBT has the same if memory serves me correctly Don't know about the Challenger 3 which is just been rolled out to some units
@@Predator20357 Yeah. That's because you don't want to lob a main gun round at a group of spread-out infantry, whereas a coaxial MG is purpose built for suppressing infantry.
I was in the Army around the time the BMP came out. We were still running around in M114's and M113's. So it looked really impressive. Then we got the Bradley. 😁
Ah yes, the vehicle so badly designed they made a feature-length documentary about the design process.
@@noyb7920 The Pentagon Wars isn't a documentary. The TH-cam channel lazerpig did a video debunking the myth about how bad the Bradley was.
@@noyb7920 You are incredibly ignorant about IFVs if you think the Bradley is badly designed. Get your information from soldiers who actually served on these vehicles, not Hollywood.
I was a Bradley gunner during desert storm and the 2nd invasion. Well I was TC by then. I was a cav scout with 2ACR. I shot the hell out of the BMP. They don't stand a chance against the Bradley. I also smoked 3 T72 and 2 T64 with the TOW2. Russian equipment is poorly designed. Cant reload when the turret is traversing and the gun has to detent to reload and the turrets are to low and struggle to engage anything on a lower grade. The autoloaders in the tanks suck too. They can't find other targets because the turrets have to sit still for the loader to work properly. Otherwise it will jam. The crews have no room to work in get fatigued very quick. I think tankers in the russian army can't be taller than 5-7" any taller they cant fit. The bmp caught fire easily and the infantry inside is basically sitting on the fuel tanks. Maybe some of this has been corrected since 2006 which was my last go in iraq. But between desert storm and the 2nd invasion they made no changes. Russians are conscripts and commie governments see people as nothing more than a gear in the machine and don't give a shit about their men.
@@noyb7920 I spent 16 years operating the Bradley and whoever told u it was poorly designed is a fool, liar, and never operated one. During desert storm we killed more armoured vehicles in our Bradley's than the Abrams. And I destroyed multiple BMP and several tanks including T72. Bradley is an outstanding weapon system and once we got the M3A3 with the new armour the machine was a beast. With the new armour and era the Bradley can handle RPG hits. Especially in the frontal arc and can handle 30mm AP of all variants but the distance is classified. At least when I was in it was classified. But the Bradley not being a good system is bull shit. And it was politics that caused that rumor and politicians that think an IFV is a tank and expected the Bradley to perform like a tank. Most politicians don't serve in the military and have no clue what they are talking about. And the same can be said about all the experts on the internet. They know everything about everything and their experience is call of duty and battlefield. True experts lmao
Did some liaison work with the Kuwaiti Army in the late 90's. They had all three models- but I can only speak to the tech they had some 25 years ago.
In general, the crews and commands really liked the BMP-1 and BMP-2. Especially the BMP-2.
Very reliable, could go anywhere, fast... at least in Kuwait's terrain. (oh, yes, and they did maintain their vehicles).
They really loved that the BMP-2 had so much elevation on the turret weaponry, not just because you could potentially engage copters, but mostly so you could super elevate in case of cook-offs due to heat which is pretty common in the Kuwaiti desert. [safety wasn't a big thing with them at the time, so this was the limit of safety that they did to not shoot their friends while in convoy]
Their dismounts did everything they could to NOT be in the back of those things. Tiny little tubes of sweating grunts jammed in like a sausage tubing... now add the heat of the Kuwaiti desert.
The BMP-3 was "special". At the time, they had early models with massive teething problems. The most glaring one is the extractor on the 100mm didn't work. So after firing the 100mm, the driver or commander had to exit, walk out on the deck, and use a ramrod down the barrel to push the casing out of the breech. Pretty hilarious. BMP-3 crews preferred the BMP-2.
That is indeed an interesting procedure of reloading a modern cannon. ^_^ It makes the whole concept of single-action a grand new perspective.
more of a muzzle unloader single shot
I don't know if I know terminology, but what turret elevation has with cook offs?
Coaxial machine guns aren't "welded" to the vehicle, they aren't "antiquated" as almost every armored vehicle with a turret, both the east and the west, has one, and at least on tanks, its one of the more heavily utilized weapon systems.
Yes, look at the M2 .50 browning mounted coaxially in the M1 tank. The M1 fire control system makes the 100 year old M2 a frighteningly accurate machine gun at range.
Now Remotely Controlled Weapon Stations are all at rage.
Yup you're gonna want one if you're mainly dealing with fleshy squishy meatbags using a HE is just too overkill usually
@@kdrapertrucker 50 Cal? I may be wrong but M240 would be more likely or another 7.62MG
@@kdrapertrucker The Abrams have a m240 7.62 gun coaxial..
The BMP isn't a tank. It was an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that has been adapted into other roles, much like our Bradley which had variants.
I was trying to do a literal translation of BMP and it literally translates to IFV lol.
Boyevaya (Fighting) Mashina (Vehicle) Pekhoty (of Infantry)
.. it's a BBQ
@@theyers much like the fisrt APC's used in vietnam were
@@umenhuman7573 You mean the M-113s.
@@quanganhvu6791 While literally correct that sure is a clumsy mouthful in English.
The great thing about the BMP 3 is the armor on the top of the hull. It is aluminum. So when a BMP 3 burns after being hit with a missile, the top completely burns away. This makes the dead hulk lighter so that it can be hauled away to the scrap yard easier.
Technically it just melts, it's really hard to ignite aluminum if it's not powdered. And the aluminum is the most valuable part, so it's extra effort to pick the melted aluminum out of the dirt.
When you use aluminum instead of steal palte, you have less weight but more armor protection....
@@galicije83 what
The other great thing is that Bradley uses aluminium as well
So does the british Warrior and the italian Dardo
What's with the face, David?
@@ГеоргийМурзич yeah... but the Warrior is an awesome bit of kit
Every time you call an IFV a tank it physically hurts
He wants to reach a larger civilian audience. Most dont know whats an IFV
What’s the difference besides having a big gun?
@@j_tha_panther the objective
It all comes down to training and maintenance. Yes, the BMP does have some short comings, but ultimately training your units and maintaining your vehicles will eliminate 80% of your problems.
While not training or maintaining will eliminate 80% of your vehicles...
Doctrine has a lot to do with it too. I would say that the poor performance in Ukraine is a perfect storm of poor training, no money, inadequate maintenance, doctrine, poor leadership, lack of motivation, bad logistics, etc....
That's where the issue comes with Russia. They can't maintain their equipment and when they conducted training a few months back, one unit commander sold all the fuel provided for his unit to train with and he pocketed the money.
Russian military is ass
@@nonamesplease6288 the Sun-Tzu has several questions about who would win. One of the most cryptic answers is "The king who has the Tao will win" Tao is translated by "the way" in the book I have. I feel this should be interpreted as "the king who is right". Like: Putin lied to the world about not attacking, and now the world is against him. He lied to his troops, and now they are mentally not ready. He never really opposed corruption, rather nurtured it, and now his tanks lack maintenance, updated radio's, new IR scanners, sometimes ERA is paid for but only bags filled with cardboard are installed....
I can just imagine a guy checking a unit, and reporting "twenty tanks and fourty trucks" without noticing the absent items. Any idiot, me included, can tell a tank from a truck, but it takes an expert to tell if a radio is the latest type, and he has to get inside each tank to see it, and how to tell real ERA from fake?
This video is full of misinformation. Starting with the fact that BMP-2M and BMP-3 have thermal sights and no BMP has ERA. To the little fact that Ukraine and DPR + LPR use BMP's too (especially older BMP-1's and BMP-2's)! ERA works perfectly against Javelins, especially since Javelin does not have a tandem charge. Though ERA blocks are more rare on roofs of tanks, but the fact remains Javelin needs perfect center mass (penetrating) hit on order to take out a Russian or Soviet tank. There are videos of Russian tank getting hit by like 3 Javelins and only the 3rd hit blew it up, just as the crew jumped out before the 3rd hit. Also there are now Russian tankers reporting that they were able to continue fighting after being hit by a Javelin. Considering that these are extremely expensive anti-tank weapons, they really have not paid off for Ukraine (neither have their drones after the initial week of the war before most were shot down).
As a former Bradley guy I never feared the BMP. I knew that most of the BMPs armor was only 14 mm and 8 mm on the top, so you could shoot through it with a 50 Cal. The increased armor on the BMP two was only in the turret and the turret it is a very small space on the IFV. I always saw it as a death machine for its own crew. There were BMPs with the Iraqi army sharing the joint security station with us and I would not be caught dead in one of those outside the wire if they asked me to. It had fuel filled doors!!!
The Brad ain't really known for its bullet stopping ability.. That 30mm will punch right through it.. and don't even get me started about the ramp on the Brad..
I had the honor of taking the swim barriers off in 96..
It doesn’t really matter, BMPs will shoot right through any bradley too. The doors were more like auxiliary fuel tanks that according to the Russians should be drained before entering combat, although people seems to ignore that
A tank can destroy a bradley
@@eliasziad7864 Thanks, captain obvious.
@@rogerthat4545 No problem, aki.
