I'm a bmp-1 driver, i would like to give some clarity to a few things and my reasons why we don't like the bmp. Firstly the bmp-1 has no firing control system what so ever and becomes inaccurate after like 600m because of this we just use the bmp-1 now adays for indirect fire. There are also 3 main reasons why people would sit on the roof, Either it's to avoid getting trapped inside by the large doors which don't like to open most of the time, or it's for space reasons, on paper the bmp-1 can carry 8 people but more common is that you will only fit 6 but if you sit on top or you have some sit inside and some on top you can avoid the limitations but the most common reason why people would sit on top is because they are lazy and don't want to waste time getting in and out. when it comes to the armor it is going to stop 90% of what we are ever going to encounter as meeting another vehicle or a tank is rare. when it comes to swimming, the chance of you flipping over is basically impossible but sinking is easy. Any wave that is big enough to flow over the roof of the bmp can easily sink it. So we never swim over anything more than ponds and rivers. some of the reasons why i don't like the bmp-1 is because of poor visibility and lack of proper heating. The turret blocks like 1/4 of our vision so if we need to see what's going on behind us or we wish to back up i have to take instructions from the gunner instead which has to swing the turret to the back too see anything. the visibility is also just bad in general, the periscopes are good but there are not many of them. There is also hardly any space in there, I'm a woman and significantly more slim than the average bmp crew and i still don't have enough room to even turn around properly. if you have any questions then please comment, thank you
@Scrat335 One other reason troops sit on top of the BMP along with other AFVs... is because of mines. If your AFV hits a mine and you're sitting on top of the vehicle... the troop survivability factor goes up... way up.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 Definitely. I recently saw a video of a BMP going over a mine. The men on top were thrown off roughly but I doubt the crew inside survived.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 Mines are only used to block roads today and are usually very easy to see, the chance of you hitting one is small but if you blow one up, most mines are only strong enough to destroy the tracks so staying inside the vehicle would still be better for you. But in a place where mines may be used more widely i wouldn't be surprised if you're right
I think M113 and bmp drivers have much of the same problem. Small arms leave the riders on top exposed. Mines leave those inside vulnerable even if only effecting mobility with treads. A-lot of soldiers hated the M113 because if an rpg hit it, if the explosion didn’t get everyone, the toxic gas from rpg melting the armor could get the people on the inside. One would hope that fighting vehicles (US or Soviet) that were made in part to “protect personnel” would do a little bit more on that part.
@@skkhammuansangngaihte4989 like any driving Metal Box. No matter if Tanks, APCs, IFVs, ect. The Moment the Enemy has an ATGM of any Kind, your basicly cooked.
@@Soldner41 to be honest tank are pretty safe until mine hit you,attack from the front or rear or artillery, especially modern tank ,the reason Abrams are not performing any better is because ukraine unlike usa does not have the strongest air force in the world nor any f 15 or f 35
I figured the major complaint would be the lack of space. In addition to protection from mines, I always assumed BMP operators rode on top so they could have some space and get out/off the vehicle quickly. Having spent lots of time in the Bradley and M113, I was surprised at how small the crew compartments and hatches were on BMPs.
It's both actually, you can dismount more quickly, and you avoid burning alive if you get hit( and if you are wounded when you get hit, you won't be trapped inside a burning coffin)
This is actually the REAL reason why Soldiers hate BMP. Thin armor, speed are only a problem when you are at war and still alive after being shot at. Plus Dead soldiers don't complain as much as wounded. Lack of space mean it is very uncomfortable inside the BMP. You can't pack your things. The air circulation is terrible. Ability to enter and exit is awful BMP is disabled easily but quite hard to field repair. Ever wonder why M113 is loved by the Ukraine as compare to BMP when they shared the same shitty armor and weapon.
Interesting. I started in the 82nd and went kicking and screaming to a mech unit in Germany with 113s on a levy. At the time, the TO&E was for 11 man squads. We had 16 which was great for me as a PV2 as shit details were few and far between. I always just felt I was in a steel coffin in the 113 and the soldiers were so horrible it shames me to this day. I think the establishment of 11Ms rather than just bravos was agood move and while I never was in one, the Bradley concept was another good move. I still feel that no dismount mech types should be able to serve until they do time in a light, airborn or air assault unit. I also think its a perfect slot for long term light, airborne, air assault in old age as your body cant walk hard anymore and when you have all the logistical assets mech brings after having nothing, you excel. FYI, 5th Mech in Panama pulling up next to us lightfighters and blazing with that 50 Cal when we were nothing but gnats in a big fight brough me a serious dose of humility. Please do not take my comments as disrespectful. Just discussion and I am a has been and long since retired anyways. Thank you for what you did.
Совершенно верно, советские бтр и бмп невероятно тесные😂. С надетым современными средствами бронезащиты ты еле заходишь и выходишь из этой бумажной машины😅.
It was explained to me that since WW2 Soviet doctrine has acted as a massive battle computer. Put in battle variables and success comes out. The BMP was made for the ultimate tactical combined arms sweep, not for bogged down messy fights (like every Russian war has been since its inception)
As they said at the start, the original concept was for a vehicle across a nuclear battlefield. Protection from artillery and direct fire is nice but if the vehicles are traversing a fallout zone then it helps to have NBC protection, (basically an over pressure system to keep fallout and bio weapon particles outside), the threat from enemy weapons would be reduced because they would either be dead, or had already retreated to avoid the fallout. Soviet mechanised warfare was based on the assumption that the enemy would have been suppressed and rather than engage in combat the troops would be mopping up.
@@scotsbillhicks true, but looking into both sides NBC was a major concern but basic maneuvers were also taken into account. Your right though, with either nukes or tanks or artillery the enemy was to be swept aside before the battle box showed up with squishies. My point was more the doctrine was that the BMP wasn't supposed to really be "in the fight" as the fight was already won with the supporting arms.
@@scotsbillhicks not trying to nitpick here but just mentioning, in this case its not "overpressure" its "positive pressure". "Overpressure is usually referring possibly lethal damage from shockwaves, positive pressure refers to what you just said.
The ability to swim is actually disputed while it does swim the reserve in flotability is so low that the waves created by another BMP might sink it. Also bad maintenance might mean that the rubber seals(for example around the rear doors) might leak in an attempt to swim, together with the low reserve floatability that makes the vehicle rather unsuited for swimming.
the BMP does not float. it is meant to cross small rivers to not waste time on capturing bridges or creating bridges. It simply pushes water out of its way, just like the BTR.
Repeated at nauseum, warsaw pact literally did this in their exercises all the time and there was no outcry or cementaries full of drowned bmp crews, yeah you need to maintain stuff like anything else no sh€t.
As I understand it, Russian BMP's usually require special preparation for amphibious operations (AKA, installing new seals so they'll actually float). The real problem with amphibious operations using IFV's, and why the US Army dropped the idea, is it's a good idea on paper, but pretty useless in reality. Even if your IFV's floats, the tanks they're with don't, so you still need a bridge. The second issue is you need the proper terrain in order to get into the water, and get out, as well as slow enough currents for the IFV to actually move. If the banks of a stream are soft enough, the IFV will bog down and get stuck, either entering or leaving the water. Well trained bridging units are still a must to get the tanks across, so might as well take advantage of them.
@@SgtBeltfed The T72 and T90 are capable of submerging and traversing the river after appropriate preparation. However, it is not a completely trivial matter, and from time to time some of the crew drowned during the exercise.
@@roundpenguin3072 That also applies to the T-64 and T-80, (maybe some T-62 and T-55 variants as well) but it still has many of the same problems as amphibious BMP's. Deep fording tanks are slightly buoyant, so they're prone to getting bogged down where there's a muddy bottom, or stuck on obstacles. Just like the BMP's, getting bogged down entering and leaving the water is a problem. Worse than the amphibious BMP's, if you find that the water is a little deeper than you though, you can end up with a tank full of water and a drowned crew. Much like Amphibious IFV's in the US Army, deep fording tanks also looked good on paper, but didn't pan out in practice. It all boils down to, if you want to get tanks and other armored vehicles across a stream or river quickly and in an organized fashion, bridging units are the way to go. Having an alternative means of doing so that's worse isn't worth the compromises.
Unless further stated by the Russian propaganda ministry, every model Russia has ever produced has no flaws and is a perfect vehicle in every aspect and there are no production defects ever
Thats nice american propaganda, russian propaganda doesnt promote their vehicles as a god given weapon, but as a easy to maintain easy to make weapon, thats the whole point of these vehicles
@@oofoof1206 Russian tanks usualy are nether of these. Thats why they still use old models minus the ones that don't work anymore, to hard and expensive to make newer ones. and if you watch some russian propaganda they will claim it is best of best 100% regardless.
@@oofoof1206 Russian equipment is cheap to produce and fullfill mostly one porpose . The cheaper T-series like the 62,72 aim to be assault and export tanks without much flexibility in other roles , while the T-64/T-80 series were their main horse before the T-90 which is more reminisent of western tank design , not one of those vehicles can be easily refitted in the field or repaired, their maintanance needs to be done in in workshops behind the front for up to 72 hours. Thats also not stupid if you can replace those tanks during that time with new ones using your logistics and stockpiles, which is why any attack on russian logistics is so devestating for them and why even their soviet stockpile begins to run out, they simply lack the means to refill and protect the soviet doctrin of warfare. This isnt about western or Russian propaganda, you simply understand the Russian doctrin as bad as someone who says" all the Russians do is meat waves" . If this war shows anything than its that the western style of warfare was and is superior, was because it diddnt brought bankrupcy to the west during the cold war and still is because even a fraction of its might toppels the style of war its enemys would have thrown at it, granted Russia does a pretty pathetic job at.
