Why did the BMP Become the Most Hated Vehicle in Russian Army
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- 📃 This mysterious light tank appeared in the mid-60s and made a real breakthrough, forcing military doctrines around the world to change forever. The BMP has a huge arsenal at its disposal, it can swim and can even parachute right from an airplane! In short, a true marvel of technology. But this is only at first glance. In fact, the BMP is the most hated vehicle in the entire Russian army! But what is the reason?
➖➖➖➖➖➖
#bmp #infantryfightingvehicle #russianarmy #kurganets25 #armoredvehicle #soldiers #coldwar #sovietarmy #bmp2 #easternbloc
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
Thanks for the vid. quantity verses quality a very fine line 🙂🙂👍
Thank you! ^^
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
Like this videos more publish regularly plz
From 🇧🇩 with you ❤
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.
Why U are mixed BMP and BMD? BMP has better armour and BMD has bad armour but can airdropped.
BMP-2 (with modern upgrade: more armour + thermal optic) is competitive IFV. Maybe Bredly is better, but BMP is very chip.
Because the BMD is just a separate version of the BMP, which is the same concept as the BMP in essence. The BMP-2 does not have any reinforced armor or thermal imaging optics. All this remained at the level of "promising developments", which are intended only for presentations at exhibitions. What can we talk about, even if the main T-72 tank of the latest modifications has French thermal imagers, which are no longer there
@@casperarms At ORIX U can see 200 BMP-2 + 30 BMP-1 with 675-sb3KDZ protection kit and 40 BMP-2M with thermal optic. And 10 BMP2M with 675-sb3KDZ protection kit.
@@casperarmsBMD is not another version of BMD. It is very expensive and have bad armour, but it can airdropped. Do U know another IFV which can airdropped? It is unique. U can't airdropped 30 tonn Bradley anyway. U must build very light IFV with thin armour.
@АлексейГордеев-п1н
Striker including the MGS
Pandur II
Amx 10
LAV 25
Can all be airdropped
@@АлексейГордеев-п1н Landing heavy equipment from the air is a useless function, because modern air defense systems have put an end to this concept, as well as the ability to swim
what absolute bollocks
What exactly do you think is nonsense?
@@casperarmspontoon crossing is very difficult. It is better to have IFV which can swim. In Ukraine we saw many times then pontoon crossing was destroyed by artillery and rockets.
@@АлексейГордеев-п1н How many times have you seen BMPs or BTRs moving on water in this conflict?
@@casperarmsit is not about IFV. It is about bad training and bad maintenance.
It takes about 5 minutes inside a BMP to figure out they're junk. At least they've made over 55,000 of them-- that's got to count for something, right?
Welp oof!
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
Sucks being inside any armored vehicle; especially when it’s getting hit with sh*t
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)
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 ming 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 Bradley are made with a v shaped hull and roof mounted sets 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 often 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Pretty sure the BMD-4 is hated more.
it's actually loved because of insane mobility able to very quickly drop off infantry that can later disperse, better FCS than standard BMPs including BMP-3 and 100mm powerful cannon
@@ryssa2409 Nikolay Makarov would beg to differ.
A vehicle given barely any protection, so that it could perform a job that it's never done and probably never will.
Airborne assaults aren't feasible in war with a near peer adversary..
@@Evan_Bell he said it 12 years ago, many things now changed, a lot of bmd4s now have spaced screens allowing it to tank 12.7 to sides and no amount of armor will save from an fpv or MALE drone hitting a roof
But i agree, bmds as a class will disappear because air assaults will only be done via many helicopters, not huge planes, putting a lot of eggs in a same basket is bad.
Also wouldn't say it's hated, it's quick and nimble allowing infantry to dismount faster
The BMP was too crampy and it's armor are very thin too.
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.
The voice is so unbearable I couldn't see the video. Honestly.
Soon I will not be voicing it, but a professional speaker who is a native speaker
@@casperarms it sounds like an artificial voice. And the inflections sound quite weird.