I have said it before, and I will now say it again here: The issue is not the age of the BMP, the issue is the tactics. At the end of the day, if even the most modern tanks were impacted by the most modern ATGM-systems, they'd fair no better.
your exactly right. Russia has the gear but for some reason basic tactics are missing. Maybe it is the lack of full timers or careerists that study and practice warfare. They fill the ranks with draftees and mercenaries ,,neither of which learns life long lessons never mind fully learning air land battle. America went with pros after Vietnam and it has made a difference making us one of the best forces. It is a profession with skilled intelligent people who have a lifetime of developed skills backed with desire to be the best ...America is blessed in this....really is our greatest resource....our soldiers
@@ronj4994 Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Finland, Switzerland, Estonia, Austria, Singapore have conscription though but the training is Western but these militaries are defensive most of the time hence the large reserve pool.
@@Joshua_N-A I wouldn’t exactly say that Israel is defensive
@@Joshua_N-A yes conscripts in defensive operations usually preform well plus a man defending his home fights harder than one far away from it usually, its just when you use them for massed offensive operations that isn't filling in gaps or as reserve and backline troops that they start to fall apart
I wasn't aware that anyone considered co ax machine guns to be obsolete. They're not just welded to the turret, they point where the main gun points. What you have is a machine gun using the same fire control system as the main gun with an (almost) unlimited amount of ammo. They are devastating at ranges well beyond what an infantry deployed mg mounted on a bipod is.
They aren't obsolete. Idiots simply like to pretend it is.
Given they're standard on all MBTs... I think this was a flub tbh.
Most MBTs now have separate sights (including thermal etc) for their MGs. In addition, the concept of using the coaxial MG as a ranging aid for the main gun is outdated.
Ya, the idea was originally to have the coaxial gun be used for ranging. That was before Lazer range finders which basically make them irrelevant.
@@thefreeaccount0 The coaxial gun wasn't a welded on gun. It's called a coaxial because it sits besides and is parallel to the main gun's axis of fire and usually setup so that it coincides directly in the path of the main gun. Using the gun as a sighting/ranging aid was an old WWII early post WWII down and dirty ranging trick some crews of the old British and few U.S. tanks used. The primary purpose of the coax is conserving main gun ammunition and engaging dismounted infantry. Why waste an HE or HEAT round on a singular poor soul who found themselves in front of your cross-hairs by themselves? Your main gun rounds are more useful flushing infantry out of dug in positions and cover or engaging other hardened targets.
The remote guns you're thinking of on most MBTs are traditionally the tank commander's station. This allows the tank commander to engage infantry independently of the gunner with one of the roof MGs instead of having the gunner have to turn the turret and use the coax. Many tanks also have another gun for the loader if they have a loader like the Abrams. Although it's usually not remotely operated.
Just a quick note on Russian usage of the 'term' reliability. It's completely different to western/nato usage. To Russia means the ease of repair and the ability for non-mechanics to repair maintenance issues easily and quickly.
So when you see these 600+ mile claims it doesn't mean they wouldn't stop for repairs, just there would be no major maintenance needed and within that mileage the the crew would be able to deal with any issues easily and quickly.
Why am I getting flashbacks of that one scene in Armageddon? "That's how we repair in Russia!"…🤪
@@Smaxx *Smack the computer*
@@Smaxx that voice is still in my head
Ok Daniel Bray 🤨
Source
1: Coax guns are still standart today. They arent simply welded to the turret but linked to the traverse mechanism that lays the gun on target. The most modern verison of the Abrams still uses it as do modern IFVs like Puma.
2: The BMP2 in its original form is old and limited in its fighting capabilitys for todays standarts, it however has a stabilizer. There is also an Upgrade Program in place for them adding the "Berezhok" Module to the vehicles, basicly a drastic overhaul of the turret, its components and weaponsystems, adding thermal sights, Automatic target track functions and state of the art missiles.
The only BMP version that doesnt have stabs is the BMP1 and those are suposed to either be upgraded with new turrets(incorporating stabilizers) or pulled from frontline troops in Russian service.
Again, BMP2 and 3 have stabilizers, BMP3 has laser rangefinders instaled for accurate targeting. Both variants exist in modernized form with imrpoved optics and weapon systems. BMP1 exists in improved form with a new turret incorporating similar upgrades of the other vehicles upgrades.
3: in Service there is only one Sub Variant of the BMP3 that actualy utilizes ERA, the vast majority of BMP3 dont. BMP1 and 2 dont have ERA as an option at all.
3.5: Javelin wouldnt be greatly affected by ERA.
Yeah none of that s*** would work on the javelin that thing is a monster from the abyss of hell. I don't think I've seen any of the Soviet equipment that could stand up to a direct hit from a javelin even their tanks.
@@jasonthomas9596 DONT U THINK THATS THE ANSWER FOR UR QUESTION WE ARE SEEING WHAT UKRAINE AND RUSSAI WANTS US TO SEE JUST LIKE CHIFTAN SAID ,I PERSONLY HAVNT SEEN ANY RAW FOOTAGE OF THOSE INCEDINTS SO DONT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OUT OF THIN AIR
+ BMP-1 does not have an AP round. (it's HEAT)
@@jasonthomas9596 I don't think any other than vehicles equipped with APS can deal with Javelins, they are simply too powerful
@@jasonthomas9596 In direct Fire their modern tanks have a chance, the Mix of Relikt/Kontakt5 and the thick base armor can do the trick, ERA alone cant do shit. In top down its generaly game over if it doesnt hit the composite(towards the front of the turret) The Composite has a chance to nullify it if it strikes towards the turret front. the Jav aims center mass of a vehicle so if its a bit off it can miss the center of the turret, impact the engine or composite of the hull/turret.
Big issue with Javelin is, in Top Down mode it basicly halves the effective range of the missile
One has to appreciate the breakthrough in doctrine BMP delivered to mechanised units. It was for the first time infantry was carried into the battle in a vehicle that could support squad with rapid-fire 76mm gun, ATGM , and provided full NBC protection, when needed. NATO forces were using .50 cal-armed M113 when this thing showed up.
The Bundeswehr had an IFV in the early '60s. The BMP was a COPY of the German design's intent. Both were based on their experiences in WW2. Panzergrenadiers would use SPWs (when they had them) as weapons platforms on the advance or withdrawal. This gave their troops some armor protection. The Red Army saw this and on occasion used the Lend Lease M2/M3s in the same way.
The cannon of a bmp-2 does have a stabilization to make it possible to shoot on the move. I was a gunner on a bmp-2.
Yes. He said it didn't, but you could see in the video clips that it definitely is stabilized.
BMP-1 with the 2A38 is unstabilized the BMP-2 with the 2A42 is stabilized, i don’t know a single BMP-2 not having a stabilized autocannon besides a foreign nation gutting theirs like they did with the Asad Babil T-72’s
This video is really poor.
@@dylanmilne6683 Yeah this guy clearly did no research, he's just tying to use the russian invasion of ukraine to get views with this poorly researched trash video.
@@StromBugSlayer The guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Coaxial MGs are not outdated though! They're a very important firepower aspect in every AFV, even in the heaviest and most modern MBTs.
Yeah, I'm not sure where he came up with that. Coaxials are vital for gunner engagement of targets not requiring main gun use.
I was gonna say if its so "outdated" then why is this something we have seen all the way back to ww2? you think if that was the case they would have learned then that it "wasn't worth it" back then
@@PerfectTangent Well, he was infantry. There is no reason to assume that he's any more an expert on armored fighting vehicles than anyone else on TH-cam.
They're so "antiquated" that the US Army hasn't taken them off the Abrams.
It also doesn't mean welded to the turret, it means elevates and depresses with the main gun instead of independently. I think he was trolling for comments.
You forgot to mention that the back doors of the BMP-1 & 2 are fuel tanks. If the vehicle is hit from the rear, the exit will be on fire.
BINGO... was waiting for this comment. Hence, the reason you see BMP's infantry dismounts riding on the top of vehicle instead of inside. No one wants to get fried if the fuel tanks take a hit.
If it is hit on the rear. It would not matter
Nope. They are auxiliary fuel tanks. Not fueled in combat, only for admin movements.
If you were using them in the manner they had been designed for, being shot in the doors (which contained diesel so not as flammable as petrol) was a fairly low risk.
Not really diesel is hard to ignite, liquid in the doors also rise ballistic protection
Coaxial machine guns had a specific purpose. The ballistics of their bullets very were similar to that of the larger gun. Thus a few grounds could be firing from the MG and when they were hitting the target, the larger gun would be fired and hit the same spot. Simple but fast and effective, especially at close range
My take on the apparent high loss rate of the BMP has more to do with the way it’s being used. Not that it’s a piece of junk. The Ukrainian army and forces are extremely familiar with these vehicles, and they know what their strengths and weaknesses are. They are responding accordingly. It also helps a whole bunch if the opposing guys can lay their hands on weapons which can effectively punch holes in the BMPs. If your going after a BMP, your weapon of choice is probably not going to a small 22 caliber varmint shooting gun. It’s going to be something with quite a bit more of a kick and punch to it. And that’s what they are using.
