This vehicle belongs in a museum. Why is it still being used in Ukraine?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 4 окт 2022
  • The BMP-1 is a Soviet infantry fighting vehicle from the 1960s. Ours was captured during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and has been on display at IWM Duxford for over 30 years. Yet vehicles just like It are still being used by both sides in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, with heavy losses. So why are museum pieces being fielded in a 21st century war? And how are they performing?
    IWM's free photography display 'Ukraine: Photographs from the Front Line' opens at IWM London on 3 February: www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-lon...
    Licence the clips used in this film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
    For information about licensing HD clips please email filmcommercial@iwm.org.uk
    Creative Commons Attributions:
    Russian footage by Mil.ru (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Ukrainian footage by armyinform.com.ua (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    BMP-1UM at the exhibition «The Power of unconquered» on the Day of the defender of Ukraine by Artemis Dread (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Cadets of the Military Academy (Odesa) improve their skills in driving armored vehicles in extreme situations by Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (CC BY 2.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Ukrainian BMP-2 IFV during the Independence Day parade in Kiev, Ukraine by Parade @ Kiev (CC BY 3.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    BMP-2 by vitalykuzmin.net (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle by vitalykuzmin.net (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    BMP-3 IFV by vitalykuzmin.net (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Scimitar Mk 2 CVR by MOD (OGL v1.0)
    Destroyed BMP by armyinform.com.ua (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Ukrainian Mastiff by armyinform.com.ua (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Ukrainian HIMARS by Mil.gov.ua (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...
    Lithuanian M113 by Ministry of National Defence Republic of Lithuania (GNU v1.2)
    www.gnu.org/licenses/old-lice...
    Ukrainian M777 Howitzer by Mil.gov.ua (CC BY 4.0)
    creativecommons.org/licenses/...

Комментарии • 2 тыс.

  • @sternencolonel7328
    @sternencolonel7328 Год назад +2594

    Well, old tank is still better than no tank

    • @bobcosmic
      @bobcosmic Год назад +34

      That part ✅

    • @woodsboy444
      @woodsboy444 Год назад +92

      Some of the worst logic ive ever heard. Maybe in the Russian way of thinking but that would only hamper any modern army.

    • @sternencolonel7328
      @sternencolonel7328 Год назад +232

      @@woodsboy444 did you took a look at the armored vehicles Western countries send to Ukraine ? Almost all of them are also museum pieces from the same era

    • @Dogbertious
      @Dogbertious Год назад +106

      @@woodsboy444 I'd recommend watching the Tank Chat series over at the Tank Museum, especially their videos on the T-series vehicles. Again and again, the point is made that having an old tank is better than having no tank at all, because having an armoured box with a heavy gun on it is an incredibly powerful asset on the battlefield.

    • @lordbry470
      @lordbry470 Год назад +10

      Mor0n. You'd think both of them will use KV-1 and T-34 as of today

  • @danielaramburo7648
    @danielaramburo7648 Год назад +2351

    Because it still runs, it’s reliable, it still kills. It’s an antique, it belongs in the reserve forces not the front line standing army.

    • @williamthebonquerer9181
      @williamthebonquerer9181 Год назад

      Because Russias military industrial complex is a joke

    • @FireAngelOfLondon
      @FireAngelOfLondon Год назад +108

      It belongs in a museum; even the reserve forces should have something from the 1990s at least.

    • @bouncyseal8675
      @bouncyseal8675 Год назад +332

      @@FireAngelOfLondon Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight like the bradley and abrams are not an 80's design lmao

    • @Ruzaraneh
      @Ruzaraneh Год назад +190

      @@FireAngelOfLondon i didnt see B-52 Bomber in museum nor in reserve force... i am maybe wrong in the museum part tho..

    • @xureality
      @xureality Год назад +42

      @@Ruzaraneh there's one at the museum of flight in Seattle, parked right across the parking lot from the first 747.

  • @SK-lt1so
    @SK-lt1so Год назад +974

    "Open top" was a problem before nuclear weapons.
    Open top tank destroyers were very vulnerable to all sorts of artillery/small arms fire.
    The problem didn't start with nuclear weapons.

    • @jonathanbair523
      @jonathanbair523 Год назад +47

      Ya I was thinking about "what about air burst shells or shells that hit trees/buildings over head and rain down chunks of what gets hit..."

    • @kineticdeath
      @kineticdeath Год назад +35

      russian tanks are going open top once more in Ukraine, it may or may not require a Javelin to get the roof off though

    • @dickyarya8204
      @dickyarya8204 Год назад +8

      I believe the whole idea of an tank destroyer was to be used as behind the front line or in a hidden ambush location, hence powerful gun to knock from miles away. If they were spotted simply retreat and find a new place. Not as a Frontline tank

    • @thePronto
      @thePronto Год назад +4

      What? Closed top vehicles are completely invulnerable to nuclear weapons. /s

    • @accountname9506
      @accountname9506 Год назад +13

      @@thePronto closed top vehicles can actually survive being pretty damn close to a nuclear blast. I believe the t55 could be somewhere like 550 meters from a nuclear blast and make it out? the crew would have died, of course, but it shows just how drastically it improves survivability for both crew and vehicle.

  • @manilajohn0182
    @manilajohn0182 Год назад +396

    The B- 52 first flew in 1952. It's still in service today and is expected to remain in service until mid- century.

    • @brucethedruid
      @brucethedruid Год назад +26

      All the first editions have been scrapped. Those flying today have been extensively refurbished and updated. These have the "G" designation.

    • @Christopher-rw2bp
      @Christopher-rw2bp Год назад +11

      That's the power of US engineering kid

    • @manilajohn0182
      @manilajohn0182 Год назад +28

      @@Christopher-rw2bp lo I got out of the service before you were born, young fella.

    • @unknowncommenter6698
      @unknowncommenter6698 Год назад +4

      It's way worse at it's job than BMP-1 at being IFV. Besides, you can upgrade BMP-1 to BMP-1AM "Basurmanin" version which is basically just mounting BTR-82A turret instead of original one. Also cage armor and etc. At the same time unironically using B-52 today is death sentence for its crew. Even in Vietnam lots of them were lost and those guys mostly had automatic cannons, DShK on tripods and maybe some heavy AA guns like 85-mm. That is, ofc, without less common rocket AA, MiGs and etc.

    • @unknowncommenter6698
      @unknowncommenter6698 Год назад +2

      @@Christopher-rw2bp power of losing up to 10k aircraft (not just B-52 obviously) in Vietnam? Sherman was nice though afaik. Really had time to make it comfortable

  • @tomsmith2587
    @tomsmith2587 Год назад +855

    Every country's military equipment is driven not only by effectiveness, but by budgetary constraints.

    • @buggerlugz6753
      @buggerlugz6753 Год назад +30

      which rings true for Russia more than any other army in the world.

    • @xXrandomryzeXx
      @xXrandomryzeXx Год назад +11

      @@buggerlugz6753 Nope. Not even close. More than half the world suffers from that problem, but Russia is not one of those countries.

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад +31

      @@xXrandomryzeXx : The entire world (...ok, I'll give you Costa Rica, but they don't _have_ a military) suffers from military budget limits, including Russia.

    • @Bustermachine
      @Bustermachine Год назад +16

      @Nikolai That is factually untrue. The US military has an insane budget, but it does in fact have a budget. And internal watch dogs.
      There's a lot of ways that the US defense industry grifts and price gouges. But at the end of the day, once the checks clear, they're expected to deliver. Uncle Sam WILL get what he ordered to the specifications that were agreed upon in the contract.

    • @michaeldunne338
      @michaeldunne338 Год назад +3

      @Nikolai That is a budget And that figure comes from SIPIR, which covers "Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, and the National Intelligence Program." And its still lower in percent of GDP than what Russia is even nominally suspected of having spent before the invasion of Ukraine: 3.5 for the US, down from 3.7 to the Russians 4.1%.
      Can try to make hay out of the American budget, but still miles ahead of all those friends of Russia, the Peoples' Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, etc. in terms of transparency, oversight and management.
      And with those arguments, people seem to forgot that those dictators over in Russia, the PRC, NK and Iran may not be revealing all of their numbers.

  • @andeve3
    @andeve3 Год назад +1332

    The M113 is even older and is still in use (and being given as aid to Ukraine). So just like the M2 Browning: If it works it works, even if it's old.

