BMP-1: Is this truly the best IFV?

[Chrom]

There is only one country that will be able to do a feasible job in converting tank hulls into infantry haulers, and that will be Isreal, for proper dismount going over the top is not the tactical answer.

The T-64 conversion proposal on my picture have rear exit

I do not buy into the discussions that ERA armor is better than composites, if it were the case western countries would be placing it on their vehicles and why not, it is cheaper and lighter right?

I already said why. Becouse they dont have knowledge how to build good ERA. They would need significant fund allocations and time to develop it. West only recently realised ERA potencial and NOW carry all R&D. Its cant be done in 1 or 2 years. Also, keep in mind what after Cold War end any tank-related stuff was low priority.
I already gave you many examples of advanced technological achievments where West was DECADES later than USSR. So i dont buy this "if West dont have something its useless" crap.
Actually, funny thing for you: USSR pioneered composite armor 15 years before the West. Well, ask youself: WHY USA waited 15 years before releasing M1? Couldnt USA build composite armor in 60x? Was USA so technologicaly backward compared to USSR? Given that funny example its not very hard to see why USA was also 20 years later to ERA developing.
Imagine forum diskussion about composite armor 40 years ago:
USSR funboy: T-64B have super-duper armor!
USA funboy: Argh! Rubber intstead of good steel??? Sand rods??? Fragile CERAMIC? What crap you smocking??? How that could be better than hard armor steel??? USSR tankers must be crazy to drive that pile of mist.
See, sounds perfectly resonable, no?

The U.S has T-84`s that we purchased from Ukraine with some of the latest technology available from Russia, we were not impressed, South Korea has a batch of T-80U`s from Russia, name some of that technology that was placed in the K-2.

What does it mean - not impressed? They didnt abandoned M1A2 and refused to buy T-84? How you think they should express they "impressed" - "oh god, we are doomed, T-84 will kill us all?". That is not sensible argument. The part of in Serbia shotted down F-117 is open for public review in Monino (Moskow). This doesnt mean Russia will start producing stealth fighters overnight. The Pentium 4 processor now in every box. Doesnt mean China will start produce them tomorrow. See, there is no question what USA could COPY ERA armor. But developing something new is a whole another matter. It takes time.

The only reason why the BMP3 went with this current ERA package is because the UAE was shopping around for it for their vehicles, I don`t believe that Russia would be satisfied with this current set up, maybe they should look at a modular design for it if the structure welds will hold up which may be a issue also.

Of course heavy add-on ERA on BMP-3 is quite costly. Given low production rate of BMP-3 in russian service its no wonder what it come without ERA packages installed. Besides, ERA can be installed on BMP-3 in any moment, the upgrade can be done in field depots.
There is also one major reason why ERA is not installed on russian BMP-3: weight. The RuA is obsessed with air-dropability and swimming. Both these properties are lost when ERA is installed. However, there are reports what same proposals was made to make BMP-3 with ERA swimable (addiditional air bags) and airdropable (new droppable platform capable taking heaver weights developed). So, we might well see ERA on BMP-3 soon enouth.

Can you tell me the size of this prototype vehicle that Russia was working with and if it is a scrapped project.

What prototype? If about the picture, than its Ukrainian proposal. Russian developers are secretive right now, BTR-T was old news and noone know what they do now.

Chrom - please do not take me wrong in regards to Russian armor, they have their philosophy and we have ours, I would not ever under estimate a Russian T-80/T-90 series tank in battle, they do have advancements that they have engineered especially their Guided missles that we seemed to be playing catch up on. I am really interested in a vehicle called 9P157-2 Krizantemma tank destroyer, this is based off of a BMP3 hull and the anti tank missile is reported to be able to knock out older versions of M1 and Leopards series tanks.

Chrizantema is advertised with 1100-1200mm penetration BEHIND ERA. Its enouth to penetrate even newest western tanks armor. Keep im mind modern HEAT warheads penetrates composite armor much better than older genetrations (in relation to RHA). 2 targets can be shot at the same time - 1 with radar and 1 with laser channel. It is new reincarnation of "missile tank" and i dont think it will enter service in the current form. Right now it lacks range - 5km/6km for laser/radar is not much, the speed of missiles is just supersonic, no top-attack capabilty, etc. I suppose RuA will buy it in small numbers to advertise for export market.