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.
A lot of these shots are BMD, not BMP, although I'm sure that doesn't make a huge difference.
Well, every tool has it's purpose. If they are implemented incorrectly by commanders, they can become hated by troops.
In my opinion, BMP should be implemented either as counter terrorist vehicle. Or in war on open terrains as transport vehicle.
We have seen even the BRDM armoured scout car directly into the battlefield. BMP was designed as troop carrier across contaminated area capable to take small arms and shrapnel. They should be protected behind tanks, carrying troops and deploying infantry and ATGMs. I guess they can re-purpose BRDMs and BMPs for drone operations centers, or communication or command etc. Some have been repurposed for medevac or use it counter sniper operations.
BMPs are a like Humvees but bit more firepower and tracks and are amphibious. Humvees were also hated by marines, and LAV25 were hated for not having IED protection. So.... Commanders shouldn't be expecting those vehicles to take anti material munitions.
Crazy that the back doors also serve as the reserve fuel tanks
To get in the back, Young have to be like 160 cm 😂
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).
Russia is guided by Stalin's motto, quantity has its quality...tanks, armored vehicles, light weapons, the way they use the infantry...for example, it has the same principle: heavy weapons, light armor...you can easily compare Eastern and Western weapons according to the weight, there is a difference of 10 tons ... the armor
@@danfilon3349 no, it's actually the armor that's needed to protect larger internal space, spaced composite armor which weighs more than ERA. For example challenger 2 with chobham weighs like 1.6 T90Ms without offering much more protection
@@ryssa2409 Russian armored btr bmp are 7.62 per 54 penetration, the western ones are not...they are cheaper and stupider...individual armament as well..there is no point in using tanks as equipment.installation of sights, vulnerability to explosion and survival of the crew .cheap and stupid...with munitions put together with the crew in order to make them cheap and compact...I don't know what we are talking about here T 90 is an evolved T 72 that blows up just as easily with the same obvious mistakes of design....At T 14, if the project works, you can argue....otherwise, not so much...if the crew dies, you can't argue about quality
Bah... Clickbait video. All speculation and hearsay.
man i never knew thath the bmp was this hated.
but i still like how it looks.
All IFV's are hated in every military, in Canada our LAV's are the butt of a lot of jokes and are a maintenance nightmare. But they still look sick, same with the BMP's imo.
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...
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)...
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
Oh yeah, Russian scientist is good at fundamental science, but political establishment will not allow creativity
'Bmp can be parachuted' Ok, on to the next video, this guy doesnt knows shit.
The fact that they’re still using Soviet vehicles is just dumb 🤣
Hmm nah I still think BMP is good and should not be get rid of
I think you are attracted to the exoticism of the BMP if you live in Western Europe or the USA
Is it functional yes but the space my goodness the space. The back of an M113 looks like a five-star hotel room by comparison.
@casperarms nah I live in Asia
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.
The HS 30 (Germany) was the first mass produced IFV...but the halftracks SdKfz251 were already used as IFV in ww2.
They are also slow to get in and out of with full kit and the sides and rear can be penetrated with heavy machine guns with armor piercing ammo. A Browning M2 with API or Mk211 ammo would be a real threat to the sides and rear of a BMP. BMP-2M is a bit better as far as protection but not a lot.
Everyone should ask who told this channel? And which whole Russian. Army issued such statements?
I'm sure bmp was good exactly for what it was designed to do. Of course decades later it was being used in very different environments and it faced weapons and tactics not known in early 60s. Comparing it to Bradley is just sheer idiocy. It's like comparing Spitfire to F-100 .
The latest and most modern bmp (bmp3m) does have a modern fire control system, and thermals, what are you talking about
The BMP wasn’t the first IFV, this title belongs to the German HS30 adopted in the 50s.
another thing is you cant just drive a BMP across a river, youd have to do some maintenance/preparation beforehand
Simply put - it is bloody old and obsolete and it really shows.