BMP-2 was introduced from 1977. The Soviet Afghan war only started in 1979 and dragged on for 10 years. It was not the Soviet Afghan war which resulted in the development of the already existing BMP-2 (though the faults with the BMP-1 did become apparent - the BMP-2 was also found to be somewhat vulnerable to light support weapons and received an uparmour package - resulting in the BMP-2D in around 1980 - an upgrade, not the introduction of a new vehicle)
I guess that's why they have those roof hatches so that the troops in the back can actually sit up straight when driving through safe zones. But I can't imagine sitting inside one while buttoned up. I've never actually sat in one before, but I got a close up look at one once, a bring back from Desert Storm, and I was surprised at how small they were. I'm no giant at only 5'7" but I could tell that even I would cramped sitting inside the thing with the roof hatch closed.
@@Riceball01 We didn't keep the hatches open since they're protection, but yeah horrible experience being in fullgear and having your day backpack with you there. The CV90 which we also posess, is WAYYY better in terms of troop comfort. Well its better in everyway compared to a bmp2, but still. That bad boy was fun.
But how much more does it suck to stand on foot without any armour in open terrain, when a hail of mortar and small weapons fire begins to hit around you.
@@ReisskIaue bmp2 doesn't give you lot of protection against mortars. Also the back side can be penetrated by a 7.62 round. Sure it's better if your standing on open field, but why are you standing on an open field?
The bmp along with most ifv's weren't initially meant to protect infantry against ied's and anti tank rockets and missiles;it was meant to quickly move and drop off infantry squads to their objective while protecting them against more or less concentrated small arms and mortar fire before repositioning itself to give fire support and also deal with any up armored target presenting itself with onboard atgm's which it did and still does fantastically well The bradley has about the same frontal protection but has all around protection against 14.5mm autocanons compared to the bmp that only has all around protection against 7.62 but keep in mind that if your platoon is directly exposed to effective 155mm artillery fire and is flanked by 50cal and autocanon vehicles your already pretty fucked up Other then that the bradley is almost twice as heavy depending on the variant and has generally lower power to weight ratio making it less nimble and have more limited cross country capabilities especially on soft ground;Its fcs was almost on par with the bmp with modernisation packages existing for both giving them thermal imagers and modern targeting systems;as for ied protection only the most modern Bradleys are made with a v shaped hull and roof mounted seats that give them higher blast resistance but keep in mind that IEDs are mostly used by insurgent forces ,conventional militaries use proper anti tank mines that have shaped charges or enough explosive filler to severely damage any vehicle As for water crossing, pantoon bridges require alot of personel equipment and time to set up and have to be done at specifically studied location to make sure it can effectively withstand the current and that is done with dedicated very expansive bridge laying equipment built in very small numbers...in our era of droned and advanced ISR warfare it is extremely hard to achieve, and we saw that multiple times in Ukraine Having a vehicle capable of crossing a river that has a 15 knot current is huge tactical advantage that is not to be taken lightly it can make or brake amphibious assaults. So no the bmp is not a bad vehicle if used properly which in Afghanistan and grozny they weren't, being sent in choke points and urban combat with poor logistical support, subpar if existant infantry support against insurgency forces with AT equipment,you can also call every Russian tank bad if you go using them that way If you read through all this rant am proud of the amount of free time u have btw
The only thing i'd point out is that you can't use them for river crossings if the vehicles aren't well maintained. And as Russian soldiers quickly found out when they received "renovated" Russian BMP's from storage, most of those BMP's haven't been well maintained.
Every fighting "gadget," whatever it is, faces evolution of the threats against it. Take any weapon from the past, it is obsolete today. Armored vehicles generally have faced ever more powerful guns and rockets, and the weapons that can kill it have become more mobile/portable/ubiquitous. Of late anti vehicle weapons have also become much "smarter"... Able to attack a tank at weak points independent of where they were released or fired from. Of course the old stuff are just death traps now.
Depends how you look at it. If your expectation is: * "Be better than an unarmored truck" than it's ok. * If it is "protect against everything" than it falls very short. Problem with IFVs is that they always will be big egg baskets so enemy will always plan to take them out. You really need to make them really really difficult to kill. It's go big or go home. That's why the next generation IFV is mostly based on MBTs and armored accordingly to make them just impractical to kill.
BMP3 is worst of them all, new turret make it explode from almost any hit, and engine at the back, block infantry from evacuation, and strip frontal armor even more...
BMP was a beast until 1985. Nothing in the NATO inventory could come even close. When NATO rolled out M2 IFV, then things started to change. I never rode in the BMP, but AAV-7 and I would say they are all pretty terrible.
The bmp was the king of large scale mechinized war far that the 80s whould have been its now that that type of warfare is dead the bmp is better at its role of a large scale mech inf unit but the bradly can function much better on a small scale tactical level the death of large scale operational warfare was the down fall of the bmp
@@RichelieuUnlimited with only 2000 made I doubt I’d really be able to fufill the role of the bmp on a large scale secondly it’s Milan atgm is weaker then the konkurs of the bmp-2 and bmp-1p. Third the marder wasent equipped with a atgm until 1979
@@historyisawesome6399 2000 was perfectly sufficient to equip the Bundeswehr, and if production numbers are so important, than the Leopard 2, the most widely in service western tank today, would be insignificant compared to the T-55, but it clearly isn’t. As for the ATGM, the Konkurs only entered service in the mid 70s, so most BMPs would have still used Malyutka in 79. The Marder was also doctrinally used in conjunction with MBTs, so it didn’t require an ATGM for dealing with MBTs. *Nowadays the Marder uses the Spike LR as its ATGM btw.
A bmp costs 300k to make, while the m113 costs 900k, easy to make and easy to maintain, thats the whole point of the bmps, theyre not meant to have couches and a strip club
A little misinformation here, the bradley can not cross water! At one time it had a cute skirt that only took a few hours to set up but that was long ago and it always leaked. Air droppable, never. It would be nice if people who did these videos knew the difference between the BMP and the BMD.
I'm literally saying in the video that the Bradley swimming system was abandoned very early. I know the difference between a BMP and a BMD. In fact, the video can be called "Why Russian soldiers hate BMPs and BMDs", but in my opinion it is too overloaded. I did not go into details and explain that there is a BMD, because it is almost the same thing. It has even less armor and holds fewer troops. This is where all the differences between BMP and BMD by and large end
@@casperarms ah yes the technique of not stating the subject material and indiscreetly dotting it in short pictures. I'm familiar with this technique. At the Captains career course we called this a D. CW4 Ron Ries retired 26yrs
The whole armor argument becomes irrelevant in the drone warfare, just like the knights lost their armor when muskets came up modern soldiers tend to choose motorcycles and buggys instead
You overestimate the role of drones. They have made a breakthrough in modern warfare, but there is no need to talk about any uselessness of armor. Otherwise, the soldiers would drive light vehicles, but it does not occur to them
Yeah, I also think this is overlearning a lesson. The thing is that you are referring to soldiers of the Russian army in Ukraine, not "modern soldiers". Tactics and even overall strategy are always a product of environment and conditions, and Russians use bikes and buggys because it makes sense for their environment and conditions. I can also not stress enough that drone warfare in this intensity is very new and we're only starting to see battlefield adjustments. On the one hand, we usually only see the successful strikes, not the many, many failed attempts. Both sides confirm that EW is usually very effective, just not as widespread (yet). On the other hand, the battlefield evolves. During WW2, tanks dominated the battlefield. Then anti tank weapons improved. Then ATGMs became a thing. Tanks didn't disappear, their features and the way they are used were adapted. As the need for anti-drone measures becomes pressing, I can see a broader push for producing EW measures at scale, integrating them into infantry and vehicles alike.
take a look at the bradleys in ukraine, i would not call them any better please suit yourself and check out the videos where they show the aftermath and you cant tell me its safe in there, because its certainly not safe its a death trap too, the modernized american bradley might have BUSK reactive armor however if the tank is hit by a more modern tank missile or heat rocket they are done for.
At 185cm (73in), I always cringe at the thought of getting into that troop compartment. When it was first developed, the Bradley was roundly ridiculed as being too big and too complex when compared to the BMP, which caused something of a panic when it was first revealed.
When BMP was developed soldiers equipment was nowhere near as bulky as now. And they were also thinner especially in USSR... If it was cramped when first introduced it is way too small now.
@@henrihamalainen300 I remember a video from the recent Syrian war that showed soldiers with nothing more than web gear and rifles crawling into a BMP and my skin crawled, especially for the first ones in...😰
@@henrihamalainen300 Also different design principles. A recent video on Military History Not Visualized covered the topic. Reportedly the Soviets weren't designing military gear to be uncomfortable and cramped on purpose, but followed a different ergonomics principle the video called the "50 percent rule", which aimed to make gear just right for the average sized soldier, statistically the most common user. Of course, there was also the general trend of making combat vehicles smaller and lower profile.
You people may call it bad, but once again if you have no tanks any tank is good. Even if not exactly a real tank. The Americans used the M113 in Vietnam as an IFV. These things are cheaper and better at infantry support due to the auto cannons, and ability to knock out tanks with ATGMs. These days modern tanks are used to take out other tanks, lead charges, take hits, be heavy hitters.
True. And if you don't have any IFV just APCs (or even just armed Toyota 4x4s) but are in dire need of fire support, you just have the choice between using whatever you have at hand or break up the attack if you can.
Sitting on top of the vehicle instead inside serves another purpose; vehicle has a lot of blind spots, so a guy sitting in a bush near by can easily be completely undetected by the vehicle crew. Infantry sitting on top of it, however, will detect a threat such as this. I love it how you didn't fall into the famous BMP trap - its back door serving as fuel tank and common misconceptions about it... Firstly, it isn't fuel tank per se, it's additional fuel tank, only to be used during long marches, not all the time. In fact, manuals state to empty them before going to battle. Some crews even filled those up with sandbags before fighting begins. Besides, if you are in position that the enemy is firing at the back of your armor vehicles, you are screwed anyway...