 

[eckherl]

The T-64 conversion proposal on my picture have rear exit
I already said why. Becouse they dont have knowledge how to build good ERA. They would need significant fund allocations and time to develop it. West only recently realised ERA potencial and NOW carry all R&D. Its cant be done in 1 or 2 years. Also, keep in mind what after Cold War end any tank-related stuff was low priority.
I already gave you many examples of advanced technological achievments where West was DECADES later than USSR. So i dont buy this "if West dont have something its useless" crap.
Actually, funny thing for you: USSR pioneered composite armor 15 years before the West. Well, ask youself: WHY USA waited 15 years before releasing M1? Couldnt USA build composite armor in 60x? Was USA so technologicaly backward compared to USSR? Given that funny example its not very hard to see why USA was also 20 years later to ERA developing.
Imagine forum diskussion about composite armor 40 years ago:
USSR funboy: T-64B have super-duper armor!
USA funboy: Argh! Rubber intstead of good steel??? Sand rods??? Fragile CERAMIC? What crap you smocking??? How that could be better than hard armor steel??? USSR tankers must be crazy to drive that pile of mist.
See, sounds perfectly resonable, no?
What does it mean - not impressed? They didnt abandoned M1A2 and refused to buy T-84? How you think they should express they "impressed" - "oh god, we are doomed, T-84 will kill us all?". That is not sensible argument. The part of in Serbia shotted down F-117 is open for public review in Monino (Moskow). This doesnt mean Russia will start producing stealth fighters overnight.
Of course heavy add-on ERA on BMP-3 is quite costly. Given low production rate of BMP-3 in russian service its no wonder what it come without ERA packages installed. Besides, ERA can be installed on BMP-3 in any moment, the upgrade can be done in field depots. There is also one major reason why ERA is not installed on russian BMP-3: weight. The RuA is obsessed with air-dropability and swimming. Both these properties are lost when ERA is installed. However, there are reports what same proposals was made to make BMP-3 with ERA swimable (addiditional air bags) and airdropable (new droppable platform capable taking heaver weights developed). So, we might well see ERA on BMP-3 soon enouth.
What prototype? If about the picture, than its Ukrainian proposal. Russian developers are secretive right now, BTR-T was old news and noone know what they do now.
Chrizantema is advertised with 1100-1200mm penetration BEHIND ERA. Its enouth to penetrate even newest western tanks armor. Keep im mind modern HEAT warheads penetrates composite armor much better than older genetrations (in relation to RHA). 2 targets can be shot at the same time - 1 with radar and 1 with laser channel. It is new reincarnation of "missile tank" and i dont think it will enter service in the current form. Right now it lacks range - 5km/6km for laser/radar is not much, the speed of missiles is just supersonic, no top-attack capabilty, etc. I suppose RuA will buy it in small numbers to advertise for export market.

Can I have a link or can you share this picture of the rear exit.

 

[Chrom]

Can I have a link or can you share this picture of the rear exit.

http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bmp6403wv4.jpg

Similar vehicles are very unlikely to enter service in RuA as russian army already have own answer for high-threat enveronment - BMP-T. Its meant to replace infantry anywhere near tanks and direct-fire capable enemy troops.

 

[eckherl]

http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bmp6403wv4.jpg

Search for "BMP-64" you'll find plenty infrormation about it.

Similar vehicles are very unlikely to enter service in RuA as russian army already have own answer for high-threat enveronment - BMP-T. Its meant to replace infantry anywhere near tanks and direct-fire capable enemy troops.

Thanks for the information, you gotta hand it to the Ukrainians, they can be very creative, I wonder how much it costs to reconfigure each vehicle.

 

[Chrom]

Thanks for the information, you gotta hand it to the Ukrainians, they can be very creative, I wonder how much it costs to reconfigure each vehicle.

Nothing said but shouldnt be that expencive. Building even new hull is quite cheap, the converted hull should be even cheaper. My guess its about 200-300k $$ for conversion - comparing with other conversion proposals.

 

[eckherl]

The BMP 1 by far was the best IFV during the time frame that it came out in.
Not only could it carry infantry on the battlefield but it could do it in a NBC environment as well. What really astounded everyone was the 73mm low pressure gun that was capable of taking out MBTs like the Leopard 1, Chieftain and M60A1, this was sustained by a round that was originally designed for the SPG-7 grenade launcher, max effective range for engaging vehicles was around 500 meters.

