BMP-1: Is this truly the best IFV?

[Sgt.Banes]

The product of heavy Soviet military build up during the Cold War. Is this humble IFV really one of the best of it's kind?

And for once I agree with this, I believe that the BMP-1 and BMP-2 models are two of the greatest forms of IFV that have ever been manufactured. Based upon mainly not just the speed and main cannon, but also for the fact that the very infantry that are carried and shuttled around can fire rounds out of the sides of the vehicle. This is my view, what are yours?

 

[merocaine]

And for once I agree with this, I believe that the BMP-1 and BMP-2 models are two of the greatest forms of IFV that have ever been manufactured

hang on, agree with who? I'll grant you they were one of the first modern IVF's, but with there weak armour, slow speeds compared with the T62/T72 I'm not sure they were that effective. But cheap to produce for a hugh army like the sov's, and a decent export too.

 

[Manfred]

Captured a BPM-2 in Iraq in 1991. It had been abandoned intact. The turret was great, big and roomy, and the 30mm gun made a good impression. The idea of a crewman exposing himself from the waist up to put another missle on top of the gun-barrel (where the launcher was) seemed a little nuts.

In the down side; the Armor was patheticaly thin, and accomodations for the Infantry was very cramped. I don't see how a man with a full pack on could sit in there.
There was so little interior space that the gas tanks were built into the rear doors. Not the worst place in the world, maybe, but they were connected to the rest of the vehicle by a flexible rubber hose that was exposed when the door swung open.

The reason we got it intact was it broke down, with just 1250 km. on the odometer. We spent days trying to fix it up, but no luck. It was a beast, and poorly made components made us very frustrated.

 

[Waylander]

For its time the BMP-1 is for sure a good vehicle.
Especially when you think about with what the US troops have been equipped during this time (M113 aka Gavon aka Schwere Nässeschutz ).

But letting the infantry fight while mounted is not only a BMP capability.
The Bradley could do (But it has been removed) and the Marder could also do it (But by using hatchets).

As to the ATGM reloader having to expose hisself.
After the Brad fired its two TOWs it also can't be reloaded under armor and in the Marder the commander even has to expose hisself while firing the MILAN.

There are many things which could have been done better but thats the case with nearly every AFV.
And for its time and for its price the BMP-1 is a very good vehicle.

 

[Manfred]

No question, in the 1960s and 70s the BMP was a very special item, and would have had a serious effect in a magor war.

Today, I would give the Bradley top slot... if it were not for its high price, tall outline... it its just so damn LOUD.

 

[Waylander]

And why would you would count the Bradley as the best?

 

[Manfred]

Waylander- And why would you would count the Bradley as the best?

1) Good mix of weapons, and lots of Ammo.

2) Ampibious capability

3) reasonably good armor, especialy compaired to Russian machines.

4) Good interior space for Infantry, with direct access to the driver's seat.

Also; you do not have to expose yourself to fire to re-load the ATGMs. You hit a button in the turret, and it swings around to the correct position and elevation for re-loading. A man in the passenger compartment opens the roff hatch about 30 degrees and shoves the TOW missles into the launcher without exposing much aside from his hand and maybe the top of his head. Much better than leaning out of a hatch in the top of the turret, eh?

 

[eckherl]

The old BMP 1 will soldier on with countries placing many upgrades in her.
Sweden purchased a large batch of them in the late nineties for her mechanized infantry units, which was surprising due to alot of NATO countries that felt that the 73mm was a unsafe weapon.

 

[eckherl]

Waylander- And why would you would count the Bradley as the best?

1) Good mix of weapons, and lots of Ammo.

2) Ampibious capability

3) reasonably good armor, especialy compaired to Russian machines.

4) Good interior space for Infantry, with direct access to the driver's seat.

Also; you do not have to expose yourself to fire to re-load the ATGMs. You hit a button in the turret, and it swings around to the correct position and elevation for re-loading. A man in the passenger compartment opens the roff hatch about 30 degrees and shoves the TOW missles into the launcher without exposing much aside from his hand and maybe the top of his head. Much better than leaning out of a hatch in the top of the turret, eh?