Basically anything other than small arms can go right through the armor, even heavy machine guns can go through the side armor on a BMP. With a battlefield littered with single shot disposable anti tank weapons like AT4s, NLAWs, and some RPG models, not even accounting for weapons systems that can be used repeatedly like RPG 7s, hell even HEDP grenades from underbarrel grenade launchers, it seems like every other infantrymen has a weapon that can punch straight through the armor so careful positioning is key to avoid vehicles getting knocked out
I mean a 7.62 MG can reliably shoot through the sides if it's square on (obviously using steel core AP not jacketed lead)
A humvee with .50 cal can eff up BMP 1 and 2 with ease either to the front or sides. - Of course that can work the other way around too, but BMP's armor is extremely thin since it was designed for being amphibious. Underbelly is especially thin and you could see it in one of the videos, where Ukrainian forces are using the skipping ricochet tactic by shooting at the ground in front of Russian BMPs and into its belly.
I never thought of that! Of course, the ukrainian army knows exactly what they are against and what weaknesess thw Russian equipment has! That is a huge advantage an maybe the worst enemy you could have in such a war.
@@Caliell ricochets may work because they are then hitting the armor square on instead of at an angle, I didn't know that was a thing. But just firing head on at a BMP with a .50 dosent work because the angle of the armor increases the relative thickness enough to stop those rounds. And besides just amphibious, the BMP was designed for the nuclear battlefield, where any penetration meant everyone inside was dead anyway, so the Soviets also opted for speed. Better to minimize exposure and cross open ground quickly than have too much armor that won't stop tank shells or ATGMs anyway
Worth noting that BMP1 and BMP2 are both highly vulnerable to 40mm HEDP grenades, as well as HMGs like the 12.7mm M2 from the side.
That's a *lot* less armor than I think a lot of people would give them credit for at a glance.
Well yeah very few IFV's, APC's, AFV's, IMV's and what ever else armoured vehicles are resistant to 12.7mm munitions especially not the AP ammo.
And with how common those weapons are getting i have to say I would prefer walking if ever pulled into a near peer fight.
They are rolling coffins at that point.
Especially now when the largest auto cannons is the 50mm and i think a 75mm version is coming out to. Give it a few years and you can just scrap most of the fleets of light armour unless good upgrade options become available for their protection.
Ukraine forces are using Javelins less and cheaper anti-armor more. They discovered a T-72 will be toast after 3 RPG hits unless it has additional armor added to it. Javelins are saved for the newer tank versions. With all the equipment flowing into Ukr they can pick & choose the weapon to use.
One interesting development is disabling a track or a tire is enough to stop the vehicle and the column. The Russians don't like sitting in a disabled vehicle because they become rocket magnets, so the Russians bail out and run. Not making fun of them because they know they'll be dead if they stick around.
Yesterday I saw a video of an open backed truck carrying a load of Russians. Looked straight out of WW2. They got caught in an ambush.
@@kenji214245 That's why the U.S. went with better optics and sensors on the Bradley. The original goal was to keep them as far away as possible and use their superior optics to target and engage at ridiculous ranges with their missiles and use their guns for infantry. Someone decades ago realized that trying to stack armor on an IFV was a losing game so they instead went with ensuring first-strike ability with better viewing ability and the sensors to back it up rather than relying purely on armor that isn't the greatest against even the upper end of small arms.
@@Talishar Well, Germans with Marder 2 and it's post Cold War off shoot Puma kindly disagree.
I understand the BMP 1 use significant quantities of magnesium in its armour so readily burned. I assume latter models had better quality armour. The M-113 was vulnerable to fire too. But it was not intended for anything more than protection from artillery. I can’t imagine the BMP 1 doing well as an IFV.
BMP-2s under Executive Outcomes captured the whole of North Eastern Angola in 1994 almost single-handedly. But the crews were led by extremely proficient soldiers of the former SADF who could practice mechanized warfare drills in their sleep so that helps…
It’s not the tool but how you use it. Remember when Chad beat Libya’s mechanized army with tribesmen in Toyota Hiluxes?
@@mechadonia they had a bit of help from France but Libya had a terrible military
@@paulmaartin
yeah but they only won because of strategy. Despite Libya being shit Chad would have been destroyed in a head on assault.
Their light trucks meant they could drive over mines as long as they went over 100km/h. So they were able to pierce the front lines and attack the Libyans from the rear under the cover of night. Libyans thought they were reinforcements till it was too late. Low visibility and the high speed of the assault made it hard for ground forces to counter and difficult for air to blow up the trucks.
Proper use of strategy and playing to the strengths of your equipment no matter how “bad” is almost more important than the equipment itself. Good equipment used improperly will always lose agains poor equipment used effectively.
@@mechadonia exactly. That's why I never understand why people make a fuss about rifles etc. Imo as long as it does the job ie shoots straight and reliably that's enough. A million rails and sights won't make a substantial difference compared to support weapons and training which is what should be relied on. SOF is different
@@uraninite8151 One of my favorite memes is a guy stating that the AR is more accurate than the AK, to which the response was, "Yeah, but are YOU accurate enough for that to matter?" Angry NPC face afterwards.
In practice, at least the BMP1s that I got to use in exercises had:
1. Essentially no way for the crew to dismount from behind. (Only the troops carried could do so.)
2. No practical way to operate the gun.
3. Narrow ports, meaning that dismounting for the crew happened without their equipment.
4. Dangerous, fuel filled, back doors.
5. A nose that would dive in every ditch, jarring the troops carried, that remained unaware unless the crew warned constantly.
ad 4 - Back doors werent filled by fuel. It was a additional fuel tank and never used in this way. In combat those tanks should be filled with sand as armour, but in fact crews were just making wine inside them.
When I was an M-113 driver in the late 70's in West Germany, I would not have wanted to go up against one of them, as all mine had was a .50. I was also the Dragon Gunner, which meant I had to park, dismount, set up, shoot, get back inside, and scoot. They had an advantage then for sure.
well you are an APC crew man going up against armed IFVs in direct fire means something has went terribly wrong.
That's why we had thousands of nukes in those days--to take out the BMP's before they could reach the M113's!
Times have changed… I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near an armored vehicle on today’s battlefield, it’s become Patton’s monument to stupidity… Technology makes it all obsolete… And the Ukrainians don’t have any modern tech… The current tactical situation is unmanned and or stupidity fast… The Russians are still using radios with 50s technology for peats sake… They stood zero chance against even Raytheon’s obsolete gear… It makes me wonder why we spent so much on ultra advanced gear, seems (no pun intended) dramatic overkill…
@@robertw1871 Lmao russians are not even using proper combined armed tactics for them they are practicing restraint. If you lack knowledge on modren weapons and use frankly propaganda and special case sinarios as proof then dont talk about it.
@@arhumzia6360 Restraint? Yeah sure bud… If that’s what we are calling it… Not even being able to stop to collect your dead is a high form of restraint… They were using combined arms, it was getting them killed, now they cowardly resort to standoff siege bombardment of civilian targets, while getting flanked and overrun… Because they are using “restraint”…. It’s never wise to practice “restraint” on another man’s home… I suspect just like you their ignorance is why this happened, and I think that’s a damn good thing for the free world….
from my experience (Military service in 1996) the inline-MG is very important for communication. You use 30% tracer ammo and with this can point your dismounted infantry "there is the problem".
@Mike Devos great story.,
The main problems with the BMP-1 and 2s are more related to the Russian tactics rather than the vehicles themselves. The Greek army took delivery of few hundred Germanized BMP-1s in the '90s, from ex East German stocks and they were used until few years ago with out problems. I have been inside a BMP-3 in a defense exhibition in Greece around 2008. The thing is not designed to dismount troops, but rather to have troops fight from inside the vehicle with all the disadvantages this has. The armor gave protection against 30mm rounds from 500m, over a 60 deg. frontal ark and up to .50 cal from 20m all around. The fire control was good and if you overlook the fact that there are 22 rounds for the 100mm gun around the turret basket, the ergonomics of the vehicle were terrible. The Driver was in the middle with two machine gunners to his left and right. However these two soldiers could not leave the vehicle from the back because of the turret's basket size behind them and their only way in and out of the vehicle were their hatches. The turret had two seats for the commander and the gunner. The troop compartment was behind the turret with two of the seats facing inwards and five seats in line facing forward. For these troops to leave the vehicle two of the five seats had to e folded up and two small ladders had to be used to get over the engine compartment. Then two top side opening hatches had to be opened and the troops would have to run over the engine compartment (covered by the turret and the side hatches) to the rear of the BMP-3 and open two rear opening doors for everybody to jump off the vehicle from a height of about 4 feet. I didn't see how they could get back inside if the vehicle was not totally stopped. The latest version of the BMP-3 called DRAGOON, corrected this problem by moving the engine to the front and eliminating the two cramped machine gunner positions on each side of the driver. This made it easier for the troops to move in and out of the vehicle from a ramp, however as far as I know this was only a prototype. It might be possible that the Kurganets 25 is based on this vehicle design.
Currently the Russian IFV turrets are going to be standardized with only a 30mm gun and 4 Kornet missiles. There is also an air defense / fire support version of the BMP-3 with a remote controlled 57mm automatic gun and 220 rounds.
th-cam.com/video/Bb11zZhiIko/w-d-xo.html
Thanks.. very insightful 👍
Someone get this man a beer... It’s so f**king refreshing to read a comment from someone who’s actually well informed, well written and intelligent.