Some of the drawbacks of the BMP1 have been mentioned in prior posts, but here are few other drawbacks:
Unsafe auto loader, (some crews could actually load it faster manually).
Very cramped conditions forcing some armies to cut the number of infantry carried in battle.
Vehicle Flanks could be penetrated by 50cal API ammunition.

Even with these short comings the BMP1 caused western armies to scramble to come out with a effective IFV of their own and with this Russia has alway`s been able to upgrade their BMP`s to match them on the battlefield.

What is in store for the future of BMP1 and 2 vehicles.
It seems that Russia is offering upgrades with the likes of a new design turret called the Kliver, armament consists of a 2A72 autocannon and a Kornet missle system with four launchers, this is being offered to the Russian army and for export.
The Czech Republic came out with a new upgraded BMP called BVP-1MA, this consisted of a new turret designed by Germany that carried the Bushmaster 2auto cannon, german designation for this turret is called Kuka E8.
Poland came out with their own upgrades with a 40mm L/70 Bofors gun called BWP-40. They came out with the BWP-95 that consisted of a externally mounted 23 mm aut cannon and a recoilles rifle. Does anybody know the status of these projects.
The BMP 2 seems to be soldiering on as well in Russia equiped with the fairly new 2A72 auto cannon and a AG-17 grenade launcher to boot.
Let`s not also forget that India still mass produces the BMP 2 also under the designation of Sarath. They have also come out with a specific ATGM platform of their own called the Namica with fires the Nag missle.

All in all not bad for a vehicle that has been around since the early seventies.

 

[Chrom]

The BMP 1 by far was the best IFV during the time frame that it came out in.
Not only could it carry infantry on the battlefield but it could do it in a NBC environment as well. What really astounded everyone was the 73mm low pressure gun that was capable of taking out MBTs like the Leopard 1, Chieftain and M60A1, this was sustained by a round that was originally designed for the SPG-7 grenade launcher, max effective range for engaging vehicles was around 500 meters.

Some of the drawbacks of the BMP1 have been mentioned in prior posts, but here are few other drawbacks:
Unsafe auto loader, (some crews could actually load it faster manually).
Very cramped conditions forcing some armies to cut the number of infantry carried in battle.
Vehicle Flanks could be penetrated by 50cal API ammunition.

Even with these short comings the BMP1 caused western armies to scramble to come out with a effective IFV of their own and with this Russia has alway`s been able to upgrade their BMP`s to match them on the battlefield.

What is in store for the future of BMP1 and 2 vehicles.
It seems that Russia is offering upgrades with the likes of a new design turret called the Kliver, armament consists of a 2A72 autocannon and a Kornet missle system with four launchers, this is being offered to the Russian army and for export.
The Czech Republic came out with a new upgraded BMP called BVP-1MA, this consisted of a new turret designed by Germany that carried the Bushmaster 2auto cannon, german designation for this turret is called Kuka E8.
Poland came out with their own upgrades with a 40mm L/70 Bofors gun called BWP-40. They came out with the BWP-95 that consisted of a externally mounted 23 mm aut cannon and a recoilles rifle. Does anybody know the status of these projects.
The BMP 2 seems to be soldiering on as well in Russia equiped with the fairly new 2A72 auto cannon and a AG-17 grenade launcher to boot.
Let`s not also forget that India still mass produces the BMP 2 also under the designation of Sarath. They have also come out with a specific ATGM platform of their own called the Namica with fires the Nag missle.

All in all not bad for a vehicle that has been around since the early seventies.

All these BMP-1 upgrade projects wouldn't lead anywhere as you can get upgraded BMP-2 for the very same price.

However upgrading BMP-2 seems as option - but here the main problem is what getting significally better firepower/FCS and ERA will cost almost as much as new BMP-3. Still there are low-cost proposals what could be applied - like installing better communications, night equipment, etc.

 

[eckherl]

All these BMP-1 upgrade projects wouldn't lead anywhere as you can get upgraded BMP-2 for the very same price.

However upgrading BMP-2 seems as option - but here the main problem is what getting significally better firepower/FCS and ERA will cost almost as much as new BMP-3. Still there are low-cost proposals what could be applied - like installing better communications, night equipment, etc.