    • @METT-TC
      @METT-TC Год назад +44

      The m113 is better in a lot of ways than the bmp 1.

    • @majungasaurusaaaa
      @majungasaurusaaaa Год назад +81

      @@METT-TC The m113 does its job (it can do many jobs) extremely well for what it costs.

    • @chaosXP3RT
      @chaosXP3RT Год назад +145

      @@METT-TC The M113 has paper armor, just like the Humvee

    • @khoivo7947
      @khoivo7947 Год назад +208

      @@METT-TC M113 has worse firepower and protection than the BMP-1 what are you talking about?

    • @HereComeMrCee-Jay
      @HereComeMrCee-Jay Год назад +224

      @@METT-TC m113 is worse than BMP-1 as a fighting vehicle... but the m113 was never supposed to be a fighting vehicle, it was intended to be a lightly armored APC.

  • @esbenm6544
    @esbenm6544 Год назад +1394

    The Ukrainian army recently introduced a new targeting system for their BMP-1, enabling the 73mm gun to be used at longer range. After transporting infantry, it can provide ranged fire support similar to a light mortar, making each role a lot safer for the crew.

    • @brokeandtired
      @brokeandtired Год назад +90

      Yeah basically it acts as a light fire support vehicle...Downside is the 73mm is horrifically inaccurate hi- low pressure gun (like the 8 cm PAW 600). So its more of a point blank weapon or area infantry suppressive weapon.

    • @pexxajohannes1506
      @pexxajohannes1506 Год назад +53

      Firesystem (electric) is unreliable as hell. 73 mm gun is bs but if that is all you got, you make do with what you got.

    • @user-qn3xu5ee3t
      @user-qn3xu5ee3t Год назад +7

      They cant produced them in any sufficient numbers

    • @lefunnyN1
      @lefunnyN1 Год назад +61

      @@user-qn3xu5ee3t more realistic than the t14 armata ever seeing real use

    • @GrimYak
      @GrimYak Год назад +3

      Yeah, i saw a video of them aiming it up like artillery

  • @kamilmoucka6811
    @kamilmoucka6811 Год назад +672

    This is exactly the kind of vehicle I drove, as it was called at the time, as a soldier in basic service in 1976-78. I confess it was a revelation to us soldiers at the time.

    • @AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL
      @AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL Год назад +11

      Which country and service did you serve with?

    • @kamilmoucka6811
      @kamilmoucka6811 Год назад +149

      @@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL In a reconnaissance battalion within a division in the former Czechoslovakia.

    • @algentry1
      @algentry1 Год назад +13

      @@kamilmoucka6811 Cool.

    • @tortozza
      @tortozza Год назад +38

      @@kamilmoucka6811 How was your relationship with the Soviet military? Did you view them as brothers, or did you resent them for what they did in Prague?

    • @pexxajohannes1506
      @pexxajohannes1506 Год назад +25

      I did my tour in 1986. With all soviet gear. Bmp 2 was one of the best in generally useless ifv Soviets made. Nato war they were made for never came to be.

  • @PaulGuy
    @PaulGuy Год назад +254

    The M2 Browning .50 cal machine gun was designed at the end of WW1, and the B-52 is expected to be in service until 2050. Being old isn't necessarily a problem. Whether or not it's effective and used appropriately is what matters.

    • @susanwestern6434
      @susanwestern6434 Год назад

      The Ukrainians and Russians are using Maxim machine guns.

    • @joeis18
      @joeis18 Год назад +8

      Not at all the same argument.
      The M2 isn't the best HMG in the world, but it only has a couple other competitors. The B-52 is ok obsolete and would have no place in a war with Russia or China.

    • @Deathmastertx
      @Deathmastertx Год назад +15

      Small-arms a bit different. There hasn't been a radical improvement in HMG design that would necessitate replacing the M2. It's still very adequate in its role so there's no big push for the costs of replacing it. The B-52 isn't being used in its original role - that of penetrating enemy airspace to deliver nuclear weapons. It found new niches in carrying air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and in being a relatively low-cost bomb truck for opponents lacking in adequate air defense systems.

    • @psycho4207
      @psycho4207 Год назад +4

      @@Josh_728 he´s right tho, you cant expect a subsonic gigantique outdated plane to survive against actual countrys.

    • @chrissmith7669
      @chrissmith7669 Год назад +1

      I’m old and I’m still in service. Some parts are getting kinda worn but I still got some fight in me too

  • @johnbastien3872
    @johnbastien3872 Год назад +163

    I have seen them using the guns as short range artillery like mortar. A concept seems to work. It seems they have large stockpiles of ammunition for the system too. So it seems to form the role of close infantry support quite well. Tackling tree rows between fields.

    • @jwenting
      @jwenting Год назад +9

      same as in WW2 where M10 tank destroyers were used successfully as artillery in the Italian campaign as well as in France and Germany.

    • @VikingTeddy
      @VikingTeddy Год назад +2

      And it works.
      If I was being ferried to battle, I'd rather do it in a beamer than a bus.

    • @ommsterlitz1805
      @ommsterlitz1805 Год назад +4

      The real ancient of this war is the good old Mosin, made in Imperial Russia to fight in the Russo Japanese war with Napoleonic wars in mind, it still serves in Ukraine in both sides after 132 years, truly incredible.

    • @jasondelgott1549
      @jasondelgott1549 Год назад +1

      @@ommsterlitz1805 wait until you find out there using the maxim.

    • @ommsterlitz1805
      @ommsterlitz1805 Год назад +1

      @@jasondelgott1549 yep but maxim is just a little more recent than mosin, there is also incredible finds in Ukrainian side where there is photos of customs DP 27 with scopes and silencers 😆

  • @DarkestVampire92
    @DarkestVampire92 Год назад +428

    You failed to mention that its extremely cramped and uncomfortable, the firing ports are relatively useless outside of city fighting and the main armament was not very good, even in its day.
    BMP-3, or any western IFV are much, much better in terms of crew comfort, fightability, and even lethality.

    • @jwenting
      @jwenting Год назад +33

      BMP1 was designed to basically the same specification as the M113, and is a much better vehicle than the M113 on the battlefield.
      Lower profile means smaller target for enemy gunners, higher speed means it can better keep up with the tanks.

    • @pmfx65
      @pmfx65 Год назад +25

      It have been seen multiple times that the soldiers are riding on top of the vehicle instead of inside, because it's so horrible inside and you are in a death trap in case of enemy fire ...

    • @filonin2
      @filonin2 Год назад +8

      It's better than an M113.

    • @DarkestVampire92
      @DarkestVampire92 Год назад +38

      @@filonin2 Thats not saying much. Theres a thousand things out there better than an M113.

    • @chopper9778
      @chopper9778 Год назад +44

      @@jwenting The M113 isnt meant to fight though. Its an APC, not a IFV. Its meant to drop troops at the front and leave, rather then support them like the BMP. Its not fair to compare them when they were built for completely different roles, even if they are being used wrong.

  • @mrrolandlawrence
    @mrrolandlawrence Год назад +96

    i think the chieftan put it best.... no matter if your tank or bmp is not the latest and greatest, you have a better chance of surviving than if you are an infantry man. i remember seeing these up for sale in the 1990s in very good condition for less than $15,000 ..

    • @CyrilSneer123
      @CyrilSneer123 Год назад +3

      @tacfoley Yank, there is a reason why these vehicles exist. But please do walk to war in future.

    • @target844
      @target844 Год назад +8

      @tacfoley The problem is if you do not like to walk the likely alternative is a truck or another unarmed vehicle. Javeline can take them out too but so can small arms fire, and artillery fragments that the BMP-1 can protect you from.
      Walking can be better in some conditions but if we talk about crossing an open field, longer-distance vehicles often have a huge advantage and the BMP-1 will protect you from lots that are available alternatives do not.

    • @rastis5465
      @rastis5465 Год назад +1

      @tacfoley the truth,also applies to American vehicles abrhams,bredly,m113😁 soldier from kornet.

    • @mirage_panzer2274
      @mirage_panzer2274 Год назад

      ​@@target844 ah bringing the javelin argument. Popular logic fallacy. Cuz
      By that logic, lets not bring any vehicles cuz no one survive Javelin. In meantime, why not bring CAS threat to the table as well

    • @ianmclaren5297
      @ianmclaren5297 Год назад +1

      Give me hole in the ground any day over a lightly armoured vehicle.