She`s about due for a bigger auto cannon.

 

[Chrom]

There is no doubt what BMP-1 was the best of its time. It had many problems - the only thing is what every other IFV had it much worse.
Bradley is of course looks like somewhat "better" vehicle - but its almost 15 years older and 2 times heaver. Should we compare Bradley with counterporary BMP-2 we find what BMP-2 have much better weapon, amphibios capabilty, less space for troops, slightly weaker armor and half the weight. But comparing the 2 is a little pointless as Bradley falls into "heavy IFV category" whereas BMP-2 is mid-weight IFV.
Also note what only in 1988 unpgrade Bradley recived better armor capable to withstand 30mm AP rounds.

 

[Waylander]

Waylander- And why would you would count the Bradley as the best?

1) Good mix of weapons, and lots of Ammo.

2) Ampibious capability

3) reasonably good armor, especialy compaired to Russian machines.

4) Good interior space for Infantry, with direct access to the driver's seat.

Also; you do not have to expose yourself to fire to re-load the ATGMs. You hit a button in the turret, and it swings around to the correct position and elevation for re-loading. A man in the passenger compartment opens the roff hatch about 30 degrees and shoves the TOW missles into the launcher without exposing much aside from his hand and maybe the top of his head. Much better than leaning out of a hatch in the top of the turret, eh?

But the armor makes it not better than CV90, Puma and Ulan for example. Even the Marder A3 was able to withstand a good proportion of 30mm hits over the front.

The main gun is less powerfull than in many other IFVs except the Marder.
The TOWs are nice (Thank you for clearifying the reloading process ) but for example CV90 and Puma are ready to take ATGMs if the customer wants it. (In Germany the problem is that the decision about the procurement of our new ATGMs is not finished yet so we don't know which ATGM he will get)

Space is also not a problem if you compare it to others apart from BMP series.

Protection against mines and IEDs is also better in other IFVs.

And that it is made of much aluminium doesn't makes it working well when catching fire as you can see in Iraq.

I have no problem stating that the Bradley was the best western IFV when it entered service but for sure not today.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

hang on, agree with who? I'll grant you they were one of the first modern IVF's, but with there weak armour, slow speeds compared with the T62/T72 I'm not sure they were that effective. But cheap to produce for a hugh army like the sov's, and a decent export too.

From a American Military strategist, and that's what I'm getting at the fire power and possibly the the fact that it was relatively cheap to make.

 

[Chrom]

But the armor makes it not better than CV90, Puma and Ulan for example. Even the Marder A3 was able to withstand a good proportion of 30mm hits over the front.

The main gun is less powerfull than in many other IFVs except the Marder.
The TOWs are nice (Thank you for clearifying the reloading process ) but for example CV90 and Puma are ready to take ATGMs if the customer wants it. (In Germany the problem is that the decision about the procurement of our new ATGMs is not finished yet so we don't know which ATGM he will get)

Space is also not a problem if you compare it to others apart from BMP series.

Protection against mines and IEDs is also better in other IFVs.

And that it is made of much aluminium doesn't makes it working well when catching fire as you can see in Iraq.

I have no problem stating that the Bradley was the best western IFV when it entered service but for sure not today.

BMP-1 is ready to take most modern ATGM's and thermals if costumer want it. Hell, there is even possibilty to install 100mm/30mm universall turret if costumer REALLY wants it. Still, all this doesnt say anything about REAL capabilities of BMP-1 in service. Today, of course, Bradley is outclassed by BMP-3. Puma is also nice IFV, but hell - its HEAVY! Its in the same weight class as proposed BTR-T - which, by the way, have MBT-level armor.

 

[Waylander]

In the end the side and rear protection of the Puma is better than the one of the Leo II.

The modular concept is important.
If you need a well protected IFV (For situations like in Iraq or a full scale war) you use the heavy C version.

If not you use a A or B version which gives you a lighter vehicle which is air deployable and can use many bridges.