I’m going to walk away from TH-cam now. I don’t want to read a moronic comment after reading this perfect one because it will put me in a terrible mood. Right now I feel like I’m floating around in the clouds on a breezy spring morning day. It’s so perfect I might just tear up.
Gd bless you 🍻
@@alexandertaves2730 I agree with you..
You are right about armor of BMP-3. But the armor of BMP-1 and 2 is weaker. It can protect only against bullets (and I am not sure about .50cal). BMP-2 is the most common heavy APC in Russinan army.
@@СвинкаСкреппа This is why the BMP-3 was made, so that shortcomings of the previous designs could be corrected. In my opinion, the Dragoon version was a very good evolution of the BMP-3. BMP-1s earned a bad reputation in Afghanistan, specially because they had fuel tanks incorporated in the rear doors. It turned out to be a bad choice for the troops inside.
The concept of a tracked, armored, marine troop carrier was first realized in WW2 by America's LVT-"Alligator" which brought troops to shore and into cover while it covered them. It was designed primarily to transport marines ashore in amphibious landings. The concept of the BMP is more of a troop transport across land terrains, but the concept came in the Pacific War against the Empire of Japan.
Sorry, arguably the first A (armoured) PC was developed by Canadians removing the turrets from Priests, M3, M5's, Shermans and Rams and driving them straight into battle with M2's mounted on hull carrying 8 -12 troops with their heads down. The Alligator was never intended to be an APC but rather a marine landing and resupply vehicle. They were so unsuitable for land warfare they were withdrawn from service in 45. Research the "Kangaroos", named after a marsupial that carries it's baby in a pouch.
@@brustar5152 actually, the first tracked APCs were in WW1, and were British Mark IXs.
That's what I was going to comment! You beat me to it. lol
@@brustar5152 That's just a tank converted to an open air battle taxi to ride on top of. They wouldn't qualify as an APC because they don't have an armored internal troop carriage space. Otherwise any vehicle is an APC if troops can pile on top them, which would be nearly every tank since that was done widely back in the day(and it's still done in many places with tanks). An APC by definition has an armored carrying area inside the vehicle, (sometimes) with light armament for basic fire support or suppressive fire while the troops dismount.
Even if the alligator had its shortcomings and failure points, it was still (admittedly lightly) armored and carried troops to the battle, and therefore - in my opinion - qualified as the first genuine APC. Though some of the German halftracks and their predecessors technically might also count, so I'd need to dig through some research to determine which one came absolutely first.
I think the BMP-3 would perform a lot better if they weren't using it in the worst possible terrain (Ukraine mud season. Makes the Normandy Bocage seem like kindergarten). If you can't go offroad you can't effectively use your firepower as a means of defense (because ideally you should maneuver so that new threats can only appear from one angle, and that angle is covered by your main gun).
Soviet vehicles where supused to be effective in snow and mud seasons, that's how they beared Hitler in WW2. Russian vehicles are smaller, lighter and with weirder chains and tires than west counter parts. I think the bad performance has more to do with corruption in the military command, terrible logistics and old outdated tactics compared with NATO standar tactics followed by Ukraine's army (Ukraine has been getting trained by US, UK and Canadian instructors for the last 8 years)
Thank God they didn't invade in the winter when the ground was frozen
Makes you wonder why Putin chose the start of March to launch the operation. Nobody seems to get this, in terms of a lightning war that's the absolute worst time to go. But if you expected the operation to take months, then you'd want to start before the campaign season to get the most out of the summer.
@@samoldfield5220 Delays, dealing with riots in a friendly neighboring country, then waiting for Beijing winter olympics to end as to not overshadow the event China spent billions on.
@@MrPoogly OR, they calculated it would take about 6 months to achieve their goals against an uncooperative Zalensky and stiff resistance. Which means they expect to wrap this up in late August/early September, and not in 2 days like the idiots on TV say.
The weirdest thing about the public conversation in the english speaking world hate is supposed to be for the enlisted while the educated take a more stoic view. Yet college educated journalists seem to think Russia is run by actual retards, while every vet I've spoken to is tying to see everything from all angles. The reason the Reddit batallions are so hilariously bad at war is because actual veterans do not see team Ukraine as anything worth fighting for.
The BMP was originally designed for atomic warfare.
The boys were expected to be protected while tracking through devastated Europe that had no viable bridges.
The gun ports were a morale boosting feature. The exhaust gases from AKs proved that they could not be used.
BTW, the stink inside a BMP in warm weather is epic. The Soviets even had to limit the height of their BMP troops -- it's that tight inside.
No-one could jump out the rear properly geared-up, either. (absolutely no back-packs)
This was deemed okay, as dismounting was a last resort for BMP troops.
A machine designed for atomic warfare, rapid advance, is today largely dead meat, roasted by Smart ATGMs. There is no cure.
The Ukrainians are keeping theirs as taxis. They are still very handy for getting across rivers and lakes.
No one does not need a dash.
I'd agree with that. I have no military experience, but I think if I was handed out an IFV with 4 different weapon systems and NBC and amphibious capabilities and an auto-loader, I'd wonder what the hell I'm supposed to do with it. Ford a river, losing 10-20% of our vehicles to malfunctions, before offroading to death at 70 kmh in a paper-thin metal coffin, while the MBTs and fuel trucks stay behind because the bridge is broken? I just don't get how half of this stuff is supposed to be more useful in an actual combat scenario than proper armor and room for your infantry to do mechanized infantry things. Like dismounting with your equipment (It's crazy that soldiers even accept to get in metal cans they can't bail out of with all their stuff in 30s...).
Also, something the video didn't mention... Does the 100mm gun on the BMP 3 means it's back to having terrible elevation?
@@Clebardman In many ways, the BMP series chased German WWII designs for their recon troops. (panzer divisions, elite panzer-grenadier divisions.)
These were elites above the rest -- and at first started out with mere motorcycles. (!) Then mark II panzers were added, with early half-tracks. When, and as available, full-on proper recon machines were employed.
(There were never enough of these expensive beasts -- though they are commonly found from news reel footage of the time.)
Since mark II panzers were too slow, it was not long before dedicated rubber-tired fighting machines were ginned up. As time passed, these babies were systematically up-gunned -- to the point of impracticality. (75mm PAK)
It's of the latter character that the BMP-3 seems. The Russians seemed to have aped the Germans in up-gunning their machines -- while being unable to drop anything. Heh.
You just have to figure that BMP-3s don't do anything well. Worse, the cabin size has not grown to match the growth of Russian conscripts. They're getting bigger every year.
This aspect is so pronounced in Red China that Beijing gave up on its old tanks. The big kids couldn't fit inside anymore. Heh.
(Troop size explains why American tanks have been so big for decades.)
This kind of crazy over-engineering is seen in American war machines all the time. One is reminded of street musicians that try to play too many instruments at the same time.
Our army still uses the BMP-1 and I just happen to ride a lot in it (MOS Rifleman and no I am not Russian or Ukrainian) and I absolutely hate it. Everything about it! I would trade all of them we have for a single Bradley.
It's old Russian junk. In fact everything Russian made I have begun to hate. Rugged? Mass produced? It's JUNK! Total trash! US made stuff is light years away and I prefer them. Oh and screw the Ak 47. BuT MUh ReLiaBilIty! Screw that, I wish we had the M4+Acog, I would take care of it and it will take care of me and be laser-accurate, unlike the old trash AK we use currently. It's a disgrace to call ourselves members of NATO with such soviet trash in service.
@@aroperator3998 heh exept good old ak will actaully work more likely better than the m4 and the acog well they have hap it of frying after 3+ mags so yeah thanks that fried agoc then you dont have even iron sights
While stationed in fulda from 86-90 I spent my fair share of time in Graf and had an opportunity to see russian crap brought back from their afghan war. Didn't see any BMPs but did see a few tanks and being a mechanic I inspected the engine, and found out they welded the valve covers on when gaskets leaked because they apparently had a piss poor supply availability. With the decline of their economy now I am sure they will be right back where they were back then, out of luck and out of spare parts. But then again that might already be that way now considering they are abandoning equipment left and right due to breakdowns.
I was going to say..."I am sure they will be right back where they were back then"? Pretty sure they were "back there" PRIOR to the Ukraine invasion!
I'm impressed how fast the Ukrainians have evolved their tactics against Russian columns or individual vehicles. Now they try to disable one track or a front tire. The vehicles can't leave the road, they can't back up, so the crews and troops jump out and run for cover. From what I've seen Ukraine is as flat as North Dakota. You'd feel naked out there with no real cover for miles.
Any rate, the Ukr folks learned to not blast vehicles to pieces unless they need to. One said the Russians are our best supplier right now. Videos of them of them salvaging wrecks look like kids on an Easter egg hunt.