  • @r.markclayton4821
    @r.markclayton4821 Год назад +123

    Nothing new here, I remember reading in the Sunday Times circa 1980 that the Shackleton was the only aircraft still in active service and simultaneously in a museum! Indeed it was, one was displayed in the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, where I saw it first hand.

    • @bigblue6917
      @bigblue6917 Год назад +5

      The RAF had an agreement with regards to these donated Shakletons that they would sometimes have to remove parts to keep those in service still flying.

    • @r.markclayton4821
      @r.markclayton4821 Год назад +10

      @@bigblue6917 The ST article was intended to damn the Nimrod, which was years and years late, massively overbudget and didn't work. Eventually scrapped and replaced with AWACS. This meant that the Shackleton "10,000 loose rivets flying in close formation" had to be kept in RAF service way past retirement.
      Nimrod team went on to [mis]manage the Edinburgh tram project...

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Год назад +5

      The B-52 is in that position too… It is being flown and maintained by the grandchildren of its original crews (great grandchildren in some cases).

    • @sword_of_light
      @sword_of_light Год назад +2

      Same goes for the An-2, a 1950's era Soviet transport the North Koreans are still using. Seems antiquated, but the An-2 apparently is reliable, works well in bad weather, and has a stall speed that damn near makes it a helicopter.

    • @Slavic_Goblin
      @Slavic_Goblin Год назад +2

      Strictly speaking, just cause some piece of hardware is in a museum, doesn't mean it's entirely obsolete.

  • @rickopich3727
    @rickopich3727 Год назад +113

    Let’s not be quite so judgmental. Recent videos of Ukrainian mechanized/motorized infantry show them using an equivalent Western museum piece, the M113 armored personnel carrier armed with a 50 caliber M2 Browning machine gun.

    • @PrograError
      @PrograError Год назад +7

      well... it's mostly as a battle taxi ain't it?

    • @olegbobrovskiy3244
      @olegbobrovskiy3244 Год назад +16

      @@PrograError Ukrainians don't have a choice. Western countries are not giving IFV's or tanks, there have been some small amount of IFV's donated but not enough to outfit whole brigades. So we are stuck with BMP1's, 2's, captured russian equipment and whatever our allies sent, in this case M113's

    • @robertharris6092
      @robertharris6092 Год назад

      Literaly anything can be used as an APC though. Theres nothing to improve.

    • @Jagabot_Esq.
      @Jagabot_Esq. Год назад +7

      @@olegbobrovskiy3244 Canada sent 39 brand new LAV 6.0 direct from the General Dynamics plant in Canada (pulled from 260 new orders for the CAF). Ukrainian personnel have already been trained in it and on its weapons systems (Canada has been training Ukrainian forces since 2015).

    • @olegbobrovskiy3244
      @olegbobrovskiy3244 Год назад +2

      @@Jagabot_Esq. Guys I do know this, I am very grateful for all the aid our allies are sending. What I mean is this isn't enough to equip all our brigades fighting on all fronts, which would answer the question of 'why are Ukrainians advancing using M113's?'. Canada (and likely Poland) are the only countries to send (ones that aren't Soviet or obsolete) IFV's so far for which I'm very grateful. Post soviet tank deliveries are also very appreciated :)

  • @anindrapratama
    @anindrapratama Год назад +15

    My country's Marines still use BTR-50 and PT-76, some are refurbished recently. BTR-40's also still exist along with Alvis Saladins for the ground forces

  • @nsbat755
    @nsbat755 Год назад +15

    Even an old weapon can be used effectively when you understand the limitations and place it correctly in the battlefield backed up by smart tactics.

  • @faysalkabir2699
    @faysalkabir2699 Год назад +44

    If BMP-2 is a museum vehicle then M113 is also a museum piece. Yet many NATO countries including USA still use it.

    • @gfanikf
      @gfanikf Год назад +8

      It’s probably been maintained and had proper maintenance checks. Russia….eh not so much.

    • @untrust2033
      @untrust2033 Год назад +2

      This isn't a bmp2

    • @wwlb4970
      @wwlb4970 Год назад

      I don't think USA will field them to frontlines of any upcoming war.

    • @frankrenda2519
      @frankrenda2519 Год назад

      true

    • @halo129830
      @halo129830 Год назад

      Dude t he Huey helicopter was phased out of border patrol operations during the trump administration and the amount in storage is astonishing

  • @ambush_akula5261
    @ambush_akula5261 Год назад +36

    BMP-1P is still a reliable and tested design, it isn’t a bad weapon, and it’s cannon provides excellent direct fire infantry Support

    • @Palach624
      @Palach624 Год назад +1

      The hull is still very durable and holds up very good. It can survive 20mm armor piercing rounds from the front and in recent video of Ukrainians attacking Russian BMP2M they needed more than 5 grenade drops from drones and RPG shots to neutralize it. What makes BMP1 bad is it's turret that offers low power and fire rate.

    • @ambush_akula5261
      @ambush_akula5261 Год назад

      @@Palach624 aye for the most part I agree, then again the question that one should ask is what Is needed, a high firepower direct fire cannon or a slightly more limited firepower but fast firing 30mm of death, that’s kinda why the BMP-3 was made to fill both roles but as much as I love the 3 I think the 1 and 2 are better because it’s roles are made simpler rather than over complicating things

  • @losthart5577
    @losthart5577 Год назад +73

    It was great hearing the Museum's curator. She was very knowledgeable and painted a very comprehensive picture of all these machines great capabilities and drawbacks.

  • @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756
    @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756 Год назад +386

    You're an infantry without any anti armor weaponry in a trench and the enemy fielded BMP-1s, I can't imagine you can think "oh it's just BMPs, we will be fine"
    Edit 1: Yes Javelins or any modern AT weaponry will wreck them, but with Javelins even a Bradley would be wrecked. Also yes it's unlikely infantry don't have any AT weapon, this is simply a highly specific situation. Yes 40mm under barrel will probably pen them, but 73mm can also pen an infantry or several, at greater distance. The "why still being used" simply came down into "they have nothing better to do sitting around still functional".
    Edit 2: or can be made functional in short order.

    • @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756
      @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756 Год назад +6

      @UCaJU9UC4kvvutwZRYye3-EA in that case, whether they field BMPs or Bradleys the "thinking" probably won't be so different. But yes, if you have AT, don't worry. If you don't, well maybe you can worry.
      Anyway the point is BMPs still dangerous and numerous, more importantly have nothing better to do.

    • @buggerlugz6753
      @buggerlugz6753 Год назад +26

      If however you are sat in your trench in Ukraine with a handful of Javelin's at hand, I doubt you're very worried at all.

    • @kristoffermangila
      @kristoffermangila Год назад +8

      @@buggerlugz6753 or with a Simex Alligator anti-materiel rifle or two...

    • @3aMonolit
      @3aMonolit Год назад +12

      You probably have little idea of ​​the scale of the war. All the javelins in the world would barely be enough.

    • @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756
      @harrybyaqussamprayuga1756 Год назад +1

      @@buggerlugz6753 my reply to the now-deleted comment is addressed to a reply just like this.

  • @andreinarangel6227
    @andreinarangel6227 Год назад +141

    A BMP1/2 is still a very viable vehicle. The US still use M113's, and even the British Army uses a piece of junk like the FV432.
    The whole issue of the fuel tanks is bunk. It's diesel fuel.
    The BMP, and all other older MICV's just need to be use properly.

    • @davidb8539
      @davidb8539 Год назад +16

      "piece of junk like the FV432" - so... you came here for a fight....

    • @filipinorutherford7818
      @filipinorutherford7818 Год назад +1

      Do the Brits still use the FV342?

    • @michaelmoorrees3585
      @michaelmoorrees3585 Год назад +14

      The US shipped over a bunch of M113s. Hopefully, the Ukrainians are smart enough to use them as originally intended, and dismount their infantry, when the shooting starts. The US and Israelis, sometimes used them as IFVs, instead of the APCs they are, back in Vietnam, and some of the Arab-Israeli wars.