During the First Chechen War the Ruskies dubbed BMP as "братская могила пехотьи - БМП" or translated in English: Mass grave of the infantry. It's gruesome nickname came from the fact that well placed mine or fired RPG was enough to annihilate the crew and the entire dismount regardless if they were inside or outside. Most of the time the dismount was always riding on top due to having much better chances of survival. Currently with having active drones the survive rate has become abyssmal.
The BMP-1 gun is so ridiculously bad. Absolutely incomparable with any decently modern IFV. It fires very slow rounds, which makes it hard to hit targets accurately. The higher the shell arc, the more precisely you have to adjust the gun elevation to get on target. At the same time, the 73 mm high explosive rounds are not strong enough to cause much effect if they don't hit well. Combine this with a lack of good optics and fire control, and you get extremely lackluster firepower. It can only effectively support troops out to very short ranges... which is awful news for a vehicle that also lacks armour protection. Despite a theoretical range of over 1 km, Wikipedia cites Zaloga with an estimate that its effective range under actual combat conditions is merely 500 m. And even that will often be highly optimistic, with how fast and panicky many engagements are going. Modern IFVs with good optics, automated targeting computer, and accurate and potent rounds are operating on a completely different level. They only need seconds to put rounds into targets at well beyond a kilometer. The awful ergonomics for crew and dismounts do the rest. Truly a terrible IFV by modern standards.
There’s a lot wrong with this video, some correct, primarily protection and the shitty bmp1 cannon. It’s really not that bad as you’re saying it is, prompted, I’ve been a combat engineer and even a dismount for these vehicles, specifically the bmp 2 and 3. Both in the FCS department have been fixed with new target tracking and thermal imaging for the very least the last 13 years. But best be damned the firepower on these things is great to have for direct fire support. As for the pontoon bridge, that’s just flat out wrong. It’s technically more efficient but the issue is purely logistical. You can just have a bridge laying around to be deployed, hauling a bridge layer across open country to potentially be a target can shut down an advancing army, it’s happened to Ukrainians in Krinky and Russia alike. It’s good to have the ability for amphibious crossing, shit we even just used BMP1’s just to carry ammo and other stuff across rivers instead of opting for a bridge. I’ll restate, only things we or least I didn’t like is the lack of protection and cramped area for the infantry Also bmp1 cannon was just dogshit
A lot of really dumb points, like how pontoon bridges are better because BMPs are vulnerable in water. Pontoon bridges would be just as vulnerable and arguably easy to spot if someone was also shooting at them so it really doesn't make a difference.
Hot and cramped, but to be fair the BMP was the first mass produced IFV and offered Soviet troops an enclosed turret, full battlefield protection from NBC, poor weather, small arms fire, shrapnel, splinters etc, when their Western counterparts had no equivalent.
@@m16-a2 western Ifv's are bigger, therefore better armored and have better weapons, they are better for infantry and they don't explode on impact from an fpv. I have friends that serve in Ukraine and they love western armor, its just better so cope
@@a7vflying_japan_guy2 don't see infantry sit on top of western ifv's while driving under arty and drones but thats the only way you can be a bit safe with soviet stuff, they are cramped inside and you are surrounded by feul tanks, since the beginning of the bmp and btr soldiers just ride on top of them because it is safer than inside, they dont protect against bullets, against mines, arty and now drones, western designs are symply better at surviving and saving lives if hit and you can see it in Ukraine.
The main advantage is the low weight which makes it unsuitable for heavier vehicles in difficult terrain. This is especially evident in the Ukraine where heavy vehicles often get stuck. The disadvantage is the weak armour, but this is not so obvious when it is the only vehicle capable of fighting in mud, swamps and other difficult terrain.
its always better to ride to battle than to walk to battle; also it is lighter to travel faster and deal with winter mud, wet ground, lightweight bridges that heavy armour will sink it.
To put it simply, the BMP was designed for different tasks than the Bradley. But the tasks that the BMP covered disappeared and it became practically useless.
4:30 "In modern condition, it is better to use pontoon bridge than to become an easy floating target" totally different scenarios, how do you even set a pontoon bridge if you are under fire? It's more cost efficient to have a self contained transport across body of water.
@@casperarms I have seen a lot of BMPs, where the crew *thougt* it would flow. Just to make the Moskva. A amphibious vehicle has to be well maintained and the crew has to be well trained to keep its abilities. Which is hardly possible in an ongoing war with hastily trained personal and screwed up logistics.
@casperarms lack of footage/ record doesn't necessarily mean it never happen, for example I have seen plenty of footage where pontoon bridge being targeted and destroyed and I've never seen one time it was use to it's full extent (I.e more than once).
@@casperarmsi have seen them submerged in this war. The lack of maintenance has undone the amphibious capability. Having it vulnerable to the P-38 can opener doesn't help it float without the waterproving.
Even in the best conditions, a BMP is amphibious in theory only. Even the shallowest wave is enough to sink it. Those in operative conditions... not even try.
Just to inform, BMP-2 price is $0.7 Mil, BMP-3 $1.3 Mil and M3 Bradley is $4.2 Mil. Javelin or RPG-26 with best ammunition can destroy it all + BMP-3 is better than M3 in every parameter except armor and targeting systems (debatable)...
BMP-3 it's a powder keg. Due to the 100mm HE shells in the hull, any penetration of the machine will destroy the aluminum hull with people without the possibility of recovery. Initially, a 100mm gun with extremely effective high explosives (100mm HE 3OF70 shells more effective than 125mm 3OF26) and a 30mm autocannon seemed like an excellent solution, but the abundance of anti-tank weapons and drones makes this the most unsurvivable vehicle in the world, it’s really a mass grave on the move. The problem is that the Russians never equipped the Cactus ERA as a serial product. But yeah frontal armor of BMP-3 same as M2A3 Bradley - it won't hold 30mm APDS 3UBR8 shells - only old AP 3UBR6.
@rinaldoman3331 practically every IFV/APC is death machine, if you explode bradley missiles inside the tank or 25mm ammo, it will explode too. My point was that BMP-3 can easily kill tanks, with no need to reload from outside, and also it had 100mm which can easily clean an middle room. It doesnt have best armor, but on a 1980s product is is such a good machine. Bradley has good armor, but drone with tandem will easily destroy it... Also both M3 and BMP-3 mostly have a drone jammer, so on last 5 seconds you have to fly blindfolded (unless you are using fiber optic drone).
BMP-1 and BMD-1 are different things. One that can be droped from the plane is BMD. Its BMP version for the paratroopers and they don't even look the same.
I think the biggest flaws stem from the insistence on amphibious capability. That forced it to be smaller and less armored, and it required significant effort to get them ready as in normal use the watertight seals quickly degrade. It also can't cross anything rougher than a millpond. The Soviets should've made a separate amphibious vehicle like the Marine's AAV and made the BMP bigger and better protected. The US Army's M2 Bradley was originally amphibious, as well, but they quickly realized that ability wasn't worth it so upgraded its armor instead.
New production variants of BMP3 come with a thermal imager. While still having insufficient armor the versatility of its armament is excellent. It is an autocannon-mortar-launcher which unlike bradley can actually fire on the move.
You can't pen them on the front with that, neither on the sides unless you're really close and in a flat angle, and if the commander of a BMP and found himself in that very specific scenario it would mean that either the situation was really (like REALLY) dire to the point it was a last ditch attempt... Or that he was just dumb as shit and went too deep into enemy territory without infantry or other vehicles to cover it's flanks. But most commanders and crews will not find themselves in such a situation.
@@agentepolaris4914Wrong. It can be penned by 12.7mm in the front. It’s just much more improbable. And it cuts through the sides easily. It’s not a great IFV. But since it has to swim, the armor was cut down.
I am surprised you don't mention this, but the thing about the original BMP that made me nervous was the fact that the fuel tanks were in the doors that let me out...
The BMP-3 the guy in the video talks about is the old one from the 80s the russian BMP-3s have indeed thermal sights and modernized screens, as well as additonal armor protection.
Many people arguing about the efficacy of the Bradley and BMP in this comment section. Talking about how this or that one is a deathtrap. The truth is that all IFVs when compared to other Troop Transport options could be considered deathtraps. When you design an IFV which needs to be equipped at minimum with an Autocannon and Ammunition, yet also expect it to carry a volume of Soldiers and their Equipment; you are making a decision which will cause increased risk of injury or death to the personnel. All of these vehicles are wanting for space and present ideal, compact, volatile targets for many Weapon Systems; sometimes even down to Heavy Machine Guns. All IFVs are like this and perhaps the concept and utility of the IFV in general should be re-examined.
This is like comparing a tiger tank to a t34; they may have certain bad univeral traits eg reliability, however they are good for what they were designed for. The bmp was supposed to serve in hordes of mechanized units in northern germany, not dense urban areas like grozny. It is fair enough to point out why soldiers might dislike certain equipment but there is little point in judging a cat by how well it can bark.
Only the side armor was thin on the bmp1 and 2... both BMPs are rated for 23mm rounds on the frontal arc... the original m2 and m2a1 bradley are only rated to 14.5mm albeit on a 360 arc
The Bradley suffers from exactly the same an RPG hit will...nvm there an ukrainian video on this hes showing how the rear compartment looks like after a missile hit metal fragments all over the place, you can already tell whoever was in the back did not have a good time, the gunner however is in much safer position additionally protected by armor this could also be seen the fragmets were also inside the gunners cabin but far less than in the passanger area, there arent a lot of IFVs you can trust probably only the very modern ones such as the german PUMA IFV.
