Its all-around protection.
Its frontal arc protection.
Note, upgraded BMP-3 may come with ERA or addidional armor as seen on the new Saudi Arabia examples. Thats easy 150mm frontal protection.
Thats why 30mm was deemed ok for anti-IFV job.
Calibre of the IFV gun
- Thread starter Mangusta CBT
- Start date
I'v only repeated what literrally was wrote about the BMP-3 armor in the western source that you brought over here before in your early post: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf . Dont you believe to the western professionals? If so, why you came with this source as an argument?
Also I still dont see any contradiction between BMP-3M 150mm frontal armor steel equivalent (western claims) and the ability to take 30mm AC (NII Stali claims). However, NiI Stali doesnt say anything about the exact ability of the BMP-3 armor. So supposedly 30mm autocannon - is NOT the maximum BMP-3M can withstand, - at least according to those western experts, which offer 40 mm cannon as a solution against BMP-3. Why do you think, they offer 40 mm APFSDS if 30mm regular would be enough as you say?
If you ask me, I would better see the specialised anti-armor system with 120/125mm high ballistic gun. I still inclined to see BMP-3 turret system ('Bakhcha') as a 'broad-spectrum' solution against infantrymen, armored wehicles, fortifications and helos. However, any specialised more 'narrow-spectrum' system will be more effective in its particulary 'area'.
Of cource, the already discussed here 40mm Sweden gun I also see rather as a 'broad-spectrum' solution then a specialised 'armored vehicle killer'. One example: 40mm will never be with capability to kill MBTs like 120/125 high ballistics. The most difference between 40mm single caliber and 30/100mm BMP-like combination appears when we go against MBTs. In such eventuality we anyway must make some decision: to install on our IFV full sized ATGMs (Javelin, Cornet) or to develop top-attacking gun-launched ATGMs for 100mm. The other possibility instead - to add for our offensive regiments specialised armor-kiling platform with 120/125 mm high velocity MG .
Sorry but I believe more to Nistalis' employees then western experts. For me it's clear that their data includes both basic an additional Armour.
I cant understand what are you trying to say. Seems you misunderstood me. 30mm is NOT guaranteed to penetrate current BMP-3. Yes, these datas seems about right. Now, 40mm APSFDS may be enouth against unupgraded BMP-3, especeally at close ranges. Now, seeing as both 40mm cannon and upgraded BMP-3 (which supposely able to withstand 40mm) are future products, i'm sure you understand why FUTURE 40mm cannon is NOT an answer against UPGRADED BMP-3 or any other nations future IFV of mid-weight class.
Last edited:
One problem people who served on BMPs (1 and 2) told me is that it is really cramped. I could imagine that it is not better with the additional weapons on BMP-3.
Do you know about experience with this problem?
And especially the weapons mix of the BMP-3 favors an unmanned turret in my eyes even when I always complain about the loss of your eyeballs Mrk I when using an unmanned solution.
Do you know about experience with this problem?
And especially the weapons mix of the BMP-3 favors an unmanned turret in my eyes even when I always complain about the loss of your eyeballs Mrk I when using an unmanned solution.
Yes, its cramped by western standarts. On the other hand, it have lower siluette, harder to hit and can swim. Allthought, i always said - transporting troops is NOT the primary function of BMP's. Its only one of they roles. As for eyeballs... well, with modern thermals and panoramic sights i guess it is not a big loss.
P.S. There are many russian and western experts who blame BMP-3 chassis for whatever reason - cramped, exit doors, fuel tanks, etc. Partially i agree with them what BMP-3 chassis could be much better. But nearly everyone who served with BMP-3 is very pleased with its weapon and mobility.
Yes they are still cramped but have gotten a little better as far as space when comparing it to a BMP2, they still have to paint the turret floor and supporting brackets bright orange or yellow to keep personnel from getting arm, legs and feet ripped off.
What vehicle is Russia planning on using to get infantry to the battlefield, you have stated prior that BMP3`s are used for supporting roles, if this is the case then what will they use, upgraded BMP2`s.
I thought more about the cramped space for the crew and not for the transported squad.
As for lower silouette.
I cannot state enough that non of our gunners ever felt it more difficult to spot and target a Marder than a Leo II.
The argument about lower silouette is more an academic one.
Maybe we can find a compromise and use this.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/moye.../images/IDEX_2007_Defence_Static_Show_015.JPG
It's soooo sweeeet!!!! nfloorl:
As for lower silouette.