    • @destroyerarmor2846
      @destroyerarmor2846 Год назад +5

      @@davidb8539 it's junk dude😭

    • @afallencheetah6610
      @afallencheetah6610 Год назад +11

      Diesel still burns

  • @Lanoumik
    @Lanoumik Год назад +14

    We went for a pleasure ride in BMP-1 in 2016. It did not have a turret so people can enjoy the view from the turret ring. It was only me and my gf and I surprised the guys by asking to ride in the back, because I wanted to see how the average infantryman is doing there. And it’s totally horrifying to imagine being hit in this machine and trying to get out fast. It’s loud, it’s absolutely uncomfortable. You jump high on every bump. After the ride I knew I don’t want to have anything to do with it ever :)

  • @MrChronicpayne
    @MrChronicpayne Год назад +3

    Very well done - good music, good interviews, good subject matter.
    Bravo.

    • @Rogerfuk
      @Rogerfuk Год назад

      The world needs more comments like this

  • @28ebdh3udnav
    @28ebdh3udnav Год назад +18

    Same goes for pick up trucks. Civilian model pick up trucks have been used in war since world war two, practically speaking. From North Africa, to France, to the middle east in 1970s, again in Libya and Chad, to Iraq and Syria. It's because it's useful, reliable, and cheap.

    • @Humbulla93
      @Humbulla93 Год назад +2

      not only that but uses less fuel and spare parts are very easy to come by, the speed is also a plus

    • @jordanhicks5131
      @jordanhicks5131 Год назад +1

      Look at the marine gun trucks they put together in Vietnam, I think they used 2.5 ton cargo trucks?

  • @HereComeMrCee-Jay
    @HereComeMrCee-Jay Год назад +76

    As was pointed out, these are very outdated yet still viable vehicles if deployed and supported appropriately. Any vehicle, including the most modern MBT, is very vulnerable on the battlefield if not appropriately supported by highly trained infantry. And as others have pointed out, the best vehicle is the one you have available... even if you are using it in a way that it was never intended to be used.
    While there are a number of cases in the Ukraine war in which Russian equipment appears to underperform, mostly I think what we are seeing is poor strategy, poor tactics, poor logistics/maintenance, low morale, etc.... coupled with a handful of tremendously important equipment gaps (especially communications equipment, to a lesser extent precision missiles/artillery, etc.)
    It's more and more clear that NATO could likely make short order of Russian forces, with Nukes increasingly being the only card Putin has left to play if he chooses to stay in the game, as opposed to simply folding.
    PS: Don't forget the slightly upgraded T-62 tanks being used. At least five were captured by Ukrainian forces North of Kherson in the last few days. It is possible that these are primarily being given to untrained, separatists conscripts... but never the less, they are on the front lines.

    • @jeronimodavidgaroupa5143
      @jeronimodavidgaroupa5143 Год назад +6

      1.This is a "Special operation"
      2. Viets equiped with old rifles and a couple of granades and mines against america: how did it go?
      3. Talibans equiped with almost 50 years old AKM against america how did it end?
      4. Christians very often, use to talk about David versus Golys
      5. Even women are not sure about the importance of neither size nor modern stuff they use to buy
      If you are aware of your owun wicknesses and by using it properly you are a winner. Each country, each army has his own warfare doctrine.
      To me looks like a perfect way to destroy old stuff by exausting the western hight tech inventory and yet achieve the main goal: Make NATO/EU think twice next time before mess up again.
      The thruth has died months ago. RIP.

    • @peterIV88
      @peterIV88 Год назад +1

      Do you even know what you're talking about?
      Russian equipment underperforming?
      NATO wil make short order with russia? Russia has equipment gaps? Come on man 😂 russia has tons more of MLRS/s300/s400/BUK/pansir/Calliber. And Ukraine has almost none, al of that is already destroyed. just like there obsolete airforce/almost al of there tanks/ even almost al of the stockpiles of old soviet armor from former warsawpack nations, so that they now are getting t55's. The russians have still 1000s of tanks. And NATO stockpiles are already becoming low and the west dont have the capacity anymore to produce large amount of munitions to keep ukraine supplied. While ukr fires around 6000 rounds a day and the russians 60000 and they are doing that for more than a half year. and this is not a war for russia they see it as a special military operation. So this is by far not al the capabilities that they have. this is not a blitzkrieg, They are slowly grinding ukraine down.

    • @allangibson8494
      @allangibson8494 Год назад +6

      The Russians have been deploying T-62’s with their own forces following massive losses of their own more modern vehicles.
      Ukraine is a antitank missile shooting gallery and Russia has been on the receiving end of the most cutting edge weapons used for operational testing.
      Russia has also lost vehicles for logistical reasons-no fuel. The Russian military is all tooth, no tail. They simply don’t have the trucks to support operations further than 90km from a rail head. This is the “May Day” effect - trucks full of food, fuel cans and ammunition are very unimpressive on parade but utterly essential in actual operations.

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад

      It's been known for a long time that the only viable Russian counter to NATO was nukes, the surprise is that they had so much trouble with a former Warsaw Pact country.

    • @questionmaker5666
      @questionmaker5666 Год назад +4

      @@jeronimodavidgaroupa5143 1. Using military force to invade a nation is a war, even if undeclared.
      2. North Vietnam won only after the USA left South Vietnam to its own devices.
      3. The Taliban were defeated, mostly went into hiding, and only won after the USA left Afghanistan to its own devices.
      4. Religion has nothing to do with this.
      5. NATO relies on training and good equipment over numbers and size. It seems to be in support of an argument you were attempting to argue against.
      So, to make NATO think twice, you'd engage in a campaign that severely weakens your military and ends in a costly failure? That's a great idea.

  • @thatdudeinasuit5422
    @thatdudeinasuit5422 Год назад +9

    Something being old doesn't mean it isn't deadly. Plus it also depends on what you want to use it for even if you can't use it to fight its still capable of safely ferrying troops back and forth.

  • @frankmontez6853
    @frankmontez6853 Год назад +28

    Being a bit old doesn’t necessarily make something obsolete. Look at all the improvements upgrades various weapons have undertaken. Abrams for one. Better armor, better targeting system etc. Yeah at some point something truly much better can be developed and no upgraded version is as good.

    • @Ugly_German_Truths
      @Ugly_German_Truths 11 месяцев назад

      But you cannot compare that to the Russians that have not kept up with upgrading all their stock to reasonably modern standards. When a BMP1 or T62 runs around in Ukraine it's at the very least an early 1990s technological standard, maybe worse.
      Ukraine on the other hand has spent as much as it could since 2014 to update their stocks, although they did not yet get through all of it, but at least half their fleet of armored vehicles is something like 2010-2015 state of the art.
      And most of the donated surplus vehicles from NATO countries also fits that category with at least a 2000 technological standard, which is roughly what you saw in the 2003 Iraq war hit on 1980s tanks of Saddam's regime.

  • @EzekielDeLaCroix
    @EzekielDeLaCroix Год назад +13

    Mainly cause it's war and you use what you got, not necessarily what you need.

  • @csec95
    @csec95 Год назад +7

    Simple, interior space. The bmp-1 has more troop space than a bmp-2 and definitely than the rear engine bmp-3. The rear doors of the 1 and 2 also make that space more accessible and useful.

  • @impossibleisjustanopinion9898
    @impossibleisjustanopinion9898 Год назад +28

    I'm still amazed at the Gulf War. It had amazing tank battles. Which they would release more footage for the public

  • @knoll9812
    @knoll9812 Год назад +3

    Like most kit is useful when used within it limitations.
    It can provide transport and logistics behind the front especially in the muddy season
    The limitation is that you have to avoid close contact with the enemy infantry

  • @b.griffin317
    @b.griffin317 Год назад +3

    I indeed saw one at IWM Duxford just last week. Nice! Well worth a visit!
    0:00 I was there!

  • @Juras2137
    @Juras2137 Год назад +19

    Funny thing is that I actually saw 2 of them few hours ago in northern Poland being transported to the east, propably to Ukraine.

    • @frantiseklaluch6605
      @frantiseklaluch6605 Год назад +16

      Poland is #2 in tanks and armored vehicles delivered to Ukraine... Czech Republic is #3... and #1 goes to... Russia...

    • @davedaveholt6200
      @davedaveholt6200 Год назад +1

      @@frantiseklaluch6605 Lol Good one!

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад +1

      @@davedaveholt6200 : Ironically, it's also accurate. In addition to destroyed armor, Russia has lost a lot of equipment to surrenders by crews, equipment breakdowns, and running out of fuel.