Air droppable does not necessarily include air landable. I believe that it was an M552 Sheridan which was claimed to be air droppable. A general decided to try it, and watched as all three chutes streamered and the vehicle made a sizable dent in the ground. It landed in one piece, but everything inside needed maintenance and recalibration.
the biggest problem with BMP is its gun charges. Any hit to weak, effectively anti-bullet only, armor and all these charges, NOT separated from internal crew and soldiers compartment, explode, so no one survives inside. Its even worse than turret toss of T72 family. So BTR - effectively the same but on wheels and with KPVT machine gun, half of Soviet infantry was equipped with it, not with BMP, - deemed to be much more safer, there are good chance to get out alive if machine is hit.
I think the only and the biggest problem for all Russian weapons is that they don't care about personnel survivability, same since ww2, all their strategy is based on their soldiers die in huge numbers, then get replaced until the enemy is out of resources, I feel sorry that Russians go through this, most of them are great people who simply try to survive and live a peaceful life
Yep roughly BMP-1 is from 1965 and M2 Bradley 1981, it took america quite some time to create something comparable the Bradley is the M113 replacement, both the 113 and BMP-1 are still in use today.
It's because the BMP was made as a support vehicle, but the Russians have tried to use it as a MBT since day one. It ain't something you put in the front, but that's what they do
Do we know what happened(actual bad experience; change in doctrine or belief in ability of mechanized infantry to remain coordinated with tanks, some sort of weird territorial infighting between design and procurement people?) to make the BMP-2 look like such an outlier in terms of armament? Was moving to the smaller caliber autocannon on the BMP-2 always a compromise forced by the 2A28 not working all that well that they had always fully intended to abandon once a hopefully-improved larger cannon light and small enough to not need a main battle tank or tank destroyer became available? Were some BMP-2s actually caught out in situations where having a proper antitank gun could have saved the day and that soured people on them? I don't doubt that there were compelling reasons for the chassis upgrade between the 1/2 and 3; but it seems striking that the armament is "BMP-1; but even harder" and while the 30mm autocannon remains it's as a coaxial mount and elevation and depression are back to being dictated by the larger gun. I suspect that the finer point are almost certainly lost on me; but that seems like the sort of outcome that has to have a development story to tell.
The vibe I got was mostly they think it makes them a much tastier target for russian forces compared to just a truck/van without enough armor to make up for that
BMD is not BMP. And bmP 3 is comparable with bradley in every way. Modern enough. And still unlike bradley it can swim across river or pond. Recent conflicts show that pontoon is a wery bad idea, drones will ruin it in matter of hours while in use, or even under construction. So light versatile, swimming, parachutable, armored enough machine - is good, better than bradley, wich is also too heavy.
Russia should build a heavier armored vehicle than the BMP. Modern warfare requires it. The BMP's armor is light because of its low weight, which is required for its amphibious capabilities. Russia to build heavy armored vehicle for assault
Literally everyone does up-armoring now, since it turned out APCs are easy prey for all sorts of weapons and its actually Tanks that have the highest survival rate because they're the hardest to destroy and they have a far higher rate of getting repaired and returned to combat than other lighter vehicles
I got to ride bmp-3 many times in the korean army during my service Inside the bmp during summer is like an oven in winter its really warm from the engine being in the back haha
Is it not also true that the back doors double as fuel tanks? If I heard that correctly, it means that the fastest way out could very well be on fire, or spilling fuel all over the place.
The reserve tanks on the rear doors are usually not full, and only when in transport or long-haul runs. I've not heard of any filled during combat including combat footage (i.e. all the drone footage in the last 2-3 years) I've never seen the tanks mounted on them, including wreckages.
You FAILED to mention that the rear doors to the crew compartment are filled with the "go go" juice for the vehicle! Being crammed into the crew compartment behind the fuel filled doors in now way makes it an fondly thought of ride for the crew, or its cargo...the infantry!
I was in a unit with strikers vehicles in Iraq. Those vehicles work well in that environment but man I wish they put more effort in making them more comfortable 😂. Sometimes we had to hang out inside them in the heat for long periods m, it was torture
Because they either don't know how to use it and don't have enough to satirate the forces OR the officers deny proper use. Context for the latter: T-72 is fairly good tank IF you load only 22 rounds of ammo which results in all ammo being very low to the ground in autoloader. This is how much ammo poles, ukranians, finns, iraqis and even russians themselves during Chechen Wars loaded into T-72. However in Ukraine they ride around with 32, 36 and even 42 rounds of ammo, almost double! Why? Officers don't want to organise logistics to resupply tanks properly. So they overload them with ammo and make it "a you problem" for the crew. Wouldn't be surprised if there is a common soldier wisdom in use of BMP-1 that is also frowned upon by officers. For example not storing fuel in the rear hatch fuel tanks. Diesel might be harder to ignite, but not when incendiary ammo is involved. On the other hand empty tank provides less protection by itself since bullet doesn't travel through liquid. Dumb solution - fill it with other liquid OR sand. Would damage the fuel piping so likely would be frowned upon by higher ups, who don't ride inside one.
I'm a bmp-1 driver, i would like to give some clarity to a few things and my reasons why we don't like the bmp. Firstly the bmp-1 has no firing control system what so ever and becomes inaccurate after like 600m because of this we just use the bmp-1 now adays for indirect fire.
There are also 3 main reasons why people would sit on the roof, Either it's to avoid getting trapped inside by the large doors which don't like to open most of the time,
or it's for space reasons, on paper the bmp-1 can carry 8 people but more common is that you will only fit 6 but if you sit on top or you have some sit inside and some on top you can avoid the limitations but the most common reason why people would sit on top is because they are lazy and don't want to waste time getting in and out.
when it comes to the armor it is going to stop 90% of what we are ever going to encounter as meeting another vehicle or a tank is rare.
when it comes to swimming, the chance of you flipping over is basically impossible but sinking is easy. Any wave that is big enough to flow over the roof of the bmp can easily sink it. So we never swim over anything more than ponds and rivers.
some of the reasons why i don't like the bmp-1 is because of poor visibility and lack of proper heating.
The turret blocks like 1/4 of our vision so if we need to see what's going on behind us or we wish to back up i have to take instructions from the gunner instead which has to swing the turret to the back too see anything.
the visibility is also just bad in general, the periscopes are good but there are not many of them.
There is also hardly any space in there, I'm a woman and significantly more slim than the average bmp crew and i still don't have enough room to even turn around properly.
if you have any questions then please comment, thank you
Thank you for your input.
@Scrat335 One other reason troops sit on top of the BMP along with other AFVs... is because of mines. If your AFV hits a mine and you're sitting on top of the vehicle... the troop survivability factor goes up... way up.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 Definitely. I recently saw a video of a BMP going over a mine. The men on top were thrown off roughly but I doubt the crew inside survived.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 Mines are only used to block roads today and are usually very easy to see, the chance of you hitting one is small but if you blow one up, most mines are only strong enough to destroy the tracks so staying inside the vehicle would still be better for you.
But in a place where mines may be used more widely i wouldn't be surprised if you're right
I think M113 and bmp drivers have much of the same problem. Small arms leave the riders on top exposed. Mines leave those inside vulnerable even if only effecting mobility with treads. A-lot of soldiers hated the M113 because if an rpg hit it, if the explosion didn’t get everyone, the toxic gas from rpg melting the armor could get the people on the inside. One would hope that fighting vehicles (US or Soviet) that were made in part to “protect personnel” would do a little bit more on that part.
Some of the same reasons , the M 113 was despised by many US troops in Vietnam .
M113 was misused in Vietnam. It's a different concept than BMP.
@@volters9561yeah, just like the BMP, lol.
@@Soldner41both are metal coffin
@@skkhammuansangngaihte4989 like any driving Metal Box.
No matter if Tanks, APCs, IFVs, ect.
The Moment the Enemy has an ATGM of any Kind, your basicly cooked.
@@Soldner41 to be honest tank are pretty safe until mine hit you,attack from the front or rear or artillery, especially modern tank ,the reason Abrams are not performing any better is because ukraine unlike usa does not have the strongest air force in the world nor any f 15 or f 35
I figured the major complaint would be the lack of space. In addition to protection from mines, I always assumed BMP operators rode on top so they could have some space and get out/off the vehicle quickly. Having spent lots of time in the Bradley and M113, I was surprised at how small the crew compartments and hatches were on BMPs.
It's both actually, you can dismount more quickly, and you avoid burning alive if you get hit( and if you are wounded when you get hit, you won't be trapped inside a burning coffin)
This is actually the REAL reason why Soldiers hate BMP. Thin armor, speed are only a problem when you are at war and still alive after being shot at. Plus Dead soldiers don't complain as much as wounded.
Lack of space mean it is very uncomfortable inside the BMP. You can't pack your things. The air circulation is terrible. Ability to enter and exit is awful
BMP is disabled easily but quite hard to field repair.
Ever wonder why M113 is loved by the Ukraine as compare to BMP when they shared the same shitty armor and weapon.
The BMP crew compartment is like 3 feet tall, getting in or out quickly isn't happening
Interesting. I started in the 82nd and went kicking and screaming to a mech unit in Germany with 113s on a levy. At the time, the TO&E was for 11 man squads. We had 16 which was great for me as a PV2 as shit details were few and far between. I always just felt I was in a steel coffin in the 113 and the soldiers were so horrible it shames me to this day. I think the establishment of 11Ms rather than just bravos was agood move and while I never was in one, the Bradley concept was another good move. I still feel that no dismount mech types should be able to serve until they do time in a light, airborn or air assault unit. I also think its a perfect slot for long term light, airborne, air assault in old age as your body cant walk hard anymore and when you have all the logistical assets mech brings after having nothing, you excel. FYI, 5th Mech in Panama pulling up next to us lightfighters and blazing with that 50 Cal when we were nothing but gnats in a big fight brough me a serious dose of humility. Please do not take my comments as disrespectful. Just discussion and I am a has been and long since retired anyways. Thank you for what you did.