It was one hell of a revolutionary vehicle at the time it was introduced, but its flaws really show.
Crew and dismount conditions are horrible. Armour is virtually non existent against most modern firearms. Horrid crew ergonomics. All that in one package.
The same goes double for BMD - this is the ariborne clown-car of a vehicle with additional problem to boot - miserable ammo capacity. It is a damn clown car of an IFV.
Ammo capacity on these vehicles is a major problem - the point of IFV is its ability to stay and fight with its dismounts. Unlike APC, which is designed to deliver troops, provide some brief cover fire and GTFO. Except... with BMP and BMD, with minuscule ammunition supply it can't really remain in combat for any reasonable time.
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.
BMP-2 Can be heavily Modernised as well . They Czechs & Slovaks have shown this with their SKCZ Sakal & Excalibur M2 IFV versions .
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.
Try to use bmp and you will hate it as well.)
i dont think bmp's swimming ability isnt that bad you can hit a bradley that is crossing a bridge easily cus they are slow and remember nearly half of the bmp profile would be under the water
i think its all about protection cus if a bradley got hit by an RPG it wouldn't be that much trouble but if a BMP gets hit by an RPG it would turn into a total graveyard and also keep in mind that infantry most likely would be on top of the BMP which makes them an easy target for the guerrilla's
I've heard from guys who serve in the army on BMP - the swimming is only good for drills. It takes long time to prepare the machine for that, then it still leaks everywhere. Even from official manuals - going into more than 1.2m of water requires special preparation procedures.
@@stariyczedun damn leaking ? takes long time to get this ability just to cross a little lake ? im taking my words back that's horrible thx for the update
@@stariyczedun wait how about the other variants like bmp2 or bmp3
it really depends on where it hits, considering bmp is much harder to hit than bradley
@@ryssa2409 does that really matter cus once it gets hit by an RPG it would still burnt to the chrimp and keep in mind that bmp's turret would be still visible
Comrade you get in BMP and drive towards Holols 😊
Its pretty OK in World of Tanks tho…
The gun depression is depressing....
is this gay ai voice? wtf?
"A moving foxhole attracts the eye"
MTLB has entered the chat
hey, even b mp is better than no mp
2:47 73mm not 93mm!
Yep, sorry :)
@@casperarms all good!
Just the first vomit box …..
Why 'did' they?
My brother in Christ. BWP is the most hated vehicle of Polish Army.
@@mixererunio1757 BWP = BMP-1 without autolouder. Old vehicle. Russia and Ukraine modernized some BMP-1: new turret with good optic (sometimes thermal) and 30mm autocannon + rocket launcher. It isn't great but competitive.
I have quite the experience with Bmp-2 from czech army as I serve as an infantryman mounted on it. Number 1 problem for us with this ifv is ergonomics. Crew compartment is fucking cramped. Im 195cm tall and my knees hurt only after like 20 minutes inside as I have to literally tuck them under my ass. When you add all the gear we now wear like balistic protection and large packs (back then it was designed for soldiers wearing y straps load bearings with one ammo pouch and shovel.) it becomes real pain in the ass.
Its hard to get in or get out. We had one emergency where batteries started burning inside for some reason and the dismounted element almost didnt get out in time. So yeah everyone in the czech army hates it and is eagerly awaiting new swedish ifvs.
I believe all you said, but of course being 1,95 doesn't help a bit! You will feel cramped in any vehicle.
Ważne ,że pływa
I read that the U.S. 25mm would penetrate front to back on a bmp.
Correct, the Bmp if I remember right is only rated to maybe .50bmg. So anything bigger turns it into swiss cheese.