    • @davedaveholt6200
      @davedaveholt6200 Год назад +1

      @@absalomdraconis Oh yes, I know it's accurate. I've just never seen it put quite the way you did lol :)

  • @brentsmith9966
    @brentsmith9966 Год назад +75

    Hold on… nuclear war started the development of armored troop carriers? You sure it wasn’t combined arms doctrine, the increased speed of advance in rank warfare and the vulnerability of tanks without infantry support in the Yom Kippur war?

    • @sigmundlisiza9484
      @sigmundlisiza9484 Год назад +16

      Stumbled on that too. Even the Wehrmacht covered their carriers at the end of the war. So it might be a point but I would not say it started the development as stated in the video.

    • @samsteed6793
      @samsteed6793 Год назад +10

      The BMP-1 was designed to allow infantry to operate in zones contaminated by radiation, chemical weapons and biological agents without everyone dying instantly, as well allowing men to take their gas masks off without having to worry about contamination. The BMP-1 first went into combat in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 as part of the Syrian and Egyptian Armies. Also it should be noted that an IFV has a main armament in excess of 40mm whilst an APC is more lightly armed. The IFV was initially better suited to the kind of warfare expected in the Cold War era.

    • @zhufortheimpaler4041
      @zhufortheimpaler4041 Год назад +3

      @@samsteed6793 IFV has per definition of the KSE (confentional forces in europe) treaty a main armament of 20mm cannon or larger mounted in an enclosed turret with opservation devices and fire control systems. everything below, even with enclosed turret, is an APC per definition.

    • @CarverPete
      @CarverPete Год назад +2

      @@samsteed6793 Really ? How come the BMP-1 was designed WITHOUT an anti-nuetron layer needed on vehicles to survive that environment. The BMP-2 had an anti-nuetron layer but believe it or not there's a large number of those that also don't have the protective layer, the earlier versions. As you can see by how the Soviets actually made the IFV's the combined arms doctrine came first then the realisation of the nuclear battlefield environment requirements secound , hence why some had and some hadn't been fitted with the anti-nuetron layer.

    • @samsteed6793
      @samsteed6793 Год назад

      @@CarverPete I’m unsure as to that but it could just be a design overlook as later in development they added additional filters to deal with chemical weapons.

  • @Thamirr13
    @Thamirr13 Год назад +9

    My dad used to train with bmp-1 when he was undergoing his mandatory military service in PRL (Polish People's Republic). One think he remembers about that vehicle is that it was extremely uncomfortable to ride in it, on uneven road (so in almost every combat situation) one could easily hit his head, if it not were fo training one would crawl out of it instead of running out.

    • @jordanhicks5131
      @jordanhicks5131 Год назад

      Hahaha that would suck, riding into battle and getting your egg scrambled by your own vehicle during the ride
      I wonder if they had the motion sickness issues of some other armored vehicles, some of them it's like being on a boat in a storm it throws you around so bad

    • @mustafahakansandk7747
      @mustafahakansandk7747 Год назад

      Once, I read that being uncomfortable is typical for soviet military equipment and not special for BMP's. I can't remember the source, though.

  • @niekbeentjes8849
    @niekbeentjes8849 Год назад +11

    Its used in a different role now. Its uses for tasks behind the front line. Its basically a lightly armoured pick up with tracks.

  • @Deamon93IT
    @Deamon93IT Год назад +10

    An old IFV is better than no IFV, assuming it runs of course

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад

      Sometimes it doesn't need to run, there's apparently some even older stuff being used as bunkers at some checkpoints in Ukraine.

  • @ughettapbacon
    @ughettapbacon Год назад +16

    Did you see any of the videos of the Maxim machine guns being used? The bmp-1 is ultra modern by comparison.

    • @PyroFTB
      @PyroFTB Год назад +2

      Guns age better than vehicles, you can't really compare them because guns haven't really changed all that much compared to vehicles.

    • @outinthesticks1035
      @outinthesticks1035 Год назад +2

      @@PyroFTB I would tend to agree , M-2 browning being perfect example. My own personal hunting rifle is a 96 Mauser , almost 130 years old , not much use on a battlefield

  • @KAI19772011
    @KAI19772011 Год назад +1

    We called the bmp blow torch, it’s so easy to set on fire. We had tests shooting on the back of this thing using MG3 mix of armour piercing rounds and rounds containing phosphor, none of us needed more than half of such a mixed belt to ignite it

  • @tylerjoyce3979
    @tylerjoyce3979 Год назад +2

    Its an old design, but its an old design that works. The bmp is meant to get troops to the battlefield and it does that well. Everything else, including its main gun is just an added bonus.

  • @Treblaine
    @Treblaine Год назад +16

    The problem with a BMP-1 is not that a 73mm cannon is useless, it's just that it's not very special when you have shoulder launched weapons and mortars that can be of such similar effectiveness. Also ATGMs that can be fired from most 4x4 vehicles.
    What's far more special is the BMP-2 as infantry don't have anything like an auto-cannon, it's far harder to replicate that capability with any infantry transportable weapon.

    • @manchagojohnsonmanchago6367
      @manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 Год назад

      There is a machinegun with the cannon

    • @Treblaine
      @Treblaine Год назад

      @@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 the issue is redundancy, infantry have loads of machine guns. The one capability the infantry doesn't have is an auto-cannon.
      The infantry might have a "grenade machine gun" but the velocity is so slow, the grenades have the same trajectory as a mortar.
      An auto-cannon has a trajectory like a machine gun yet each hit is like a hand-grenade it can saturate an area in fragmentation or obliterate trucks/technicals/arty. So an extremely effective weapon to have, that needs to be mounted on a vehicle as the only practical way to move it.

  • @fredmidtgaard5487
    @fredmidtgaard5487 Год назад +3

    I remember that one A1 Italian/German armored car from around 1915 was found in the Afgan forces. I hope it was sent to a museum after close to 90 years of service.

    • @michaeldy3157
      @michaeldy3157 Год назад

      The taliban has ruinedthat country into starvation.all the u.s had to do was keep their small force there.. they had not been in combat there for many yeats.

    • @fredmidtgaard5487
      @fredmidtgaard5487 Год назад

      @@michaeldy3157 Do you have any idea what an A1 looks like? Do you know the T-Ford? It is not far from that. And well, there was heavy fighting with the British and Indians in the 20ties and 30ties. After that, there was fighting with the Brits again. Then the war of independence. After that the Russians invaded and the heavy fighting went on for many years until the Americans came. The Americans built up the Taliban as a resistance force against the Russians. Amazing how little you know and how you managed to involve the USA in this that I wrote about an antique car still working. You really need to get info about these things. Reading books is a bit of good advice.

  • @Luke-hs3bf
    @Luke-hs3bf Год назад +3

    kinda funny how the main positives of faster and more firepower top the list of an IFV. I served for a few years in a heavy mech regular army unit during my infantry career. So what is rarely talked about is what shape those infantry soldiers are in as they are slammed all over the place on their way into the melee. It can be one hell of a rough ride. Sometimes dismounting out the back looks and feels like a bunch of geriatrics escaping a nursing home on fire😋

  • @manjitahzan9577
    @manjitahzan9577 Год назад +18

    When Japan invaded Malaya in 1941, they fielded Ha-Go light tank. It was not the best tank of that era, but a tank is still a tank. Without anti armour capability, they wreak havoc on British defenders.

  • @YouOnlyIiveTwice
    @YouOnlyIiveTwice Год назад +3

    You never want to be fighting against an enemy that immediately sends off your captured main fighting vehicle to a museum because of just how insignificant it would be for them to use against you.

  • @engelbert42
    @engelbert42 Год назад +5

    There is a factory new (prototype) SPz Puma in the Panzermuseum.
    Being a museum piece doesn't say much...

    • @timsoen
      @timsoen Год назад

      There's a difference between a prototype and a museum piece, that's one of literally thousands.

    • @engelbert42
      @engelbert42 Год назад

      @@timsoen okay, bad example...
      But there are loads of museums which exhibit current, in service, equipment.

    • @timsoen
      @timsoen Год назад +1

      @@engelbert42 I think what makes it weird, is that there have been so many updates to the system. But we can still see plenty of bone stock ones rolling around.
      Ones that look like they should be in a museum and not on the front lines.
      It is more akin to first gen F-15/F-16's being used right now. Yeah, there's still lots of F-15/F-16's out in the world. But, not many running the original setup.