Совершенно верно, советские бтр и бмп невероятно тесные😂. С надетым современными средствами бронезащиты ты еле заходишь и выходишь из этой бумажной машины😅.
Sucks being inside any armored vehicle; especially when it’s getting hit with sh*t
I just returned from Ukraine. These BMPs blow up like a box of sketchers
I imagine it must be like standing inside of the church bells when they're getting rung!
@@cascadianrangers728 Best way to describe it, I heard that its exactly like this
Weather, NBC, fragmentation, and bullet protection. 20mm and Spike for active protection. Loved my marder
Sucks even more when you're sitting with the fuel tank as your seat back.
It was explained to me that since WW2 Soviet doctrine has acted as a massive battle computer. Put in battle variables and success comes out. The BMP was made for the ultimate tactical combined arms sweep, not for bogged down messy fights (like every Russian war has been since its inception)
As they said at the start, the original concept was for a vehicle across a nuclear battlefield. Protection from artillery and direct fire is nice but if the vehicles are traversing a fallout zone then it helps to have NBC protection, (basically an over pressure system to keep fallout and bio weapon particles outside), the threat from enemy weapons would be reduced because they would either be dead, or had already retreated to avoid the fallout. Soviet mechanised warfare was based on the assumption that the enemy would have been suppressed and rather than engage in combat the troops would be mopping up.
@@scotsbillhicks true, but looking into both sides NBC was a major concern but basic maneuvers were also taken into account. Your right though, with either nukes or tanks or artillery the enemy was to be swept aside before the battle box showed up with squishies.
My point was more the doctrine was that the BMP wasn't supposed to really be "in the fight" as the fight was already won with the supporting arms.
@@NuclearN00bGaming absolutely.
It seems like it was designed for quickly overthrowing inexperienced, unprepared armies. A thing Russia has been dreaming of, yet never accomplished.
@@scotsbillhicks not trying to nitpick here but just mentioning, in this case its not "overpressure" its "positive pressure". "Overpressure is usually referring possibly lethal damage from shockwaves, positive pressure refers to what you just said.
The ability to swim is actually disputed
while it does swim the reserve in flotability is so low that the waves created by another BMP might sink it.
Also bad maintenance might mean that the rubber seals(for example around the rear doors) might leak in an attempt to swim, together with the low reserve floatability that makes the vehicle rather unsuited for swimming.
the BMP does not float.
it is meant to cross small rivers to not waste time on capturing bridges or creating bridges. It simply pushes water out of its way, just like the BTR.
Repeated at nauseum, warsaw pact literally did this in their exercises all the time and there was no outcry or cementaries full of drowned bmp crews, yeah you need to maintain stuff like anything else no sh€t.
As I understand it, Russian BMP's usually require special preparation for amphibious operations (AKA, installing new seals so they'll actually float).
The real problem with amphibious operations using IFV's, and why the US Army dropped the idea, is it's a good idea on paper, but pretty useless in reality.
Even if your IFV's floats, the tanks they're with don't, so you still need a bridge. The second issue is you need the proper terrain in order to get into the water, and get out, as well as slow enough currents for the IFV to actually move. If the banks of a stream are soft enough, the IFV will bog down and get stuck, either entering or leaving the water.
Well trained bridging units are still a must to get the tanks across, so might as well take advantage of them.
@@SgtBeltfed The T72 and T90 are capable of submerging and traversing the river after appropriate preparation. However, it is not a completely trivial matter, and from time to time some of the crew drowned during the exercise.
@@roundpenguin3072 That also applies to the T-64 and T-80, (maybe some T-62 and T-55 variants as well) but it still has many of the same problems as amphibious BMP's. Deep fording tanks are slightly buoyant, so they're prone to getting bogged down where there's a muddy bottom, or stuck on obstacles. Just like the BMP's, getting bogged down entering and leaving the water is a problem. Worse than the amphibious BMP's, if you find that the water is a little deeper than you though, you can end up with a tank full of water and a drowned crew. Much like Amphibious IFV's in the US Army, deep fording tanks also looked good on paper, but didn't pan out in practice.
It all boils down to, if you want to get tanks and other armored vehicles across a stream or river quickly and in an organized fashion, bridging units are the way to go. Having an alternative means of doing so that's worse isn't worth the compromises.
Unless further stated by the Russian propaganda ministry, every model Russia has ever produced has no flaws and is a perfect vehicle in every aspect and there are no production defects ever
Thats nice american propaganda, russian propaganda doesnt promote their vehicles as a god given weapon, but as a easy to maintain easy to make weapon, thats the whole point of these vehicles
@@oofoof1206 Russian tanks usualy are nether of these. Thats why they still use old models minus the ones that don't work anymore, to hard and expensive to make newer ones. and if you watch some russian propaganda they will claim it is best of best 100% regardless.
@@hohrhamikaiolaf464no, he's right
@@oofoof1206 Russian equipment is cheap to produce and fullfill mostly one porpose . The cheaper T-series like the 62,72 aim to be assault and export tanks without much flexibility in other roles , while the T-64/T-80 series were their main horse before the T-90 which is more reminisent of western tank design , not one of those vehicles can be easily refitted in the field or repaired, their maintanance needs to be done in in workshops behind the front for up to 72 hours. Thats also not stupid if you can replace those tanks during that time with new ones using your logistics and stockpiles, which is why any attack on russian logistics is so devestating for them and why even their soviet stockpile begins to run out, they simply lack the means to refill and protect the soviet doctrin of warfare. This isnt about western or Russian propaganda, you simply understand the Russian doctrin as bad as someone who says" all the Russians do is meat waves" . If this war shows anything than its that the western style of warfare was and is superior, was because it diddnt brought bankrupcy to the west during the cold war and still is because even a fraction of its might toppels the style of war its enemys would have thrown at it, granted Russia does a pretty pathetic job at.
Nah, you guys were the ones who promoted Abrams as this invincible game changer tanks and such. And look how they cope in Ukraine
It should be remembered that prior to the BMP & vehicles like it, infantry was moved either by foot or trucks/halftracks with no protection at all.
BMP-2 was introduced from 1977. The Soviet Afghan war only started in 1979 and dragged on for 10 years. It was not the Soviet Afghan war which resulted in the development of the already existing BMP-2 (though the faults with the BMP-1 did become apparent - the BMP-2 was also found to be somewhat vulnerable to light support weapons and received an uparmour package - resulting in the BMP-2D in around 1980 - an upgrade, not the introduction of a new vehicle)
If the BMP was survivable on the battlefield, all would have been forgiven.
You are mixing the BMP and the BMD in footage and description.
BMD is a vehicle that is very close to BMP. In fact, it's just an additional version. We do not lose our essential content from this
@@casperarms BMD has weaker armor and a smaller compartment for dismounting troops comparing to BMP
I don't think in this case it matters. Like all Russian Armor they burn just as well!
BMDs are for airborne units. It is lighter because it needs to capable of being air dropped.
@@stevensrhester8594 just like the nato stuff
I've been in a bmp2 in the finnish army and it sucks ass. The troop compartment is uncomfortable af.
When I first saw the BMP, I instantly thought "How are humans supposed to be inside that thing?"
I guess that's why they have those roof hatches so that the troops in the back can actually sit up straight when driving through safe zones. But I can't imagine sitting inside one while buttoned up. I've never actually sat in one before, but I got a close up look at one once, a bring back from Desert Storm, and I was surprised at how small they were. I'm no giant at only 5'7" but I could tell that even I would cramped sitting inside the thing with the roof hatch closed.
@@Riceball01 We didn't keep the hatches open since they're protection, but yeah horrible experience being in fullgear and having your day backpack with you there. The CV90 which we also posess, is WAYYY better in terms of troop comfort. Well its better in everyway compared to a bmp2, but still. That bad boy was fun.
But how much more does it suck to stand on foot without any armour in open terrain, when a hail of mortar and small weapons fire begins to hit around you.
@@ReisskIaue bmp2 doesn't give you lot of protection against mortars. Also the back side can be penetrated by a 7.62 round. Sure it's better if your standing on open field, but why are you standing on an open field?
The bmp along with most ifv's weren't initially meant to protect infantry against ied's and anti tank rockets and missiles;it was meant to quickly move and drop off infantry squads to their objective while protecting them against more or less concentrated small arms and mortar fire before repositioning itself to give fire support and also deal with any up armored target presenting itself with onboard atgm's which it did and still does fantastically well
The bradley has about the same frontal protection but has all around protection against 14.5mm autocanons compared to the bmp that only has all around protection against 7.62 but keep in mind that if your platoon is directly exposed to effective 155mm artillery fire and is flanked by 50cal and autocanon vehicles your already pretty fucked up
Other then that the bradley is almost twice as heavy depending on the variant and has generally lower power to weight ratio making it less nimble and have more limited cross country capabilities especially on soft ground;Its fcs was almost on par with the bmp with modernisation packages existing for both giving them thermal imagers and modern targeting systems;as for ied protection only the most modern Bradleys are made with a v shaped hull and roof mounted seats that give them higher blast resistance but keep in mind that IEDs are mostly used by insurgent forces ,conventional militaries use proper anti tank mines that have shaped charges or enough explosive filler to severely damage any vehicle
As for water crossing, pantoon bridges require alot of personel equipment and time to set up and have to be done at specifically studied location to make sure it can effectively withstand the current and that is done with dedicated very expansive bridge laying equipment built in very small numbers...in our era of droned and advanced ISR warfare it is extremely hard to achieve, and we saw that multiple times in Ukraine
Having a vehicle capable of crossing a river that has a 15 knot current is huge tactical advantage that is not to be taken lightly it can make or brake amphibious assaults.