Welding valve covers is amazingly retarded. As a jet mech that speaks volumes. Wow....
from what i recall, earlier soviet design criteria centred around the ability to mass produce the entire vehicle rapidly, which also led to an operational doctrine based on rapid repair in the field and less reliance on replacement of parts... that was a doctrine created out of the necessities of ww2, which was a time when the soviet union was far more economically independant from the west and All manufacturing had been shifted to the far east
so, rather than replace personel and equipment at the unit level as losses were taken, they just created new formations with new personel and new equipment ,.. (note that "new" also meant salvagable equipment and personel from previously "extinguished" formations)
the reason the US adopted a greater reliance on parts supply and required more attention to maintenance is because they didnt place any emphasis on the potential to lose their manufacturing capacity... and although they had mass production, it was more expedient/effuicient for them to transport a ship full of various parts, than completed tanks , so they relied on recovery teams and then refitted their equipment with parts in europe...
its easier to see/understand how the slight distinctions between US and soviets played a role in post war doctrine when you look at the germans manufacturing techniques and the supply issues they faced, in fact they were so over impressed with their capabilities and technical prowess, they ignored placing an emphasis on rapid manufacturing as both soviet and US / UK did
the degree of technical skill required in the germans design criteria in the early years of the war was eventually changed after the germans suffered heavy losses in the east, to the point they drafted most of their highly skilled workers onto the front line
in regards to afghanistan, it was invaded for multiple reasons, one of those was to use it as a training ground and as a means of testing different doctrines/equipment in "real world conditions" (part of what the soviets called a "simulation") ... the US did the same, but had the advantage of all the soviet experience
as they say, the easrly bird might get the worm but its the second mouse that gets the cheese ;)
@@umenhuman7573 produce in mass, attack in mass worked in the past. Technology has changed the parameters and Russia stuck with the old ways because they could not fully improve their economy post ussr collapse. I will admit that on the surface Putin gave the country a positive outlook when he won his presidency, but he has hidden the flaws in his promises. And as oligarchs got richer Putin wanted a bigger slice of the pie, but sadly for himself and not for his country. He started as an elected and will end as a dictator and the only end to this fiasco will come from within Russia or we face another protracted Cold War that will isolate Russia again.
2:05 It dont think its a coincide that West Germany developed the first IFV. Afaik the German Army in WWII used their halftracks already a lot like IFVs, with them providing fire support and even being uses as a mobile shooting platforms for infantry on the move. So its probably no surprise that both Germany and the SU saw the value of IFVs after the war.
Add to that, the germans also heavily used both their halftrack troop carriersor trucks inc ombination with the kettenkrad or similar gear to tow small field guns or mortars at the same speed. So when it came time to fight the infantry had acess to pretty good mobile fire support for the time. The IFV took that idea, added more armor around the troop carrier, and stuck the towed field gun on top of the vehicle to up mobility even further.
I remember being taught all about BMP-1s, 2s and BRDMs in the late 80s and 90s as a light infantry officer in the Australian army. If we'd known how shit they were I'd have been more aggressive in my TEWTs and on exercise. We thought our SRAAWS and Carl Gustavs would have just pissed them off and so we'd plan to hide from them and hit the rear echelon. In hindsight we'd have just found a nice hill and picked them off for shits and giggles until actual armour turned up.
Most russian vehicles cant really aim their main armaments up. Its designed to fight on the european plane where its flat. So pretty much if its standing on a hill it cant aim at you, if you are standing on a hill it cant aim at you.
@@enen1220 The BMP-2 autocannon was built to counter this - in addition to expected AAA duties it was meant to have a high elevating gun because of the steep canyons of the sandbox the BMP-1 was getting eaten in.
Always paired with Aussies in war games. We always won. Dont mess with Australia.
We had the opposite problem with units attending combined arms exercises at 29 palms in the CA desert. A 50cal with slap can kill a bmp at 500 yards. Most units would open fire at 1000 yards and get upset when we wouldn't give them a kill just because they were hitting the plywood targets. It was almost impossible to convince them that the 50cal couldn't kill a bmp at that range.
Carls would been totally effective, probably even little AT's. No armor. Thanks Aussie brother for standing by us Yank grunts.
BMP stands for "infantry fighting vehicle". In fact, this is just a jeep hung with light armor and equipped with a machine gun / cannon. It's not a tank, IT'S ARMORED CAR!
I think you're confusing it with a BRDM. Jeeps (and armored cars) don't have tracks.
@@PerfectTangent Many snowmobiles and some tractors have tracks. Tracks are just a thing that will help you not get stuck on the roads and better distribute the weight on the ground. Tracks will not make a tank out of a motorcycle
*and yes, both the BMP and the tank can be put on wheels.
It is its own classification of vehicle. An armour car is as it says an armour car. This is an APC (armoured personal carrier) two different purposes and doctrines.
@@Человекнеотмирасего It's just a technical term. Armored cars need to be wheeled (T17E1).
Tracks don't make something a tank though, you're right. The BMP is an APC/IFV.
Do you know what the difference between a BMP and a BTR is? Chris raised the question but never answered it.
Google translates BMP to Infantry Fighting Vehicle and BTR to Armoured Personnel Carrier however the BTRs also seem to have significant armament and some of the videos coming out of Ukraine show BTRs being used as IFVs and successfully engaging BMPs.
Is there any practical difference between an 8x8 BTR and BMP other than the tracks vs wheels?
Most of the destroyed BMPs I've seen over the past month have been BMP 1s & BMP 2s. So it's hard to comment on the BMP 3 because from what I've seen it hasn't been deployed in any sort of quantity.
That's because most BMPs aren't BMP 3s
They probably only have a handful of the BMP 3's.
Just like everything so called new in the Russian military they barely have a handful.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 that's pretty much what I think as well, otherwise why wouldn't you lead with your best equipment
@@darson100 Recommend a book that came out a long time ago (Inside the Soviet Army) by Viktor Suvorov. One of the points he stressed was using the least capable men and machines in the early phases of an engagement to degrade enemy forces, then follow up with more capable units.
@@darson100 Why? For a few reasons. The biggest is that doing so puts them at risk to losing these vehicles to the enemy, which will reveal certain secrets of the weapons that don’t want to be known. Another one is that Russia massively underestimated the Ukrainians, and so as of now they are recouping and refueling, I saw a recent video, and I made sure to check the validity, it showed Russian BMP-3’s on trains heading towards the front in Ukraine.
I love the fact that the BMP has an ad on armor kit (that never gets issued) to keep it from getting swiss cheesed by 50 cals.
You should cover the BMPs sister vehicle, the BMD, especially after their disastrous deployment alongside VDV units.
Isn't the BMD basically BMP with less of the "P" part (P standing for "pekhota" or "Infantry")?
Seems like all the other non-APC aspects like armor and armament are almost identical and all the differences in dimensions are about making it fit inside AN-12 at the cost of troop capacity and comfort (or what little "comfort" even the already cramped and uncomfortable BMP offers).
@@Sseltraeh89 there is absolutely no comfort in BMD. What was meant to be feature of VDV units, became their bug. Why most elite and battle-ready units have to fight on vehicles, which were designed to sacrifice everything to be capable of airdrop landing? It is incredible asset when you are thrown behind enemy lines by parachute, and just mobile 30mm auto cannon in other cases.
@@renedekart5069 the regular BMP is already cramped, i can imagine how bad the BMD, with half the actual room for troops (but inexplicably still carrying six men compared to BMP's eight) would be.
@@renedekart5069 I would actually say that the BMD is the downfall of the VDV. The best feature of airborne forces is the LGOPP (little groups of pissed off paratroopers). Ad-hoc small units running around the countryside accomplishing objectives as best they can. When you add vehicles to this in airborne forces, you actually reduce their mobility. You force them to stick with their vehicles and their logistics chain, and in the case of the VDV recently, they get pummeled by MLRS because they are too concentrated.
when it first appeared in the 1960's it shocked the west. Fully amphibious, low, fast and armed with a 73 mm smooth bore gun and firing ports in the hull for the troops. The western countries began a catch up. German Marder I and later Bradley were both developed to counter them. The BMP was cramped inside and the diesel fumes and the motion in the cramped rear resulted in sea sick troops.
The USMC's new AFV would replace both LAV and AAV in service?
German Spaehpanzer Luchs! (Scout Tank Lynx) Ultra quiet. The Spahpanzer Luchs is a 1970s West German reconnaisance armored car that replaced the West German M41 Walker Bulldogs and the Spz 11-2 Kurz in armored reconnaisance companies. The Luchs is a swift 8x8 all-wheel drive armored car with an additional fully-amphibious capability, with a 390 HP engine propelling the 20-ton vehicle with a horsepower-ton ratio of about 20 and top speeds of about 90kmh and 10kmh on land and in water, respectively.
I had a ride in an M113 once. What a silly box. This vehicle is the reason why soldiers wears helmets.
@@Joshua_N-A - Sounds like it will, though, they are likely to try and hold onto both vehicle types separately. It would be honestly easier and cheaper to have component commonality than parts, because then there is less compromise with the designs.
That and the new AAV is pretty dang big.
Seems nothing has changed. I visited the Russian Airborne Brigade in Bosnia in 1996. They were using a BMP as their front gate. Literally driving it back and forth to let vehicles in and out of the compound. Their motor pool had about 120 BMPs sitting there. I asked an English speaking Russian soldier why are the vehicles were just sitting there and not out on "peace keeping" missions. He told me that none of the vehicles ran because they had no spare parts or maintenance personnel. The only one that ran was the "front gate". Mind blowing.
Imagine when it actually breaks down blocking the gate.🐸 😁 oh dear we didn't think of that.😳
Hard for me to believe that our commentator is the average infantry soldier. He sounds like an experience infantry officer or noncommissioned officer who is now a intelligence officer. He’s practical knowledge of what happens in the field and his detailed information about Russian equipment is quite impressive also his ability to communicate clearly yet in an entertaining way is outstanding. Thank you very much for this video I learned a lot
Cappy is The Shit. 😉
He's a paid shill. Obviously.