    • @cockatoofan
      @cockatoofan Год назад

      @@timsoen its not so weird really. A lot of countries in the soviet sphere of influence and in the Warsaw pact ended up getting BMP 1s. After the dissolution of the USSR those ended up in the western sphere of influence and were more likely to seek western or domestic designs. Finland went from mig 21 and BMP 1 to the F/A-18 and Patria XA, East Germany went from BMP 1s to marders in Germany, etc. Poland ended up seeking NATO membership and NATO seeks to standardise ammunition, so only the poorest members would even consider to upgrade their already inferior vehicles instead of getting new ones. Upgraded BMPs do exist. For example iirc Kazakhstan got BMP 1s with a BMPT turret installed and Russia has improved the BMP design with time. A lot of those countries are sending their BMP stockpiles to Ukraine now and Ukraine themselves has been a pretty large BMP operator that didn't have the funds for a long time to upgrade BMPs and now that they do they're already operating superior domestic designs.

  • @fennoman9241
    @fennoman9241 Год назад +2

    Used in Finnish Army too as fire observation vehicles too and also BMP-2MD's as IFV's with Finnish MD upgrade.

  • @deweylipschitz1516
    @deweylipschitz1516 Год назад +1

    In war ,you often have to use what is available. BMP-1 is there, ready to go . Flawed in many ways,but still used .

  • @cheesegrater..
    @cheesegrater.. Год назад +8

    Same reason the A-10 is still used.
    Old but still works and is reliable and can kill.

    • @kirilld6206
      @kirilld6206 Год назад +1

      A-10 were supposed to be scrapped as well as b-52, bradley and even b-1, but they just cannot be replaced with new better weapons due to budgetary problems or technologies. So those planes were cancelled. Even germans wanted to get rid of Pzh2000 long time ago lol.

    • @mirage_panzer2274
      @mirage_panzer2274 Год назад

      ​​@@kirilld6206 exactly. If it still can be used, the army will use it. Wait for another 20-30 years, and suddenly war breaks out for the US. They gonna use those abrams and bradley which will be almost a cenytury old by then because they have been stockpiling that for a while and thats what they have and thats not a bad thing.

  • @noerden91
    @noerden91 Год назад +6

    i havent seen a single front line video of a bmp1 being used so i guess they are mostly used in rear gaurd action and all the destroyed bmp1s i have seen looks more like it been hit by artiliry

    • @CyrilSneer123
      @CyrilSneer123 Год назад

      You haven't seen many videos then. There is footage all over Telegram showing BMP1's being used in attack roles by both Ukraine and DPR/LPR militia.

  • @aaronwilkinson8963
    @aaronwilkinson8963 Год назад +2

    Another problem with these vehicles is that they are made to be amphibious. Meaning that they have to be light enough to not sink while swimming across a river. To save weight they would have to have thin armour

  • @Binglesnoober
    @Binglesnoober Год назад

    It's pretty fun seeing all these military experts

  • @sword_of_light
    @sword_of_light Год назад +9

    We see in the BMP-1 a design philosophy similar to that of the T-72 - storing ammo near the crew. Its often presented as a flaw, but I think it's more that Soviet designers were less interested in defensive protection, and more interested in volume of fire. With the T-72, the auto-loader meant a smaller crew and a smaller vehicle, as well as a higher rate of fire than a manual loaded weapon. That a penetrating hit causes a massive explosion might not have been seen as that big of a deal - if you could knock out more NATO vehicles that you lost tanks, it was an overall win in a war of attrition. That seems counter-intuitive in an APC, but Russia has held that there are always more people to throw into the fight. Massed assaults meant some of your infantry would get to the enemy, but the massed firepower meant there wouldn't be much enemy left to fight when you did get there.

    • @Dippps
      @Dippps Год назад +1

      now its clear that vehicle should absorb as much shots as it can and last longer on battlefield is more important

    • @sword_of_light
      @sword_of_light Год назад +3

      @@Dippps - that's the philosophy behind the Merkava. The Israelis do not have the manpower that Russia or China have, and so designed their main battle tank to be as crew-safe as it could be. Their assumption is also one where urban warfare is more common, rather than the open terrain of Europe. So you have to have armor that can take some hits and keep on going.

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад

      @@Dippps : Whether resilience to incoming fire is important (and what incoming fire as well!) depends on the purpose of the vehicle. For some, resilience is highly important, but for others it's useless vanity. Most actual combat vehicles and some utility vehicles should be somewhere in the middle (resistant to common infantry weapons and shrapnel), with only heavy combat vehicles like tanks and tank recovery vehicles needing the degree of armor that you describe.

    • @cockatoofan
      @cockatoofan Год назад

      Tank operators are hard to train... Germany suffered from that issue despite starting the war with a higher number of servicemen and tanks than the soviet union.
      The carousel autoloader wasn't such a weak point when the T-72 was a fairly new design and quite well armoured. It was even less of an issue after 1978 when the T-72 got composite armour for the hull front and the turret. I've seen NATO instructions from the time that basically just tell you to shoot at the tank until it blows up because for the time it was extremely well protected and the carousel was a fairly small part to hit even if the tank is penetrated.
      The problem really exists because the T-72 even in Russian service hasn't been considerably proved. A current day tank can penetrate even the T-72B3 and even infantry in a modern battlefield is likely to carry weapons capable of defeating the explosive reactive armor because of tandem weapons like the Stuhna-P that has seen a lot of success in Ukraine.
      The soviet designers also developed active protection systems and actually managed to produce them in pretty large numbers while Russia has managed to only install it in the T-14 that is still ongoing trials...
      In case of the BMP 1 it wasn't really ever designed to be survivable from heavy weapons hits that would be capable of blowing up the tank... However all the soviet BMPs were upgraded to BMP 2 because the gun was fairly ineffective.
      tldr enemy at the gates is western fan fiction and the soviets didn't just throw men at the problem its got more to do with the economic stagnation and corruption of Russia.

  • @ryanindustries1456
    @ryanindustries1456 Год назад +3

    BMP-1 is for me the best one!

  • @SANDVlCH
    @SANDVlCH Год назад +2

    Britain: “this thing in another country belongs in a museum!”
    Everyone else: *nervous laughter, hides valuables*

  • @Ettrick8
    @Ettrick8 Год назад

    Thank you for this interesting and informative film

  • @Nikolay_Slavov
    @Nikolay_Slavov Год назад +3

    In Russia they have a saying for this БМП-1 which is:
    - Братская могила пехота
    which translate to something like mobile tomb of the infantry.
    The gnarly nickname had come in the 90s during the First Chechen War because the IFV had very thin armor and single well placed RPG can detonate the ammo or set the fuel tanks alight cooking the crew and the troops inside.
    Having suffered a lot of loses, the russians till today prefer to ride on top of their APC or IFV as a way to survive a blast from mine or RPG and the time to dismount and take cover is way faster.

    • @dudejo
      @dudejo Год назад

      the mine problem can be easily solved by placing sandbags along the floor. that's what the Americans eventually did with the M113.
      as for RPGs, that's why ERA and cage armor came about.

    • @mirage_panzer2274
      @mirage_panzer2274 Год назад

      Any armored vehicles is literally a tomb.
      First chechen war isnt the issue with the vehicle itself but the entire strategy and everywhere else. Urban warfare, fresh clueless soldiers, no urban specialist division, most experienced soldiers or officers left the war, rpg shots came from every direction. Sandbag or cage armor wont do much because you got blasted with dozens of rpg rockets at the same time and its not an exaggration. First chechen war was a nightmare, a hell of shit show, take a closer look on Maikop brigade for an instance.

  • @jasip1000
    @jasip1000 Год назад +3

    I know if I had to choose between a M-113 APC and a BMP, I would definitely pick the BMP.

    • @sectero9450
      @sectero9450 Год назад

      M113 isn't a APC)))

    • @jasip1000
      @jasip1000 Год назад +2

      @@sectero9450 yes M-113 is a APC, armored personnel carrier. And it’s just about contemporary with the BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle, both from the 1960’s.