I cannot state enough that non of our gunners ever felt it more difficult to spot and target a Marder than a Leo II.
The argument about lower silouette is more an academic one.
Maybe we can find a compromise and use this.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/moye.../images/IDEX_2007_Defence_Static_Show_015.JPG
It's soooo sweeeet!!!!
nfloorl:TO battlefield - any armored vehicle included BMP-3. Just no taxing under direct fire. There is NO vehicle what is intended for that role. BTR-T might be as close as it gets to the role, but RuA show little interest in this vehicle. Transporting troops is important job for BMP, but it is not the only primary function. As such, many compomises were made to achieve better weapon, armor, and mobility in expence of transporting ability.What vehicle is Russia planning on using to get infantry to the battlefield, you have stated prior that BMP3`s are used for supporting roles, if this is the case then what will they use, upgraded BMP2`s.
The space for crew is big enouth. May be its a little crampy for a big fat 190 sm tall hamburger-eater, but for average solider its not a problem. Note, the T-series tanks are also sometimes described as crampy, but i heard very little complains about space from the peoples what actually served in one.
Granted - when contact is made infantry will be dismounted.
A big fat 190 sm tall hamburger -eater.
nfloorl:The 40mm seems like an awful lot of gun for a light vehicle, I would prefer to draw the line at 35mm, in spite of my earlier-stated preference for long range weapons.
BTW; a DP round from a 25mm Bushmaster will penetrate 54mm of armor. How much more is needed to defeat the armor of light vehicles?
BTW; a DP round from a 25mm Bushmaster will penetrate 54mm of armor. How much more is needed to defeat the armor of light vehicles?
With current upgrades in armor protection levels/technologies, we are reaching a point that in the near future we will need to go with a bigger caliber. And no one likes DU except for us.
No transport under direct fire with the BMP series?
I really doubt that.
Infantry is not going to dismount as soon as a mixed column of Ts and BMPs gets contact with an enemy mech force.
Otherwise they would be sitting ducks if the contact occurs in open field.
And speed is also an important factor. You are not going to dismount if you just breach one enemy line. There is a reason for the loopholes in the BMPs.
I see a lot possible situations were infantry has to be carried under fire especially when I consider the fast combined arms style used by russian forces.
I really doubt that.
Infantry is not going to dismount as soon as a mixed column of Ts and BMPs gets contact with an enemy mech force.
Otherwise they would be sitting ducks if the contact occurs in open field.
And speed is also an important factor. You are not going to dismount if you just breach one enemy line. There is a reason for the loopholes in the BMPs.
I see a lot possible situations were infantry has to be carried under fire especially when I consider the fast combined arms style used by russian forces.
That would depend on actually what type of contact that they have, if they are coming up against a mechanized unit then I see your point, but if they are clearing out wood lines or towns or villages then they are sitting ducks inside of their IFV`s, there may be occasions where you have no choice but to dismount to clear out a well entrenched enemy.
BMP`s series vehicles are designed for carrying infantry to the battle, and you are right, with the offensive style tactics that are used by Russian forces or any sizable NATO armored force why dismount if you do not have to, let your artillery keep them pinned in place while you out manuver or by pass them. The name of the game is to eat up as much real estate that you safely can do without out running your supporting units and make your opponent react to your moves, be it offensive or defensive, if he has to react to your moves by throwing in additional assets or reserve units then he has lost the game. Dammit - I wish I could get back in a tank!
I thought everyone was getting out of DU ammunition except for U.S and Russia.
Last edited:
No suggestion that China is. Reports that Pakistan's adopted it. Israel's reported to have it.
We do seem to be moving away from it. The RN gave it up a few years ago because (wait for it!) the USN stopped using it several years earlier, & the US manufacturer of their ammo didn't want to produce only for them. Paying 'em enough to keep it in production would have been too costly. Our 120mm APFSDS DU round went out of production several years ago, but we still have plenty in stock, & last I heard (December 2005), no date had been set for retirement. Indeed, replacements for the charges were being investigated, which could keep the round in service as long as we have the guns. We did, on the other hand, have a retirement date set for our tungsten rounds - 2008. Replacement by a new tungsten round was under investigation.
The army is moving towards replacing the 120mm rifled gun with a Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore, which would permit the use of US or French DU ammo off the shelf, without having to develop a new round, or re-start production of an old one.
As for the French - well, I don't really know what they're doing now. They tend to be tight-lipped. But they certainly have DU tank rounds.
I don't know of DU IFV rounds in any west European country.