In the 1973 October war, the IDF captured significant quantities of Soviet-made armor, from the Egyptian Army in the Sinai, as well as from the Syrians and the Iraqis on the Golan Heights front. The Soviet tanks, the T-55's and the T-62's, were summarily upgraded and entered service in the IDF shortly thereafter, and were, for a decade or so, notoriously unpopular with the reserve tankers that received them. The BMP-1's that were taken from the Egyptians were, unlike the antique BTR-50's, 152's, and 40's that had been captured from the same army in the previous war of '67, immediately rejected. These vehicles weren't even good enough as static range targets!
The BMP-1 is not great for sure. BMP-2 is better. BMP-3 is a much needed improvement on both. Only advantage the BMP-1 is it's large caliber gun. Which actually was able to take out at least one Bradley in Desert Storm.
Casket on wheels
BMP - Boevaya Mashina Pekhoty (infantry fighting vehicle). But the soldiers said: "BMP - Bratskaya Mogila Pekhoty" (mass grave of infantry)
2:31 bruh that's from a movie
9th company, 1:40:32 ruclips.net/video/PTJ6H8671oM/видео.html
So what? Does this somehow refute my words?
@@casperarms military content creators who care about accuracy distinguish between actual historical footage and fictional depictions
of course you give no sources whatsoever for any of the claims or visual material presented, so there's nothing to even refute in the first place
@@nuhuhbruhbruh You're just picking on me. My God, I'm not writing a dissertation on the BMP, it's just a plot, the purpose of which is to tell something new and bring interesting things to the audience
The rear doors are fuel tanks.....that is a terrible design flaw. Don't want to BBQ your own infantry if the rear takes a hit.
The BMP runs on Diesel not gasoline. Diesel cannot be ignited by flames or bullet impacts.
@haydengalloway5177 Yes. It's safe from Ball and Tracer ammo, it's definitely not safe from HEI ammo, WP or shaped charges like an RPG7
@@haydengalloway5177 tell that to the mobiks during chechen war
@@sharonrigs7999 If you're taking an RPG to the rear Armor of your IFV, you've already messed up and have much bigger issues to deal with.
About Kurganets IFV - when it's ready it will be expensive. Russian army doesn't need expensive, it requires mass produced cheap junk which can sorta work. This is why they never really adopted even t-90 in sufficient numbers, even though the industry could produce it. And it is why Armata is stillborn. The army is not that interested, they are playing the numbers game.
They have adopted the T90 in big numbers though? They build about 10 a week!
@@m16-a2 check out t-72 update story and why they chose inferior t-72b3 to b2 and t-90 for mass production. Right now Russia is happy with anything, it's factories can produce in numbers.
@@stariyczedun Russia doesn't have any B2's in service, try again.
Russia is producing B3's, T80BVM's and T90M (2024, with 15kmh reverse).
BMP 1, BMP 1P, BMP2, BMP3. which BMP?
All of them
@@casperarms
Bradleys burn just as easily in Ukraine and the armor array on that variant is not inferior to the current one so I fail to see the point beyond the BMP-3 having the option to indirect fire with its 100mm well beyond gun and missile range of the brad.
@@RomanianReaverfriendly reminder 3.329 Russia BMP's got destroyed since february 2022
Source: orxy attack on Europe: documenting Russian equipment losses during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
@@RomanianReaver Bradley doesn't burn the same way as the BMP. If both of these vehicles are hit by an ATGM missile, then yes, they will probably be destroyed. But the BMP is much easier to knock out, and most importantly, the probability that the BMP will take the troops with it is much higher. Bradley will die, but he will keep his cubs
@@casperarms
If you're gonna lie out of your ass you may wanna do so more believably. If the BMP is not in ATGM range it's not gonna get hit, if it is and it does get hit it'll very likely survive just as well as the Bradley because the big jet of fuck off will kill someone and neither IFVs have protected ammo from a EFP so you're eating a fair bit of shit.