8:30 Myth. Putting the AK in mud and it being fine. Sounds great - absolutely no basis in reality.
No, the laws of physics don't work differently for Russian arms. Good - f'ing - grief.
Depends how you define "mud" Garand Thumb's test with thick, gritty Pacific NW mud, yeah, that didn't turn out so well. Immersed and then removed from muddy river water? Yeah, it will probably still work.
@@jamesfrankiewicz5768 It also depends on whether the dust cover/safety is engaged or not. If mud gets into the guts of any firearm, it's pretty much screwed.
Oh cuz you're such an expert.
@@lelostimulus9995 Yeah, I know that weapons stop working in mud. Because of course they fecking do! I'm familiar with both weapons and mud. Would knowing my rank help?
@@lelostimulus9995 Or would you like to know about the mud?
Hey Chris, the first Brads had portholes too. The Mech Plt in my first Co. Team still had the special, stockless rifles for shooting out of them... and yes, they laughed at them.
Open, two three. Out, two three. Bang, two three. Bang, two three.
you know South Korean Army is operating considerable size of BMP-3s since late 90s.
we love its firepower and amphibious capability, and made it as reference for K-21 IFV. but I think the armour is unreliable to confront against various battlefiled threats.
If we compare the armour of the BMP-3 (~22 mm of steel, 60 mm of aluminium, 70 mm of air) with previous models (~20 mm of steel), then it was a big improvement.
Neither is the Bradley or most other IFV/APCs armor reliable against any AT threats, they are not breakthrough vehicles. That's not what they were made for and that's why you see so many of them busted open, they wouldn't stop a WW2 Bazooka let alone a Javelin or NLAW.
I could imagine if we understand terrain determines the battlefield, I could absolutely understand why South Korea would like them 👍
Korea has some T-80s and BMP-3s as debt payment. If they employ it for their Marines.... well, these are LIGHT vehicles, and having well maintained and communicated T-80 and BMP-3 at landing zone beats anything North can produce and can stand up to any other vehicle. And surely beats having nothing!
@@REB4444 south koreans are as tall as Europeans mate
the susceptability to explosive things was one of the reasons the BMP1 was called "Bratskaya mogila" or "Brothers grave"
Vehicle's real capabilities, as always, mostly defined not by it's tech, but by tactical situation and crew's skill :)
Nah man, technology plays a massive role. There's only so much a crew can do if your vehicle craps out on you
Absolutely, and skill of generals
Agreed just look how the turks used thier leo 2 in Syria. High tech low skills. But low tech and low skills is as low as you can get
Dude, these are older than the crews that use them. Of course they break down.
@@samsonsoturian6013 All armies have loads of equipment that is older than the men operating. While all equipment has a functional lifetime, maintenance is essential. If corrupt officers skip equipment maintenance and pocket the money, you get rotted tires and leaking seals.
The Coax MG is something still used today.
The reason for it s that a MG is very good at keeping heads down and because it only shoots 7.62mm rounds, you can usually carry substantial amounts of it, like about 1500+ rounds of it, so you can be quite liberal with it. Compare that to 300-500 rounds for most autocannon IFVs/APCs or the 12-40 rounds that most MBTs carry and it make sense, especially when you consider that a rifle caliber MG is quite small compared other vehicle born weapons and that large round count for the coax is done while carrying the larger gun and it’s ammo, and the other things that an AFV must have.
The only concept that would be antiquated in regards to the MG is a hull mounted MG, like those found in most tanks from the 20s till the late 40s.
The anti-aircraft MG that you still see on some tanks (where you need a crewmember to be exposed from the tank hatch) is also outdated. If you really want a heavy MG these days, to shoot back at helicopters and strafing aircraft, you should go with a remotely operated one.
Actually we in CZ still have these, modernized with 30mm autocannons, and yes, these are incredibly front heavy. What happened once to one soldier I knew, they were lying on the ground and this should cross over them, but the driver suddenly stopped which forced the front dramatically forward and pressed the soldiers head into the dirt, he survived, but.... No, you never want to experience anything like that...
Did he survive as a vegetable, or with a minor headache?
@@MrNicoJac Not sure, however his fellows called him T1000, military guy as can be, heard he had some epilepsy attacks afterwards, though tried to stay in army, it is long time ago, so not sure how is he doing now. However it was some international military training and the guys from abroad, when they saw him taken out from below the BMP, they all turned pale...
@@hdfiuhl That sounds more hilarious than it was in reality most likely.
@Matthew Morycinski Some videos here, especially when you are full on with brakes, somewhere at the beginning of the video: th-cam.com/video/dg12w1tKQVE/w-d-xo.html
@@BountyFlamor Asked my sources, and the guy is fine and still in the army. Epilepsy was temporary and caused by the injury and once he recovered, epilepsy attacks stopped, so he was able to stay in the army. As of now he was on several missions abroad. Actually also asked my source how common it is, that the soldiers lie on the dirt and BMP or tank runs over them (of course not running over them with its tracks) and servicemen around 40 years of age confirmed this used to be common practise for all of them during various trainings and excersises, however not sure if it is still a part of common training now. If you do not believe me, I am fine with that....
5:35 I love the very subtle Doug DeMouro shout out :D
Riddle me this: If the BMP's effectiveness in agrarian pursuits is so questionable, why do Ukrainian farmers keep stealing them? Who needs a combine when you have Combined Arms?
The farmers don't have to declare any Russian equipment on their taxes. Too muddy to do field work so might as well get the junk off the road. The Russian trucks usually have useful goodies in them like food and ammo.
Polish pre-WW II TKS has been rediscovered recently in Norway, in working condition, in use by local farmer....
Also they can use the engine for spare parts. This is the most likely use if you see how Sov era mil vehicles are utilised in the old Sov satellite states.
I did my national service in Poland (91' - 92') as a driver of BMP1. And it's crap. But driving this machine off road gives you a lot of joy... Even if infantry on the back have a quite opposite opinion...
👍
😅
😂😂
They can still fit in there?
All large armies make the mistake of forgetting that only the infantry corps can seize and hold ground and repel attack by day or by night regardless of season, weather or terrain. Infantry is infantry. Armour is armour Artillery are sheep shaggers etc. The role of true light infantry is always forgotten until real war starts. The Ukrainians are winning because of their infantry battalions on the ground fighting like infantry not because of their armoured vehicles or heavy weapons. Even in flat steppe terrain, highly skilled infantry win wars, everyone else is there to make the party look pretty.
Wrong. Indiscrimimate air campsigns wins war. No shitty GI Jle can hold ground vs 500 B52s carpet bombing it
"The Ukrainians are winning" bruh...
@@МихаилОрлов-б8щ hurts, isn't it ? lol
@@МихаилОрлов-б8щ indeed, they are. All of Russia's efforts are stalling, and Ukrainian counter-offensives gain momentum.
Idk how you define winning? To me it feels like no one is winning. How is Russia going to take Kyiv? It seems impossible. Maybe they've changed their objectives and will just take a land bridge from Crimea? That seems doable.
And Ukraine fights intelligently and bravely but to me it doesn't seem like they have the power to push the Russians back.
We have BMP:s in our military. We also produced a more modern APC. Its actually better suitable for peace keeping missions, and that is how we market it and make it a great export. However, if we run into real war, we rather rely on BMP than the nationally produced APC. Our APC is designed to keep the crew safe even if the vehicle runs into a mine. But the APC is wheeled as where as the BMP is tracked and have superior off road capability. In our country off road capability in a real war setting is a huge plus. Moreover the BMP has a much lower silhouette making it a harder target, also a huge plus for a real war setting.
I am your average infantry officer (now retired), and therefore spend a lot of time thinking about logistics. The capability of the BMP to haul supplies off-road has the potential to make it a key logistical asset. It is unfortunate that the video did not consider its capability for hauling cargo.
Armored cargo-carrier sound like something brand new and not very wide spread.
@@MrGrusome Not all that new. The most produced armoured fighting vehicle in history is the Second World War era Universal Carrier. Sometimes nicknamed "BREN gun carrier" because of its mounting for that LMG. The "Universal" part of its name is because it was designed to carry both personnel and cargo. As the saying goes, "amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics."
@@kevinlove4356 in truth it's an interesting idea somebody's done convoy operations none of those vehicles that are hauling cargo was particularly up armored accepting they cab of the vehicle.
I mean it's an interesting concept the idea of using something like that as a cargo Carrier. The only problem with it is is how much cargo can you haul what type of cargo would you use it for most bulk cargo for a unit literally requires it being transported by lmtv, mtv, hmtv, and PLS's. And let's not forget to try and trude hemmit cargo carrier,and super hit. superhead
In truth there's actually a mathematical equation built into it that when you think about it cargo has to get somewhere fairly quickly it has to be hauled enough cargo to do something you could create an armored carrier but if you made it to armored you take away the space that other cargo would be using in truth I can see it being used for specialized stuff but not freaking normal cargo and forth actually bring enough supplies to be effective and have to be huge.