    • @sectero9450
      @sectero9450 Год назад +1

      @@jasip1000 yea yea but i like how Ukrainian uses them as artillery tracks or logistic truck. But still BMP -1 with its canon became obsolete in few years as tank support apc)

    • @mirage_panzer2274
      @mirage_panzer2274 Год назад

      ​@@sectero9450 m113 isnt an apc is like saying M16 is not a gun

  • @MOINMOIN586
    @MOINMOIN586 Год назад +1

    What’s that background Musik/Sound in Minute 1-2 ?? Its so impressive ! Name please ❤

  • @sibassius7674
    @sibassius7674 Год назад

    In a large scale and long term war , you use what you have.
    If they have a lot of those museum pieces and the ammo for it then use it.
    As long as it can give some advantage or help in any way then use it.
    If they can get better weapons then good for them but it will take time for the new weapons to arrive and the training needed to use the new equipment so for the time being just use what they have.

  • @Davitofrito
    @Davitofrito Год назад +5

    Saw a video of a BMP rush out and rescue the crew of another that was hit in the middle of a field. Somehow it survived a javelin hit, but despite obvious damage, the driver got the men back alive. Russians can be incredibly brave tbh.

    • @512TheWolf512
      @512TheWolf512 Год назад

      They mostly are not.

    • @PyroFTB
      @PyroFTB Год назад

      Doesn't look like a Javelin tbh

    • @Davitofrito
      @Davitofrito Год назад

      @@PyroFTB so the vid I saw on telegram, had some speculating that the damaged BMP2, caused the charge to detonate prematurely but damage to one side of the rescue bmp is clearly visible as well as smoke.

    • @Davitofrito
      @Davitofrito Год назад

      @@512TheWolf512 I mean yeah but in the case I witnessed they clearly braved missiles to rescue their comrads. At the end of the day most soldiers don't fight for grand political aims or geopolitics, they fight for each other and those they wanna live to see back home.
      It blows my mind that people well into their 30s and forties are answering the call but fighting age men are abandoning their country while it's at war. Then again Russia's corruption has weakend it's military far more than Ukraine ever could and the buck stops with Putin for that.

    • @PyroFTB
      @PyroFTB Год назад

      @@Davitofrito It could be an NLAW since I don't think Javelins could explode in the air like the top attack option for the NLAW. NLAWs explode when they're above the target while Javelins literally come down from above.

  • @jamesp8459
    @jamesp8459 Год назад +5

    Ukraine literally raided their museums for weapons in the beginning of the war, in some cases they were using the Vicker's machine gun to defend their positions.

    • @britishsnipe312
      @britishsnipe312 Год назад

      And mosin rifles 😂 at least the all the Russians are using AK variants.

  • @MiketheMadness
    @MiketheMadness Год назад +1

    British army still use the CVRT and FV430 which are 1970 and 1963 respectively.

  • @BA-gn3qb
    @BA-gn3qb Год назад +2

    Many things are old, but still used because they work.
    B-52s, A-10 Warthogs, F-14s, F-15s, etc.

  • @marvintpandroid2213
    @marvintpandroid2213 Год назад +5

    Better than walking... Just.

  • @georgeholbrook1886
    @georgeholbrook1886 Год назад +12

    "40,000 produced".....As a British soldier, during the end decade of the cold war, THAT is what concerned* us. Not the Quality of troops whom we knew to be poor, but there were so many of the buggers!
    * and it wasn't a massive concern either.

    • @angrydragonslayer
      @angrydragonslayer Год назад

      It was a considerable concern for those of us closer to the east
      Assuming every shot was fired and hit.... and killed a russian vehicle, they would be at the german border and halfway down sweden/norway before running out of tanks and IFVs

    • @georgeholbrook1886
      @georgeholbrook1886 Год назад

      @@angrydragonslayer I served in BAOR less than 160 Km from the Inner German Border, how much closer to the East were you?
      What was there to be afraid of?.. numbers?..is that it?.... woooooo!
      Not really a problem that could be dealt with at section level, so why be afraid ? I didn't spend a minute of my 16 odd years worried about what the Warsaw Pact could or couldn't do, and I don't know of any of my colleagues who did either.
      But something tells me you weren't in BAOR/BFG!

    • @angrydragonslayer
      @angrydragonslayer Год назад

      @@georgeholbrook1886 my family perished in karelia, holding our ancestral lands (which now lay on the border of finish karelia and russian karelia, a point of pride for us)
      Only my grandfather and two other child war refugees that were sent to sweden survived
      Both my grandfather and father served in the baltic as sailors in the swedish navy for notable portions of their lifes and i too applied for this role but was too tall to be admitted, be it the navy or the army.

    • @georgeholbrook1886
      @georgeholbrook1886 Год назад

      @@angrydragonslayer your family has history that's clear.. but how is this pertinent to the Cold war of the late 80's???
      YOU feared the Russians (with or without good reason) WE ....my Oppos and I in the British Army units in which I served didn't ..
      You seem to doubt that.. good I don't particularly care, accept it as MY truth for MY circumstances....and move on fella!

    • @georgeholbrook1886
      @georgeholbrook1886 Год назад

      @John Evans I spent a boring two weeks protecting some of those Nuclear Munitions.. the famous 'Site Guards'.. under US military Command ..ugh! (well it was their depot..to be fair!)

  • @kskeel1124
    @kskeel1124 Год назад +1

    It still works... Albeit not that effectively when it comes to actually using it's firepower, but as a tracked, lightly armored IFV it still serves a purpose especially in mechanized warfare... They are hard to get rid of because of their ease of maintenance, Simple construction, availability of spare parts and replacement vehicles, replacement cost, etc... Not the best and quite antiquated by modern standards but still workable and great for getting men into the fight...

  • @nlpnt
    @nlpnt Год назад +2

    Another vehicle seen in heavy use by both sides is the VAZ-2101, and you'd expect a LOT more turnover in civilian passenger cars than in any type of fighting armor.

  • @ELMS
    @ELMS Год назад +4

    This was excellent! Can you do other videos on Soviet armour in use in the war? Most of us are unfamiliar with the equipment.

  • @alastairmcmurray4873
    @alastairmcmurray4873 Год назад +5

    It may be old, however I’m sure you would rather be transported around the front line in a BMP1 rather than a lorry! It is still proof against small arms fire and shell splinters, unlike fresh and blood.

  • @thatdognotthepuppy5809
    @thatdognotthepuppy5809 Год назад +1

    IWM Duxford is a really great place to visit, absolutely do so if you can.

  • @leroyleo1
    @leroyleo1 Год назад +2

    It would be interesting to compare some of the design flaws pointed out with similar vintage western IFV's

    • @Rocketsong
      @Rocketsong Год назад +1

      The US never really had a doctrine of an IFV in the 60s or 70's The Bradley came out in the early 80's The closest thing to a BMP-1 would be the German Marder IFV. The Marder had a much better gun though. Both the BMP-1 and Marder made the mistake of giving the on-board troops firing loops. (seen in the video). Marders and BMP-1s for the most part had those welded shut and additional armor placed there, as the holes mostly just made a weak point.
      The later BMP-2 with it's 30mm autocannon was a significant upgrade over the BMP-1. Longer range, and much, much better accuracy.

  • @kirishima638
    @kirishima638 Год назад +7

    The BMP seems well suited for this kind of war, particularly its amphibious ability. Newer western vehicles are individually more capable but far, far more expensive. They're trophies for parades.
    There's no armor in the world than can that stand up to modern ATGMs anyway.

    • @alexdunphy3716
      @alexdunphy3716 Год назад +1

      The turret faces and frontal glaces of modern tanks can usually withstand atgms. There are several videos of tanks getting hit there and continuing to fight fine.

    • @kirishima638
      @kirishima638 Год назад +1

      @@alexdunphy3716 Tanks maybe but not IFVs. And I top-attack missiles are a game changer.

    • @randomalien7746
      @randomalien7746 Год назад +1

      If you've ever been in a bmp 2 the last thing you would want is to go on water even if its possible in theory

    • @electricspeedkiller8950
      @electricspeedkiller8950 Год назад

      @@randomalien7746 Soldiers, foreign amd Soviet, report the water crossing ability of the BMPs is surprisingly good. Objectively wrong.

    • @randomalien7746
      @randomalien7746 Год назад +1

      @@electricspeedkiller8950 in finland we had an accident where it sank and drowned everyone inside and after that, we dont go on water anymore with bmp:s. Also here is a video of Ukraine proving my point: ruclips.net/video/HMy29ubXvcc/видео.html I dont believe that they cant swim, they obviously were made for it, but I wouldnt want to be inside of it during a river crossing because the rear doors are hard enough to open normally and underwater would be impossible, but you probably have zero military experience so you wouldnt know.