So no the bmp is not a bad vehicle if used properly which in Afghanistan and grozny they weren't, being sent in choke points and urban combat with poor logistical support, subpar if existant infantry support against insurgency forces with AT equipment,you can also call every Russian tank bad if you go using them that way
If you read through all this rant am proud of the amount of free time u have btw
The only thing i'd point out is that you can't use them for river crossings if the vehicles aren't well maintained.
And as Russian soldiers quickly found out when they received "renovated" Russian BMP's from storage, most of those BMP's haven't been well maintained.
Every fighting "gadget," whatever it is, faces evolution of the threats against it. Take any weapon from the past, it is obsolete today.
Armored vehicles generally have faced ever more powerful guns and rockets, and the weapons that can kill it have become more mobile/portable/ubiquitous. Of late anti vehicle weapons have also become much "smarter"... Able to attack a tank at weak points independent of where they were released or fired from.
Of course the old stuff are just death traps now.
Your analysis was far superior to the video
what about survivability of the crew in both IFV's under atack?
Depends how you look at it.
If your expectation is:
* "Be better than an unarmored truck" than it's ok.
* If it is "protect against everything" than it falls very short.
Problem with IFVs is that they always will be big egg baskets so enemy will always plan to take them out. You really need to make them really really difficult to kill. It's go big or go home. That's why the next generation IFV is mostly based on MBTs and armored accordingly to make them just impractical to kill.
"Even the most modern variants of bmp3 don't have a thermal imager" what blatantly wrong statement to make
BMP3 is worst of them all, new turret make it explode from almost any hit, and engine at the back, block infantry from evacuation, and strip frontal armor even more...
BMP was a beast until 1985. Nothing in the NATO inventory could come even close. When NATO rolled out M2 IFV, then things started to change. I never rode in the BMP, but AAV-7 and I would say they are all pretty terrible.
The bmp was the king of large scale mechinized war far that the 80s whould have been its now that that type of warfare is dead the bmp is better at its role of a large scale mech inf unit but the bradly can function much better on a small scale tactical level the death of large scale operational warfare was the down fall of the bmp
The Marder entered service in the early 70s and outclassed both BMP-1 and BMP-2. And the start of its development predates that of the BMP.
@@RichelieuUnlimited Good point, forgot about Marder.
@@RichelieuUnlimited with only 2000 made I doubt I’d really be able to fufill the role of the bmp on a large scale secondly it’s Milan atgm is weaker then the konkurs of the bmp-2 and bmp-1p. Third the marder wasent equipped with a atgm until 1979
@@historyisawesome6399 2000 was perfectly sufficient to equip the Bundeswehr, and if production numbers are so important, than the Leopard 2, the most widely in service western tank today, would be insignificant compared to the T-55, but it clearly isn’t. As for the ATGM, the Konkurs only entered service in the mid 70s, so most BMPs would have still used Malyutka in 79. The Marder was also doctrinally used in conjunction with MBTs, so it didn’t require an ATGM for dealing with MBTs.
*Nowadays the Marder uses the Spike LR as its ATGM btw.
A bmp costs 300k to make, while the m113 costs 900k, easy to make and easy to maintain, thats the whole point of the bmps, theyre not meant to have couches and a strip club
You mean it’s not a battlefield limo for your bros to go on tour? That’s it I’m not enlisting anymore 😂
@@notmenotme614 Ukraina aredy lost 60% is m2 Bradley
@@IndustrisasiIndonesia nice english
@@IndustrisasiIndonesia they lost about 35% according to oryx.
@@notforrestbono3100 oryx bias to the west
The BMP was too crampy and it's armor are very thin too.
A little misinformation here, the bradley can not cross water! At one time it had a cute skirt that only took a few hours to set up but that was long ago and it always leaked. Air droppable, never. It would be nice if people who did these videos knew the difference between the BMP and the BMD.
I'm literally saying in the video that the Bradley swimming system was abandoned very early. I know the difference between a BMP and a BMD. In fact, the video can be called "Why Russian soldiers hate BMPs and BMDs", but in my opinion it is too overloaded. I did not go into details and explain that there is a BMD, because it is almost the same thing. It has even less armor and holds fewer troops. This is where all the differences between BMP and BMD by and large end
@@casperarms ah yes the technique of not stating the subject material and indiscreetly dotting it in short pictures. I'm familiar with this technique. At the Captains career course we called this a D. CW4 Ron Ries retired 26yrs
The whole armor argument becomes irrelevant in the drone warfare, just like the knights lost their armor when muskets came up modern soldiers tend to choose motorcycles and buggys instead
You overestimate the role of drones. They have made a breakthrough in modern warfare, but there is no need to talk about any uselessness of armor. Otherwise, the soldiers would drive light vehicles, but it does not occur to them
Yeah, I also think this is overlearning a lesson.
The thing is that you are referring to soldiers of the Russian army in Ukraine, not "modern soldiers". Tactics and even overall strategy are always a product of environment and conditions, and Russians use bikes and buggys because it makes sense for their environment and conditions.
I can also not stress enough that drone warfare in this intensity is very new and we're only starting to see battlefield adjustments. On the one hand, we usually only see the successful strikes, not the many, many failed attempts. Both sides confirm that EW is usually very effective, just not as widespread (yet). On the other hand, the battlefield evolves. During WW2, tanks dominated the battlefield. Then anti tank weapons improved. Then ATGMs became a thing. Tanks didn't disappear, their features and the way they are used were adapted.
As the need for anti-drone measures becomes pressing, I can see a broader push for producing EW measures at scale, integrating them into infantry and vehicles alike.
@@casperarmsBmp , brt & M113 Can withstand light machine gun bullets but not heavy machine guns
take a look at the bradleys in ukraine, i would not call them any better please suit yourself and check out the videos where they show the aftermath and you cant tell me its safe in there, because its certainly not safe its a death trap too, the modernized american bradley might have BUSK reactive armor however if the tank is hit by a more modern tank missile or heat rocket they are done for.
@@STRYKER1467 Observed crew survivabiltiy of the Bradley is about 60-70%, with bmp1 and 2s only getting to 20-30%. Quite the difference
At 185cm (73in), I always cringe at the thought of getting into that troop compartment.
When it was first developed, the Bradley was roundly ridiculed as being too big and too complex when compared to the BMP, which caused something of a panic when it was first revealed.
When BMP was developed soldiers equipment was nowhere near as bulky as now. And they were also thinner especially in USSR... If it was cramped when first introduced it is way too small now.
@@henrihamalainen300 I remember a video from the recent Syrian war that showed soldiers with nothing more than web gear and rifles crawling into a BMP and my skin crawled, especially for the first ones in...😰
I’m the same height and did not fit very well into 113s. I was always banging my head.
@@smeercat None of them are very large, but the BMP took compactness and low silhouette to the max (min?)
@@henrihamalainen300 Also different design principles. A recent video on Military History Not Visualized covered the topic. Reportedly the Soviets weren't designing military gear to be uncomfortable and cramped on purpose, but followed a different ergonomics principle the video called the "50 percent rule", which aimed to make gear just right for the average sized soldier, statistically the most common user. Of course, there was also the general trend of making combat vehicles smaller and lower profile.
You people may call it bad, but once again if you have no tanks any tank is good. Even if not exactly a real tank.
The Americans used the M113 in Vietnam as an IFV.
These things are cheaper and better at infantry support due to the auto cannons, and ability to knock out tanks with ATGMs.
These days modern tanks are used to take out other tanks, lead charges, take hits, be heavy hitters.
True. And if you don't have any IFV just APCs (or even just armed Toyota 4x4s) but are in dire need of fire support, you just have the choice between using whatever you have at hand or break up the attack if you can.
Exactly
you hate a bmp? then you go walk
Like the Russians do?
'Bmp can be parachuted' Ok, on to the next video, this guy doesnt knows shit.
It can be tost out of a transporter aircraft, as can anything....no-one said it had to be working after it hit the ground!!!!!
It actually can do that, there's video of it here on youtube.
@@Mad_Dog_of_the_Regime BMP or BMD?
@@artisandersons6872 Oh ok. Yeah it's BMD-2 in that video.
@@Mad_Dog_of_the_Regime Actually the India’s armed forces have successfully parachuted BMP from C-17 aircraft, but that’s about it.
Sitting on top of the vehicle instead inside serves another purpose; vehicle has a lot of blind spots, so a guy sitting in a bush near by can easily be completely undetected by the vehicle crew. Infantry sitting on top of it, however, will detect a threat such as this.
I love it how you didn't fall into the famous BMP trap - its back door serving as fuel tank and common misconceptions about it... Firstly, it isn't fuel tank per se, it's additional fuel tank, only to be used during long marches, not all the time. In fact, manuals state to empty them before going to battle. Some crews even filled those up with sandbags before fighting begins. Besides, if you are in position that the enemy is firing at the back of your armor vehicles, you are screwed anyway...
During the First Chechen War the Ruskies dubbed BMP as "братская могила пехотьи - БМП" or translated in English: Mass grave of the infantry.
It's gruesome nickname came from the fact that well placed mine or fired RPG was enough to annihilate the crew and the entire dismount regardless if they were inside or outside.
Most of the time the dismount was always riding on top due to having much better chances of survival. Currently with having active drones the survive rate has become abyssmal.
I am an expert in this armoured vehicle because I drove it in ‘Gunner Heat PC’ and agree that it’s survivability is low
The BMP-1 gun is so ridiculously bad. Absolutely incomparable with any decently modern IFV.