Now if you went with "if a 122 or higher arty shell lands next to the side of a BMP3 and another on the side of a Bradley and both are buck naked in terms of addon armor packages, then the BMP3 will suffer more from the shrapnels than the Bradley" but you didn't, you didn't push the one tangible flaw of the BMP3 if it's not got its armor addons on and you failed singularly due to it. Next time learn tf you're talking about before you step up to mouth off.
Many Bmp-3 have recieved thermal sights
Yes, all of them
yeah this guy is a joke lol
@@thanksskeletor4812 Hes snorting so much copium
@@m16-a2 Only copium I can see around here is yours, its leaking out your nose, silly vatnik
The Bradley takes what the Soviets were trying (and failing) to do with the BMP and actually pulls it off.
The bradley takes a barn and puts an extremely anemic 25mm gun in there, dogshit deployable atgms and overhypes it to the max, bmp2m is an actually good vehicle
@@ryssa2409 That "anemic" gun has taken out T-90Ms in Ukraine. Those "dogshit" TOW missiles destroyed more Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles in the Gulf War than the M1 Abrams. No Russians or Ukrainians on the front lines would agree with you. They both hate the BMP, and the Russians are absolutely terrified of the Bradley.
@@ryssa2409 your confirmation bias is showing. You ever shot one? Drove one? No? Stfu.
The Bradley is an overhyped piece of junk
yeah not really. It is a driving barn and is good if you are fighting third world insurgents, but even then they were nicknamed "blenders" in Iraq because when hit by an RPG the fragments blended the crew up inside. Im not glazing the russian stuff because it would suffer a similar fate but the western equivalents are just as expendable. You want a solid cross country mover to get troops into position and then use it as a support vehicle, NOT charging into battle with troops still inside.
No tank or BMP can withstand a Ukrainian drone. The Dragon Drone is one scary drone. You can survive it if you are inside a tunnel or cave. Above ground you are toast.
You made a lot of vatniks mad, that's how you know this is a good video
Don’t care, it looks sick
It looks sick when explodes.
@@snafu1635 Can a man not appreciate a cool looking vehicle?
@@matthewjones39 cool factor ≠ combat effectiveness
@@snafu1635 Okay? I never said it was effective in combat. I said it looks cool.
@@matthewjones39 fair point
It is only bad compared to more modern IFVs, which all came AFTER it. I bet the "Russian soldiers" would prefer it to riding in a truck.
The BMP-1 is also bad compared to the Marder that started its development earlier than the BMP.
@@RichelieuUnlimited No
@@aruunmenon A Marder is more comfortable, better armored, better armed, has a better layout, better optics… A BMP is reliant on an ATGM to deal with a Marder, the Marder can simply use its main gun to deal with a BMP. The Marder 1A3 is even resistant to the BMP-2’s 2A42.
@@RichelieuUnlimited According to you
@@aruunmenon All of those are factual statements, that can be quantified and checked. I‘ll admit that the BMP-1‘s 2A28 may be theoretically able to pierce the Marder‘s armor, however it is unlikely to hit the Marder at combat ranges and wouldn’t be likely to get even a single try, let alone multiple. The Soviets did replace the Grom for a reason.
Dumb ppl in the comments talking about how the Brad is dog water. Mf's forgot about the battle of 73 Eastings and frankly every-time a Brad came in contact with a Russian vic, comes out on top. Get your confirmation bias tf outta here
You're no better. The US was obviously the superior force. They had 1990's equipment facing late 60's and early 70's weaponry (export models too.) which were crewed by inferior trained tankers... The brad is dog water, its completely overhyped...
Ah yes the perfect terrain and fighting sand monkeys with no support whatsoever. No confirmation bias from you lol. The irony is crazy
Bradley sucks more than the Abrams, cope more
@@m16-a2It wicks more than the Abrams? Ah, so it’s the second best armored vehicle of all time.
@@matthewjones39 The abrams is one of the worst, overpriced "MBT"s ever lmao
Eh no bmp 2 does not have laser range finger and its nighvision is.... well put infront of you green beer bottle .... same result you ll se more with standard optics