Your argument for the BMP-1 is absolutely right and I just wanted to show that ATGMs are not a real advantage from a customers point of view when he looks at the existing IFVs because it is not really hard to implement any ATGM into an existing IFV and the modern ones are already wired for it.

 

[Chrom]

In the end the side and rear protection of the Puma is better than the one of the Leo II.

The modular concept is important.
If you need a well protected IFV (For situations like in Iraq or a full scale war) you use the heavy C version.

If not you use a A or B version which gives you a lighter vehicle which is air deployable and can use many bridges.

Your argument for the BMP-1 is absolutely right and I just wanted to show that ATGMs are not a real advantage from a customers point of view when he looks at the existing IFVs because it is not really hard to implement any ATGM into an existing IFV and the modern ones are already wired for it.

Yes, i agree. Still, i feel what western designers lost the sense of cost/effectivity. Increasingly heavy IFV's , and 5 millions $ price tag for Puma is also not very encouraging...
I just cant stop thinking about how much protection you could get in 45t weight class especeally if there is no big tank guns installed - if IFV designers really start think about it....

 

[Sgt.Banes]

In the end the side and rear protection of the Puma is better than the one of the Leo II.

The modular concept is important.
If you need a well protected IFV (For situations like in Iraq or a full scale war) you use the heavy C version.

If not you use a A or B version which gives you a lighter vehicle which is air deployable and can use many bridges.

Your argument for the BMP-1 is absolutely right and I just wanted to show that ATGMs are not a real advantage from a customers point of view when he looks at the existing IFVs because it is not really hard to implement any ATGM into an existing IFV and the modern ones are already wired for it.

I doubt the world will be engaged in World War for at least a few decades, but then again only god knows. I see IFV's as very practical and in some ways necessary in full wars and in small conflicts that may only need Light Mechanized Infantry.

 

[extern]

The site of BMP developer http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/

 

[Waylander]

@Sgt. Barnes
Who talked of WWIII?

Operations like Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom are enough full scale war for me.
Such an operation is enough dangerous for me to use a high protection level.
Ask some guys from the pentagon if these operations would could have been done with such a success while using light mech forces.

@Chrom
If you just have a small army and only 410 IFVs you need the best you can get. For sure you could get much more BMPs for this price but we just have 8 mech inf bns.

As for protection. The Puma has the best armor you can get into an IFV with 43 tons and I have no doubt that it is the best protected IFV out there not only for direct confrontations but also for Iraqi style missions due to its very good mine/IED and RPG protection.

 

[Manfred]

I forgot to mention the best thing about the Bredley; a sighting and targeting system that was the equivalent to what the M-1 Abrams had. This was critical in a dusty, smoke-filled desert at night.

And a funny thing about that sight; it was mounted on top of the turret. At Grafenwohr (sic) we noticed that the German tanks had thiers on the front of the turret. We thought that was pretty cool, it was down next to the gun, and did not stick out like a sore thumb. When we talked to the Panzer men, they told us that they preferd our set-up. they liked the idea of a sight that could look over a berm or a ridge without exposing the rest of the vehicle.

The grass is always greener on the other side, as they say...

 

[Chrom]

@Sgt. Barnes
@Chrom
If you just have a small army and only 410 IFVs you need the best you can get. For sure you could get much more BMPs for this price but we just have 8 mech inf bns.

As for protection. The Puma has the best armor you can get into an IFV with 43 tons and I have no doubt that it is the best protected IFV out there not only for direct confrontations but also for Iraqi style missions due to its very good mine/IED and RPG protection.

Compare it to proposed BTR-T or Achzarit... these, btw, are converted MBT's with even improved original armor protection. Puma armor is for sure cant protect from RPG - well, may be from 30-years old chinese ones it will do. Mine/IED protection is indeed best in its class - but then again, its a class on its own with that weight.

The one thing i possible agree - small rich army should get the best it can. But Germany army is not THAT small! Surery, it need more than just 410 IFV's. With current army size Germany need at very least 10 times as much IFV's! 410 IFV's are just enouth for peacekeeper duties - and thats it.