It fires very slow rounds, which makes it hard to hit targets accurately. The higher the shell arc, the more precisely you have to adjust the gun elevation to get on target. At the same time, the 73 mm high explosive rounds are not strong enough to cause much effect if they don't hit well.
Combine this with a lack of good optics and fire control, and you get extremely lackluster firepower. It can only effectively support troops out to very short ranges... which is awful news for a vehicle that also lacks armour protection.
Despite a theoretical range of over 1 km, Wikipedia cites Zaloga with an estimate that its effective range under actual combat conditions is merely 500 m. And even that will often be highly optimistic, with how fast and panicky many engagements are going. Modern IFVs with good optics, automated targeting computer, and accurate and potent rounds are operating on a completely different level. They only need seconds to put rounds into targets at well beyond a kilometer.
The awful ergonomics for crew and dismounts do the rest. Truly a terrible IFV by modern standards.
There’s a lot wrong with this video, some correct, primarily protection and the shitty bmp1 cannon.
It’s really not that bad as you’re saying it is, prompted, I’ve been a combat engineer and even a dismount for these vehicles, specifically the bmp 2 and 3.
Both in the FCS department have been fixed with new target tracking and thermal imaging for the very least the last 13 years.
But best be damned the firepower on these things is great to have for direct fire support.
As for the pontoon bridge, that’s just flat out wrong. It’s technically more efficient but the issue is purely logistical. You can just have a bridge laying around to be deployed, hauling a bridge layer across open country to potentially be a target can shut down an advancing army, it’s happened to Ukrainians in Krinky and Russia alike. It’s good to have the ability for amphibious crossing, shit we even just used BMP1’s just to carry ammo and other stuff across rivers instead of opting for a bridge.
I’ll restate, only things we or least I didn’t like is the lack of protection and cramped area for the infantry
Also bmp1 cannon was just dogshit
Its not that bad. Ok would it win against a Bradley?
@@blackdubzdifferent generation vehicle
@@blackdubz a BTR-80 did, so probably can if it shoots first
A lot of really dumb points, like how pontoon bridges are better because BMPs are vulnerable in water. Pontoon bridges would be just as vulnerable and arguably easy to spot if someone was also shooting at them so it really doesn't make a difference.
@@blackdubzBMP-1 hell no, BMP-2 and onwards, totally.
But in reality it depends on who spots who first and who is faster to shoot.
Hot and cramped, but to be fair the BMP was the first mass produced IFV and offered Soviet troops an enclosed turret, full battlefield protection from NBC, poor weather, small arms fire, shrapnel, splinters etc, when their Western counterparts had no equivalent.
Honestly though the BMP family has faults like everything out there it's really not as bad as people make it out to be.
until you end up sitting on top of one moving in a field under drones and artillery
@@pasha_gascogne Bad condition for any vehicle, not only for the BMP
@@pasha_gascogne The M113 and Bradley is even worse. It has less armour and is a bigger target... but yknow, keep snorting the copium
@@m16-a2 western Ifv's are bigger, therefore better armored and have better weapons, they are better for infantry and they don't explode on impact from an fpv. I have friends that serve in Ukraine and they love western armor, its just better so cope
@@a7vflying_japan_guy2 don't see infantry sit on top of western ifv's while driving under arty and drones but thats the only way you can be a bit safe with soviet stuff, they are cramped inside and you are surrounded by feul tanks, since the beginning of the bmp and btr soldiers just ride on top of them because it is safer than inside, they dont protect against bullets, against mines, arty and now drones, western designs are symply better at surviving and saving lives if hit and you can see it in Ukraine.
BMP-2 Can be heavily Modernised as well . They Czechs & Slovaks have shown this with their SKCZ Sakal & Excalibur M2 IFV versions .
Its a bus with a gun
The main advantage is the low weight which makes it unsuitable for heavier vehicles in difficult terrain.
This is especially evident in the Ukraine where heavy vehicles often get stuck.
The disadvantage is the weak armour, but this is not so obvious when it is the only vehicle capable of fighting in mud, swamps and other difficult terrain.
its always better to ride to battle than to walk to battle; also it is lighter to travel faster and deal with winter mud, wet ground, lightweight bridges that heavy armour will sink it.
No armor, no survivability, troops sit next to fuel
To put it simply, the BMP was designed for different tasks than the Bradley. But the tasks that the BMP covered disappeared and it became practically useless.
4:30 "In modern condition, it is better to use pontoon bridge than to become an easy floating target" totally different scenarios, how do you even set a pontoon bridge if you are under fire? It's more cost efficient to have a self contained transport across body of water.
Have you ever seen the Russians use a BMP as a floating vehicle in this war?
@@casperarms I have seen a lot of BMPs, where the crew *thougt* it would flow. Just to make the Moskva. A amphibious vehicle has to be well maintained and the crew has to be well trained to keep its abilities. Which is hardly possible in an ongoing war with hastily trained personal and screwed up logistics.
@casperarms lack of footage/ record doesn't necessarily mean it never happen, for example I have seen plenty of footage where pontoon bridge being targeted and destroyed and I've never seen one time it was use to it's full extent (I.e more than once).
@@casperarmsi have seen them submerged in this war. The lack of maintenance has undone the amphibious capability. Having it vulnerable to the P-38 can opener doesn't help it float without the waterproving.
Even in the best conditions, a BMP is amphibious in theory only. Even the shallowest wave is enough to sink it. Those in operative conditions... not even try.
Just to inform, BMP-2 price is $0.7 Mil, BMP-3 $1.3 Mil and M3 Bradley is $4.2 Mil. Javelin or RPG-26 with best ammunition can destroy it all + BMP-3 is better than M3 in every parameter except armor and targeting systems (debatable)...
BMP-3 it's a powder keg. Due to the 100mm HE shells in the hull, any penetration of the machine will destroy the aluminum hull with people without the possibility of recovery. Initially, a 100mm gun with extremely effective high explosives (100mm HE 3OF70 shells more effective than 125mm 3OF26) and a 30mm autocannon seemed like an excellent solution, but the abundance of anti-tank weapons and drones makes this the most unsurvivable vehicle in the world, it’s really a mass grave on the move. The problem is that the Russians never equipped the Cactus ERA as a serial product. But yeah frontal armor of BMP-3 same as M2A3 Bradley - it won't hold 30mm APDS 3UBR8 shells - only old AP 3UBR6.
@rinaldoman3331 practically every IFV/APC is death machine, if you explode bradley missiles inside the tank or 25mm ammo, it will explode too. My point was that BMP-3 can easily kill tanks, with no need to reload from outside, and also it had 100mm which can easily clean an middle room. It doesnt have best armor, but on a 1980s product is is such a good machine. Bradley has good armor, but drone with tandem will easily destroy it...
Also both M3 and BMP-3 mostly have a drone jammer, so on last 5 seconds you have to fly blindfolded (unless you are using fiber optic drone).
I heard somewhere that the rear doors are gas tanks on the BMP. Drones go for the rear doors which incinerates the crew or gives them a flaming exit.
Why did the BMP Become the Most Hated Vehicle in Russian Army
Source: Trust me bro.
-_-
Source: OSINT + RPG-7 Makes Boom-Boom
Your video should have more emphasis on soldier opinions on the BMP @@casperarms
@@casperarms According to this logic, ANY transport is the most expensive in the world
@@casperarms bradleys toss turets = it's most hated vehicle
ALL RUSSIAN SOLDIERS say the same, its a deathtrap which is why they ride on the outside and not inside
Its a tin box full of soldiers and ammo, that's why.
BMP-1 and BMD-1 are different things. One that can be droped from the plane is BMD. Its BMP version for the paratroopers and they don't even look the same.
I think the biggest flaws stem from the insistence on amphibious capability. That forced it to be smaller and less armored, and it required significant effort to get them ready as in normal use the watertight seals quickly degrade. It also can't cross anything rougher than a millpond. The Soviets should've made a separate amphibious vehicle like the Marine's AAV and made the BMP bigger and better protected.
The US Army's M2 Bradley was originally amphibious, as well, but they quickly realized that ability wasn't worth it so upgraded its armor instead.
I play war thunder and I know the BMP is a driving bomb, cool but deadly
New production variants of BMP3 come with a thermal imager. While still having insufficient armor the versatility of its armament is excellent. It is an autocannon-mortar-launcher which unlike bradley can actually fire on the move.
The bradley can fire on the move, just not the TOW
@@sabot4104 yes I meant the atgms, the 25 is very accurate
Being able to be penned by a 50 cal is pretty crap.
You can't pen them on the front with that, neither on the sides unless you're really close and in a flat angle, and if the commander of a BMP and found himself in that very specific scenario it would mean that either the situation was really (like REALLY) dire to the point it was a last ditch attempt... Or that he was just dumb as shit and went too deep into enemy territory without infantry or other vehicles to cover it's flanks. But most commanders and crews will not find themselves in such a situation.
@@agentepolaris4914
>He doesn't know
LOL
@@agentepolaris4914Wrong. It can be penned by 12.7mm in the front. It’s just much more improbable. And it cuts through the sides easily. It’s not a great IFV. But since it has to swim, the armor was cut down.
2:49 small correction, the bmp 1 has a 73, not 93 mm gun
I am surprised you don't mention this, but the thing about the original BMP that made me nervous was the fact that the fuel tanks were in the doors that let me out...
I'm 564lbs and struggle with mental illness. Sometimes I draw these robots to calm the voices in my mind.
Lose weight
It's just cute okay? IT'S A CUTE TANK
if it only had more armor...
3:09 for those not wanting a history lesson from someone padding their video time and just want to hear what you came to hear and move on.
I heard the BMP 3 was in high demand in Bakhmut. The 100mm gun was a god send in the city fighting.