@@kevinlove4356 My father fought in northern Europe in 1940 and 1944/5, and he said the same. He generally disliked the Universal carrier, but said it was invaluable for hauling loads across country near the enemy, although not as good ATV as a tank because of its unusual transmission.
Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30:
Rejecting American doctrine that an armored personnel carrier should serve as a "battlefield taxi" and not as an assault vehicle, the Germans developed the HS.30 as a vehicle to fight alongside tanks and from which their mechanized infantry could fight from under cover. The German military came to this decision as a result of its World War II experience with Panzergrenadiere (armored infantry). German doctrine saw the SPz 12-3 as part of the squad's equipment, and the squad was trained to fight with the vehicle in both offense and defense. Unlike the American M113, the HS.30 could not float, but as German doctrine envisaged the HS.30 as a component in operations combined with main battle tanks that also lacked such a capability, this was not seen as a grave disadvantage.
... but suffered from teething problems. (from wiki)
As I recall from my training decades ago, original soviet doctrine was to concentrate an assault on a small front, penetrate deeply and then expand outwards in the enemy rear. Hence the whole thing about firing ports; probably intended for "spray and pray" suppression of likely anti-tank weapons crews out to the sides. Maybe in WW2, but perhaps not such a good idea on a modern, battlefield.
Coaxial MGs? The biggest problem with them is if the system design allows the nasty gases from firing to build up inside the crew compartment. This was not such a problem with the classic Browning designs, because they were recoil operated and had no requirement for a method of venting a gas system. Roof / turret-mounted remote system solve that until there is a stoppage on the MG. Also they require a remote AIMING system and "drive system"; more electronics. They also raise the effective silhouette of the vehicle and can and will "snag" in close woodlands or urban areas. All that falling rubble and foliage will degrade reliability. And when the lead is flying, NOBODY is likely to be going outside to clear the problem.
@@bruceinoz8002 the fumes of coaxial guns are about as much of a problem, as the fumes of the main gun.
No problem.
There are ventilation systems sucking the fumes away
“The H.S. 30 could not float.”
**OH H.S. 30 OF THE LAKE, WHAT IS YOUR WISDOM?**
lol
West Germany (and Nato) also planned, trained, and equipped for fighting a defensive war. Russia planned on offense against the west, hence the fordability designed into most Russian vehicles, to ford the many small streams and rivers they would find going west. Of course you still need to have sound banks to ford. Just look at the abrams... there are strategic limitations to it just because it weighs so much you have to be careful what bridge you use.
Many of the older Russian designs had low silhouttes to add additional protection (smaller and "harder" to hit), to compensate for their lighter armor. The BMP/BMD/BTR have generally light armor, I think max 18mm rhs equivalent if my memory serves.
The Germans had a lot of experience with river crossings in Russia in WW2. So I can see them viewing a floating armored vehicle as a good tool.
The first IFVs were the armored halftracks of WW2. They were open topped and lightly armored, but they offered some protection to mechanized infantry while allowing them the mobility to keep up to the tanks on or off road (though not great in mud/snow etc.), but they also allowed the infantry in the back to fire over the sides while still have some protection and continuing to move. I'm not suggesting it was safe, but a lot better than a truck!
The difference is in terminology. IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) have heavier weapons, such as an autocannon and, perhaps. ATGMs, for extra fire support if needed. Whereas APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers) were mainly the armored "battle taxis" which generally toted a heavy machinegun or two and a few more foot-sloggers. The halftracks were (often open-topped) APCs.
The LVT(A)1 and LVT(A)4 used by marines in the pacific in WW2 were IFVs before the IFV became mainstream.
How exactly is the coaxial machine gun an antiquated design choice when literally EVERY TANK in use today has one?
The precursors of these armored infantry transport vehicles were the Germans in World War II with the half-tracked light armored vehicles that transported the panzer grenadiers. These vehicles were intended to go off the road accompanying the tanks, and the grenadiers landed during combat to protect the tanks. The difference is that these vehicles are currently covered and have greater firepower. Tanks have limited vision and during an attack they need to be accompanied by infantry who will follow the tanks in these vehicles to enemy positions when they will disembark to protect the tanks and clear the area. It is necessary to understand that armored vehicles do not fight on the roads, but in the fields, and the road is just a means of reaching the place of combat. If they are being shot on the roads it is because there was bad planning.
They're on the roads because off-road is mud and they will sink. If it was a month earlier or later it wouldn't be a problem.
@@digglerdsrecordings9680 They did have the same issue a month earlier.
@@digglerdsrecordings9680 Yes, the battles are off road and the displacement is on the road. The battlefield in both the past and the present is wide, disregarding houses or roads. The opposing troops, attackers and defenders are arranged in a vast area of kilometers across fields, villages, and obstacles of all kinds. If the defenders just stay on the road they will be easily bypassed. What we are seeing in Ukraine, for example, is not combat between armies for which these vehicles were designed, but small ambush actions on the roads. And what is noticeable is the lack of action by the Russian reconnaissance units that precede the armies. And it is these units that avoid ambushes. When approaching urban areas, infantry must dismount and accompany the armored vehicles. Otherwise vehicles are subject to ambush. Armor without infantry support is armor destroyed.
The BMP might do splendidly in conventional warfare with the tactics they were made for. But it kind of sucks when you're stuck on straight, elevated roads going in columns and any tactical formations becomes impossible.
And why are they on elevated roads? Because the fields have not dried out. So it doesn't appear they are all that good in mud. Deep Ukrainian springtime mud, bog, swamp.
@@donaldkasper8346 the tracks are skinny. Those will get stuck in mud. Wonder why they designed it that way. The T34 was good in mud because of the wide track.
@@S0ulinth3machin3 yeah no t-34 would also get stuck in the mud in ukraine
@@donaldkasper8346 end of the day if you're not engaged and you're offered a road you're probably gonna take it. To a western power with proper intel this would be fairly safe, but Russia seems to be driving blind down roads into ambushes.
@@S0ulinth3machin3 The more surface area per weight load, the less weight per square inch and the less the load presses into the mud, sand, soil.
Just the fact that you can penetrate it with a heavy machine gun is the death sentence for the BMP
Even if it didn’t the .50 is more than capable of destroying periscopes and other optics and laser designators. Reducing situational awareness substantially
As my M-113 TC said, “would you rather fucking walk?”
It is still far better than riding a Toyota truck with a 12.7mm gun mounted on the bed.....LOL.
@@alfaromeo6985 if you shoot first you can still win with an Toyota Truck against a BMP, you have probably even better visibility and it's much easier to spot an enemy
are you sure about that? didn't he say in the video that the bmp3 can clock 12.7 mm rounds?
are the bmp 1 and 2 vulnerable to those rounds?
How to remember BTR from BMP. BTR, big, tires, rubber.
I remember seeing one as a kid at an air show, and I was like 'wow, they really did put fuel tanks in the rear doors. Yeah, nope'
1:00 Yes there was.. The Half track car M2, M3 and M9 were early models of APC and were supplied to the Soviets through lend-lease.
Sd.Kfz. 251
Awesome content Chris I really look forward to it Cheers from Australia 🇦🇺
The best thing about the BMP-3 is it's ability to condense audio.
The Schützenpanzer lang or HS 30 might have been a trend-setting piece of kit, but everyone who had to do with it hated that piece of crap.
You should read the stories of the Mark 1 tank crews. There's a famous bit of footage where the first Mark 1 crests a small cutting and slams down hard when it reaches it's center of gravity. That was a demonstration for King George, 4 of the 8 men inside were knocked unconscious, all of them were injured, the King was very impressed.
Was it the corruption or the bad engine?
@@sssd3461 Both, the contract went to the Swiss branch of Hispanio Suiza which hadn't build cars since before ww2 and never an amoured or tracked one (and is not mentioned with a single word in the English version of the companies wiki page).
Apparently the company gave some generous donations to the CDU/CSU party, plenty of people involved turned up dead in suspicious circumstances in the following decades.
Part of the construction was given to a British company that never build vehicles before and just handed the production to another company which build trucks and busses.
I have ride an armored vehicle, Korean K-21 IFV with 40mm auto canon in my service. It is strongly influenced by BMP-3 (like amphibious capability) I am very impressed with its versatility and theater effectiveness for its cost (1/3 of main battle tank). If I have budget for 10 tanks, I will buy 3 tanks and 20 K-21's (similar cost)
Dude. During testing the floating capability of K-21 soldiers died. This is not a BMP-1. It's not 13t. Not even close to floating capable Polish version of the 8x8 IFV AMW Patria - 19t. (APC is only 16t)
K-21 has weight of 26t and really needs this pontoon around and reliable draining pumps, plus reliable wave plate.
Well Mr. Clever Clogs, have you factored in all the additional costs of owning and fielding 23 vehicles rather than 10? There's a lot more to the costs than just the sticker price.
You'll have to train, house, feed, and pay extra crew to man the extra vehicles.
We'll assume the parts side of maintenance cost follows the same ratio, so that's OK.
But having 2.3x the number of vehicles also means you'll need more space to store them and that larger store of parts. Larger machine shops to perform the additional work for the larger motor pool you'll require.
Larger command and control staff for them, as well as support staff for all these additional crew/mechanic/command groups.
But wait, you need to get these extra vehicles and personnel to the operational theater as well. Maybe that's just fuel cost, but probably we're talking additional trains, ships, and maybe planes. And the people to run them too.