  • @paulnunya9355
    @paulnunya9355 Год назад +6

    In America we were using HUMVEES to transport troops.
    I think the vulnerabilities are in the tactics Russia has employed. Instead of using them in a combined force layer, Russia has spread them out and separated all the armor to cover an enormous theater of war. It's like in WW2 tanks needed infantry and air cover, and infantry needed tanks and armor. You separate them and they are sitting ducks. And without air superiority, you're toast.

    • @jerryle379
      @jerryle379 Год назад +3

      Lack of troop fighting in Ukraine war is big issue for sure , they go in half ass thinking they are superior and now get beat badly by Ukrainian

    • @paulnunya9355
      @paulnunya9355 Год назад

      @@jerryle379 That's a big portion of it. But they were fighting a lot harder when they had the equipment advantage and air superiority advantage. Now they just want to go home. I listen to the intercepted phone calls from Russian soldiers to their families back home, they complain of no air support and no leadership. They also complain that America is supplying the Ukrainians and that their Russian tanks are being blown in half like nothing. They don't know why they are there, and are pissed at Putin for sending them there. They are miserable. Lousy uniforms, lousy food and junk equipment. Ukraine will win and kick them out. As long as Putin doesn't pull a "If I can't have Ukraine, No one can have Ukraine" then nuke the place.

  • @peterclarke1535
    @peterclarke1535 Год назад +1

    Ukrainian army seems to be using the 73mm armed bmp 1 as a mobile morter, it can lob shells over obsticles, should fit a boiling vessal for a brew, the old spartens and m113 seem to be carrying loads of guys on their flat roofs, plus the sparten can go anywhere.

  • @George_M_
    @George_M_ Год назад +1

    If it repels small arms fire and can drive, it's viable. That said, it sounds like a death trap when artillery explodes nearby due to the fuel tank locations.

  • @DOMINIK99013
    @DOMINIK99013 Год назад +4

    Isn't the BMP 1 much better than the M113 and MRAPs sent there in large numbers, when the latter, they won't drive anywhere outside the asphalt during the half-year season?

    • @nattygsbord
      @nattygsbord Год назад

      The M113 have the same ground pressure (and even slightly lower than BMP.1) so they should be able to handle the mud equally well. Given that the quality of western machines are generally better and given that the maintance is not being neglected in western countries like it is in rotten Soviet Russia... would I guess that M113 would be much less prone to breakdowns than the rusty Soviet junk used in this war.

    • @absalomdraconis
      @absalomdraconis Год назад +2

      Depends on use. A lot of MRAPs will only be useful for limited circumstances because they were designed kinda fast, and for anti-guerilla warfare, but many of them may do better against RPGs than a stock variant of the BMP. The M113 should be about as mobile as the BMPs, and is a much better candidate for added armor than e.g. a Humvee, but was never intended as a primary combatant. So, the three categories of vehicle ultimately only have partial overlap.

  • @kristoffermangila
    @kristoffermangila Год назад +8

    Old tank? Well we've seen tanks much older than the BMP used in conflicts around the world, like T-34-85s in the Balkan Wars in the '90s and in Desert Storm, ISU-152s were used by the Iraqis.

    • @TheVargr
      @TheVargr Год назад +3

      T34-85s were used recently in Yemen, and Vietnam keeps its T35-85 tanks functional and in reserve (handy in the jungle I suppose). Also T55s are heavily used all around the world to this day. Unless they are up against a more modern tank they are still quite useful.

    • @ultr7712
      @ultr7712 Год назад +4

      Probably old relative to the military using them, for a nation thats supposed to have the second most powerful military in the world its odd to see them using more than half a century old tanks when they themselves have touted to have numerous advanced equipment, which we have seen is not the case.

    • @Jamie95326
      @Jamie95326 Год назад

      But non of those counties were claiming to be world superpowers

    • @USB740
      @USB740 Год назад +5

      Iranian border garrisons were equipped with M36 and M4 tanks as a first line of defense in 1980. Interesting about the powerful ISU-152 in Iraq, they must have been rare.

  • @ThunderRod
    @ThunderRod Год назад

    What's that song they use at 1:15?

  • @TheBic4
    @TheBic4 Год назад

    Bmp-1 is the GOAT of IFVs. Set the standard for all key features of a good IFV

  • @fabulousprofound
    @fabulousprofound Год назад +5

    Ukraine is offering $50,000 for one of these if you surrender to them with an intact and operational bmp, so they are worth something in that sense

    • @mill2712
      @mill2712 Год назад

      Understandable but if I'm surrendering a fighting vehicle, you gotta pay full price or even double.

  • @privatehudson516
    @privatehudson516 Год назад +3

    If you think this is insane, wait till you find out about M1911 and M2 Browning’s true age.

  • @Geekwithnonumnum
    @Geekwithnonumnum Год назад +1

    The problem is that the bmp is being used as an attack platform when it’s mean job is moving troops behind the fast acting tanks.

  • @eotorpex2694
    @eotorpex2694 Год назад

    Can we have a video on the a-10 it's quite similar or do you do just tanks?

  • @thevictoryoverhimself7298
    @thevictoryoverhimself7298 Год назад +4

    Any minute now Russia is going to start raiding its gate guards and we see the t34/85 make its triumphant return to the battlefield

    • @gingernutpreacher
      @gingernutpreacher Год назад

      It will be a while before we see t34 have you seen the Lazer pig vid on this?

  • @volvo145
    @volvo145 Год назад +1

    It’s actually a pretty cool concept and a PC with a canon instead of the American and 113 that only had a 50 caliber machine gun for instance as well as the firing ports BMP in two and three though I guess are significant upgrades in terms of functionality but it’s hardly the only old piece of military hardware being used in Ukraine by either of the two forces

    • @usul573
      @usul573 Год назад

      Really is insane how the first the first idea for a Bradley Fighting Vehicle was 1958 and it wasn't fully in service until 1981.

  • @speedy_comet
    @speedy_comet Год назад +2

    Very Interesting info thanks.

  • @jamesc9674
    @jamesc9674 Год назад +3

    Some of these newly mobilized Russian soldiers are even older!

  • @TheMichaelBeck
    @TheMichaelBeck Год назад +3

    I put HEAT rounds through 6 of these during Desert Storm. They're a crematorium on tracks. From an American Army veteran, Slava Ukraini!

  • @catalinegreanu
    @catalinegreanu Год назад

    Great piece of documentary👍

  • @damienblock6998
    @damienblock6998 11 месяцев назад

    0:36 *Plays*
    German Soldier: Rain... Open top Tank.... great engineering.

  • @ace448
    @ace448 Год назад

    So the BMP concept goes beyond the NBC protection. The BMP is actually a merger of and older idea. Pre-WWII many militaries had 2 armor unit types. A heavy but slow infantry tank and a lighter and faster Cruiser or Calvary tanks. With the advent of modern tank combat you start to see the universal tank or MBT. The BMP took over this role as well as adding troop carrying. If it was just about carrying troops the BTR-60PA or similar system would have worked as well. The BMP-1 still fulfills that role as infantry fire support platform.

  • @howardsimpson489
    @howardsimpson489 Год назад

    The proximity fuse with air burst was the driver for covered troop carriers. The allies developed the shells so Germans felt the first pressure.

  • @apokalipsx25
    @apokalipsx25 Год назад +2

    M 113 was spotted in the ukrainian army some weeks ago. Its about the same age is the BMP-1 It has the same weak points but its still used )))

  • @andrewsteele7663
    @andrewsteele7663 Год назад

    Brilliant video, cheers

  • @ChristianConservativ
    @ChristianConservativ Год назад +1

    I never knew the fuel tanks were the rear doors. lol 🤣🤣🤣

  • @apathtrampledbydeer8446
    @apathtrampledbydeer8446 Год назад +1

    These are really cramped, very hard to move around in or in/out of. But it has a fairly low profile.

  • @donovanburkhard
    @donovanburkhard Год назад

    Honestly, it’s pretty badass. I use it in a game called Squad all the time. Blast from the past!

  • @JustAGroundhog
    @JustAGroundhog Год назад

    I think people are overloking that the best tansport is the one you have, they have bmp 1s so they are using them but it seems to be insufficient I would argue

  • @s3nse12
    @s3nse12 Год назад

    when i was walking around Arsenalen i came to the cold war section, was sort of odd looking at tanks that are currently in a war somewhere else