The BMP-3 the guy in the video talks about is the old one from the 80s the russian BMP-3s have indeed thermal sights and modernized screens, as well as additonal armor protection.
Many people arguing about the efficacy of the Bradley and BMP in this comment section. Talking about how this or that one is a deathtrap. The truth is that all IFVs when compared to other Troop Transport options could be considered deathtraps. When you design an IFV which needs to be equipped at minimum with an Autocannon and Ammunition, yet also expect it to carry a volume of Soldiers and their Equipment; you are making a decision which will cause increased risk of injury or death to the personnel. All of these vehicles are wanting for space and present ideal, compact, volatile targets for many Weapon Systems; sometimes even down to Heavy Machine Guns. All IFVs are like this and perhaps the concept and utility of the IFV in general should be re-examined.
Crazy that the back doors also serve as the reserve fuel tanks
This is like comparing a tiger tank to a t34; they may have certain bad univeral traits eg reliability, however they are good for what they were designed for. The bmp was supposed to serve in hordes of mechanized units in northern germany, not dense urban areas like grozny. It is fair enough to point out why soldiers might dislike certain equipment but there is little point in judging a cat by how well it can bark.
Only the side armor was thin on the bmp1 and 2... both BMPs are rated for 23mm rounds on the frontal arc... the original m2 and m2a1 bradley are only rated to 14.5mm albeit on a 360 arc
another thing is you cant just drive a BMP across a river, youd have to do some maintenance/preparation beforehand
BMP-3 do actually have thermal sights.
"hate BMP" and here we had Indonesian Marine with their almost 40++ years old BMP 💀
The Bradley suffers from exactly the same an RPG hit will...nvm there an ukrainian video on this hes showing how the rear compartment looks like after a missile hit metal fragments all over the place, you can already tell whoever was in the back did not have a good time, the gunner however is in much safer position additionally protected by armor this could also be seen the fragmets were also inside the gunners cabin but far less than in the passanger area, there arent a lot of IFVs you can trust probably only the very modern ones such as the german PUMA IFV.
BMP-1 was made of the light tank PT-76 that's why it has so many design flaws. It's just wasn't designed as a IFV from the scratch.
Air droppable does not necessarily include air landable. I believe that it was an M552 Sheridan which was claimed to be air droppable. A general decided to try it, and watched as all three chutes streamered and the vehicle made a sizable dent in the ground. It landed in one piece, but everything inside needed maintenance and recalibration.
the biggest problem with BMP is its gun charges. Any hit to weak, effectively anti-bullet only, armor and all these charges, NOT separated from internal crew and soldiers compartment, explode, so no one survives inside. Its even worse than turret toss of T72 family.
So BTR - effectively the same but on wheels and with KPVT machine gun, half of Soviet infantry was equipped with it, not with BMP, - deemed to be much more safer, there are good chance to get out alive if machine is hit.
you combined BMP 1-2-3 with BMD. BMP 2 was NOT modernization, it was declined alternative adopted into service
I think the only and the biggest problem for all Russian weapons is that they don't care about personnel survivability, same since ww2, all their strategy is based on their soldiers die in huge numbers, then get replaced until the enemy is out of resources, I feel sorry that Russians go through this, most of them are great people who simply try to survive and live a peaceful life
Isn’t there also like a 20 year difference between the Bradly and bmp1?
Yep roughly BMP-1 is from 1965 and M2 Bradley 1981, it took america quite some time to create something comparable the Bradley is the M113 replacement, both the 113 and BMP-1 are still in use today.
Seems like the perfect vehicle when you have 1000 of them.
It's because the BMP was made as a support vehicle, but the Russians have tried to use it as a MBT since day one. It ain't something you put in the front, but that's what they do
Another notable issue with the BMP is the doors to the rear crew compartment are fuel tanks, not something you want for your primary route of egress
Those fuel tanks on the rear are only filled when in patrol duties, never when it's sent to combat.
Thanks for the vid. quantity verses quality a very fine line 🙂🙂👍
Thank you! ^^
The HS 30 (Germany) was the first mass produced IFV...but the halftracks SdKfz251 were already used as IFV in ww2.
Like this videos more publish regularly plz
From 🇧🇩 with you ❤
Do we know what happened(actual bad experience; change in doctrine or belief in ability of mechanized infantry to remain coordinated with tanks, some sort of weird territorial infighting between design and procurement people?) to make the BMP-2 look like such an outlier in terms of armament?
Was moving to the smaller caliber autocannon on the BMP-2 always a compromise forced by the 2A28 not working all that well that they had always fully intended to abandon once a hopefully-improved larger cannon light and small enough to not need a main battle tank or tank destroyer became available? Were some BMP-2s actually caught out in situations where having a proper antitank gun could have saved the day and that soured people on them?
I don't doubt that there were compelling reasons for the chassis upgrade between the 1/2 and 3; but it seems striking that the armament is "BMP-1; but even harder" and while the 30mm autocannon remains it's as a coaxial mount and elevation and depression are back to being dictated by the larger gun.
I suspect that the finer point are almost certainly lost on me; but that seems like the sort of outcome that has to have a development story to tell.
Well, all that being said, I just think they are neat. I really like to see footage of the BMP-2 especially, and wish I could have one.
The vibe I got was mostly they think it makes them a much tastier target for russian forces compared to just a truck/van without enough armor to make up for that
I serve on a BMP 23 - I hate that rust bucket with a passion....
To get in the back, Young have to be like 160 cm 😂
BMD is not BMP. And bmP 3 is comparable with bradley in every way. Modern enough. And still unlike bradley it can swim across river or pond. Recent conflicts show that pontoon is a wery bad idea, drones will ruin it in matter of hours while in use, or even under construction. So light versatile, swimming, parachutable, armored enough machine - is good, better than bradley, wich is also too heavy.
Nah I saw one try and the soldiers were seconds away from the water overtaking them
@@Joaquin546 bradley cant swim even theoretically
@@MosZorb but thank god the Ukrainian aren't that stupid
Russia should build a heavier armored vehicle than the BMP. Modern warfare requires it. The BMP's armor is light because of its low weight, which is required for its amphibious capabilities. Russia to build heavy armored vehicle for assault
Yes, There are many built but in Development ❤
Literally everyone does up-armoring now, since it turned out APCs are easy prey for all sorts of weapons and its actually Tanks that have the highest survival rate because they're the hardest to destroy and they have a far higher rate of getting repaired and returned to combat than other lighter vehicles
They should yes...but still vulnerable to artillery...now they are doing infantry assaults
@@AdilAchahbar-g9i heavy IFV have big prices and need many time to build. BMP -1/2 free of charge (USSR paid for them) and in storage now.
Heavy IFV's are slower and more expensive to build. They often still get destroyed by FPV drones or lancets.
As the polish joke goes
To serve on the BMP is an honour
To not serve is a blessing
Well the doors on the back of the BMP are fuel tanks and those doors are the only way out of the BMP.
M2A2 Bradley is no longer amphibious. That was an option only on the M2A0 and M2A1 variants.
I got to ride bmp-3 many times in the korean army during my service Inside the bmp during summer is like an oven in winter its really warm from the engine being in the back haha
3:54 didn't know it had height adjustable suspension like that
BMP has the mobility and logistic of a bradley with the protection of a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
Is it not also true that the back doors double as fuel tanks? If I heard that correctly, it means that the fastest way out could very well be on fire, or spilling fuel all over the place.
The reserve tanks on the rear doors are usually not full, and only when in transport or long-haul runs. I've not heard of any filled during combat including combat footage (i.e. all the drone footage in the last 2-3 years) I've never seen the tanks mounted on them, including wreckages.
Let's not forget about how little to no space is inside of them
You FAILED to mention that the rear doors to the crew compartment are filled with the "go go" juice for the vehicle! Being crammed into the crew compartment behind the fuel filled doors in now way makes it an fondly thought of ride for the crew, or its cargo...the infantry!
Those are long range tanks. Not meant to be used in combat.
Meanwhile the Bradley's are showing their worth
Because it is a death trap, because it's a vehicle for transportation of the dead and wounded.
It is a tuna can with wheels. That's why.
The BMP wasn’t the first IFV, this title belongs to the German HS30 adopted in the 50s.
The gun depression is depressing....
Also unassing a BMP through those little rear hatches is a lot rougher than a Bradley or M113
Can't hate the BMP if you die before you can review it *Russian general taps forehead*
Well, at least there are a lot less BMP's now then a few years ago.
I was in a unit with strikers vehicles in Iraq. Those vehicles work well in that environment but man I wish they put more effort in making them more comfortable 😂. Sometimes we had to hang out inside them in the heat for long periods m, it was torture
Because they either don't know how to use it and don't have enough to satirate the forces OR the officers deny proper use.
Context for the latter: T-72 is fairly good tank IF you load only 22 rounds of ammo which results in all ammo being very low to the ground in autoloader. This is how much ammo poles, ukranians, finns, iraqis and even russians themselves during Chechen Wars loaded into T-72.
However in Ukraine they ride around with 32, 36 and even 42 rounds of ammo, almost double! Why? Officers don't want to organise logistics to resupply tanks properly. So they overload them with ammo and make it "a you problem" for the crew.
Wouldn't be surprised if there is a common soldier wisdom in use of BMP-1 that is also frowned upon by officers.
For example not storing fuel in the rear hatch fuel tanks. Diesel might be harder to ignite, but not when incendiary ammo is involved. On the other hand empty tank provides less protection by itself since bullet doesn't travel through liquid. Dumb solution - fill it with other liquid OR sand. Would damage the fuel piping so likely would be frowned upon by higher ups, who don't ride inside one.
Citation needed
@@snafu1635 there's only 22 slots in carousel, you can check yourself.
If the BMP is parachuted is the crew also trained as parachutists?