And does the K-21 require 1/3 the POL's of whatever MBT you're discussing?
And on and on.
@@scottmacgregor3444 There you go Scott raining on someone's parade with logic and logistics lol
@@johnfbm Everyone has a hobby. Some people knit, others play video games. I quash hope and whimsy.
The mention of high up targets in Afghanistan reminded me of a movie I just recently saw about a Soviet tank & crew in their Afghan war and there is a scene where they can't aim high enough to target enemies up on the cliffs. The movie is called The Beast and its really quite good and very interesting, its available free if you have Prime Video. Think it would be particularly interesting for people who like this channel / video.
Ah, you saw the Drinkers review too, eh?
@@talltroll7092 Men of culture, I see :D
I second this, it's one of my favorite movies.
I found out about the soviet’s afghanistan campaign thru this movie many years ago. Before that I the only soviet that I know is in command & conquer 2.
If you like that, have you seen the documentary Red Dawn?
As a civilian (here in Australia), I had no idea what a BMP was. I can't speak for all civilians but the title stood out 'because' i didn't know it. Cheers!
In 2016 I was on the receiving end of two bmp2, while one got successfully hit and set ablaze the other one was hiding behind this destroyed farm building that only had one brick wall left and was firing its 30mm through this wall. If u think of a terminator movie where one of them melted down into a puddle on the floor, that's how I felt laying down behind that wall, I did say my last prayer that time and was expecting to get flanked from both sides of that long-ass building. (it was quite a walk back to our positions and we kept guessing why they didn't flank us) we only had two rpg26 left. One of the guys smoothly like a cat got on one knee and calmly took it out. Miraculously none of us was wounded. Bmp1 is crap but bmp2 is super effective if used right.
Не расскажешь ещё чего-нибудь? Как ты там?
BMP-1 entered service in 1966.
But Sweden had been using the Pbv-301 since 1961.
In 1966 Sweden fielded the much upgraded Pbv-302, which is still in limited service.
With 20mm guns and hatches from which the infantry can fight mounted, it makes these IVFs rather than APCs.
The American alligator came before those in terms of an APC. The pbv-301 is almost more of an IFV than an APC.
@@atoriusv5070 Yes, my comment was about the first IFVs. And that the BMP-1 was not the first.
The BMP was really nice back in the 1960's, but that was nearly 60 years ago. It's a death trap now.
Yeah, compared to an m113 it's just no contest.
It seems to have some big issues compared to more modern designs though. From things I have heard around places, this is especially true one you start looking past the major bullet points and into things like ergonomics and target acquisition and command and control and things like that.
When your enemy has modern anti tank weapons and missiles every vehicle is a death trap
As a former member of the Croatian home guard, i managed to destroy a number of the Yugo copies called the MVP i think from memory...I used mainly Zolya's, armbursts but did use PKM firing API at the rear doors because they were fuel cells...pretty crappy IFV's but revolutionary in their time.
Interesting. Got some more stories? Lookin forward to hear more 🙂
I missed the mentions on the airborne variant of this combat vehicle, the BMD family. Its quite similar in weaponry to the army BMP series, but its lighter and more suited for airborne assault operations (including being air-dropped from transport aircrafts such as the Antonov An-12, the jet-powered Ilyushin Il-76 and from heavy transport helicopters such as the Mil Mi-6 Hook).
You went through that whole thing without calling the BMP a "Bimp", even a single time. Well done 👏!
You are literally the first person I've seen that used that word.
Maybe you are the "Bimp" guy all along?
Bravo, you're *that guy*
Never heard anyone call it a bimp
Called it a BIMP for 14 years and counting....
It was a term used commonly in late 80's and early 90s. Apparently it didn't stick for me younger bunch. I feel old.
"...unable to defeat modern anti-tank systems..."
Dude, it's demonstrably incapable of defeating modern anti-tank tractors.
That's not fair, it's also incapable of defeating old ex-Soviet anti-tank tractors.
Ha Ha
Dude... it is NOT A TANK... are Americans that stupid that they cannot get basic concepts? Its like saying a bus is slower than a sports car thus the bus is bad.
Information at the beginning is incorrect. During WWII, Germans had specialized half-track IFV. Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 or Sd.Kfz. 251. Usually equipped with MG42 or MG43 on the top.
I can't tell you how many debates I got into on Qaura and other forums with people in regards to Russian tanks and armor capability, I constantly told them they were far behind Western standards and didn't have night vision targeting equipment and many other needed things on their units, and they would always argue with me and say "I fell for Western propaganda and it was some of the best in the world, and I didn't know what I was talking about" etc......
When the Soviet Union collapsed, we learned a great deal about where the Soviet Union actually was on military tech and capabilities.
We found that the "bomber gap" wasn't really athing, just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Their submarine Tech was at least 10 years behind the United States, they're fighter aircraft were not as advanced, the Mig-25 proved to be much less sophisticated than we thought, after a pilot defected with one to the West and we got a chance to look at it up close..
The thing used glass tubes!
Propaganda has done a great job selling the perceived capabilities of Russian Tech, but I think a lot of it has to do with the defense industry gladly promoting a much more capable Russia and Soviet military, because it allowed greater budgets and projects by the West and the United States, which is not a bad thing overall honestly, because it has put the U.S. and Western forces way more ahead of the curve than people realize.
Which will be crucial in regards to China.
I used to build Apache helicopter's designed to kill these things, so I made it a point to learn quite a bit about them and their capabilities.
In fact,
their capabilities have severely lacking for decades...in the eighties as well, had they tried to cross the gap into Germany during the cold war, they would have been completely lit up and deceimitated.
this is why russia has failed to capture half of ukraine, the western anti tank missiles halted the highly mechanized RF army. oh wait.
The Soviet-now-Russian take on technology strikes me as something that the military leadership just doesn't understand. As a good "for example", the recent AK variants were designed with rail mounts to incorporate optics, lasers, and all the other technogadgets that hang off of modern infantry weapons. But as the footage is coming out of Ukraine, almost no Russian soldier has any, aside from a few vintage WW2 scopes and a handful AKs captured from KIA Russian special forces that had optics.
@@Maria_Erias
It appears it was mostly promoted as a PR stunt, with no mass real world application of these upgrades.
SOF as always had toys. It's when the average grun is trained and equipped, that it becomes a true force multiplier.
@@TheBelrick
This has nothing to do in my post, however....
" Half of Ukraine" isn't captured, not even close.
They still haven't taken a major city. As far as their advance, it absolutely HAS been halted.
They're now digging in.
nice try at sarcasm, but it has to be rooted in actual facts 1st.
MiG-25 was meant to be simple from the start. But MiG-31, its successor
? Pretty advanced or state-of-the-art, as some say.
And submarines... Don't know much about them, but projects like 945 Barrakuda were quite exceptional.
I actually expected performance of the BMP series to be less in Ukraine. After all, urban combat and asymmetric warfare are very effective against armour. Lack of maintenance only make things worse.
Nah, it's a good tracked car. Gun? where? Armor, forget about it.
Add to that they gave it to conscripts and those conscripts though they'd only be doing training which caused relaxed maintenance and it's not a wonder they're screwing up
old soviet doctrine revolves around replacing formations, not units .. thats true for both personel and equipment .. so they will use up a formation, then replace the entire formation with another thats how they became known to attack in "waves", ,,(doesnt mean they wont recycle the "waste" left over from the previous wave into the next, its just not a part of thier doctirne to focus on replacing "parts" of anything (again, that means they didnt make it a priority to replace personel at the unit level or supplying replacement parts for equipment..
whilst one formation was being used in attack, they kept one in reserve whilst another was being formed from scratch ...
much like how the NVA operated in south vietnam ;)
@@jimbothegymbro7086 Sure if you listen to Ukrainian propaganda like a complete idiot.
Let me guess: when Al Quaida captures an US soldier, you also believe every shit they torture out of him, yes?
One thing I've noticed over the last 20 years is tactics and certain equipment are paramount. Super powers can't take over smaller less equipped countries anymore. War seems to be changing.
Because the technology is changing
It has - and likely always will be - a relatively cheap, light, amphibious, multi purpose platform for troop transport and AT capability. I think it's got plenty still going for it
I remember the tactic against going against a BMP-1 was to attack it from its 10 o'clock due to its inability to traverse its coaxial mg and main gun due to its IR spotlight in that location. Probably why they were removed from that location in later models.
Having found and played with some of these in gulf 1 I found them to be fun to play with but wouldn’t want to go to war in one. To be amphibious it needs low weight which means thin armour
small correction, germany never rly used the "battletaxi doctrine/tactic".
even in WWII, Panzergrenadier's would fight with the Halftracks and now obviously with the IFV's
German panzergrenadiers (even the cold war west german versions) would use more heavily armoured vehicles (the Marder I for example, really similar to our Pbv302 in that it had a bigger autocannon than most NATO troop transports), but if I remember it correctly germany also used quite a lot of battletaxi vehicles like the Fuchs.
@@fiendishrabbit8259 The Marder came later. I'd also trace that type of vehicle back to the German WW2 half tracks. They also had a door in the back.
As far as I know, the Schützenpanzer lang was just a bad construction.
This channel is amazing, great info!!