Okay - I can see your point, but what is Poland, Czech Republic doing with their BMP1`s, were these just merely proposals that they decided not to go with.

 

[Chrom]

Okay - I can see your point, but what is Poland, Czech Republic doing with their BMP1`s, were these just merely proposals that they decided not to go with.

Yes, just proposals.

 

[Manfred]

I while back I suggested ICVs with tank armor, the reason being that Infantry ought to be as well protected as tank crews.

Given a choice, most recruits would rather be tankers (or anything else) over Infantry. This, and other factors, make Good Infantry a comodity in short supply... in the West. ICVs carry twice as many men as tanks, and the Isrealis seem to get the point.

But thats all old news.

The best ICV... for what mission? ICVs have been turned into a multi-mission Jack of all trades, and I wonder if the trend has gone too far. AA defense, combined-arms assault, static defense, Infantry support fire-base, amphibious assault, recon and base security... is any other machine asked to do so much?

Recon needs a specialized vehicle, but most armies (including mine, damnit!) use ICVs with little or no modifications. I have to wonder if too much faith is being placed in one vehicle.

 

[Chrom]

I while back I suggested ICVs with tank armor, the reason being that Infantry ought to be as well protected as tank crews.

Given a choice, most recruits .

No army can equip its infantry units with heavy APC. Just not enouth logistic capabilities. Israel being quite unique in this case - its extremely small size, good road network and very limited area of engagement allow heavy APC use. Even then, Israel equiped minority of its forces with Achzarit. Most infantry still use much lighter IFV's. There is also associated problems with heavy APC weight - not all bridges can take it, roads get damaged by its weight, etc.

 

[Waylander]

And they lack Firepower and speed.

The Israeli HAPCs are still APCs with nothing bigger than a 12.7mm for self defence. So they lack the firepower and the optics to give real support fire for the infantry or defend themself against enemy IFVs. They are also not able to follow the Merks. They are good proetcted and cheap battle taxis nothing more and nothing less.

And the Israelis learned it the hard way that they were not able to support their tanks with mobile protected infantry in the last Lebanon war.

@Manfred
Why are they jacks of all trades?
Most armies have dedicated scout vehicles, AA-platforms, fire support vehicles, etc.

Lets take a german combat brigade for example. There you have Fenneks/Luchs as scouts, Fuchs/M113/Boxer as APCs, Marder/Puma as IFVs, Leos as tanks, Gepard/Roland/Ozelot as AA, PzH2000 and 120mm mortars on M113/Wiesel 2 as fire support.
Enough different designs to free the IFV for its original role. Transport it under armor into the battle while keeping up with the tanks, kill enemy vehicles up to other IFVs (Or tanks with ATGMs when needed) and give direct fire support for the dismounted infantry.

 

[Manfred]

Waylander- ah, I see! Leave it to the Germans to get it right!

Did the PzH2000 live up to expectations? It seemed awfully big and heavy, but I would be loving life if I were a cannonier on a gun like that

What I was refering to was all the tasks that I have seen the poor old Bradley get saddled with. The new BMP and Puma both look very good... so good that I can see them getting abused also.

But that's just me. Had to work with West-Pointers, not an experiance I recomend to anyone.

 

[Chrom]

And they lack Firepower and speed.

The Israeli HAPCs are still APCs with nothing bigger than a 12.7mm for self defence. So they lack the firepower and the optics to give real support fire for the infantry or defend themself against enemy IFVs. They are also not able to follow the Merks. They are good proetcted and cheap battle taxis nothing more and nothing less.

Israel HAPC are perfectly ABLE to follow Merks in battle. But without sensible weapon they HAPC are uselss near Merks, whats why they mostly DID NOT follow them

And the Israelis learned it the hard way that they were not able to support their tanks with mobile protected infantry in the last Lebanon war.
.

Yup. Thats what i was trying to tell the whole time - infanrty just cant support tanks in offencive (well, it can, but expect VERY heavy casualities for very modest benefit). Infantry also cant support tanks from inside IFV with they laughable assault rifles. Only IFV itself can support tanks - and then IFV's need weapon. The more the better. Thats why standard tactic even for heavy IFV's is dismount infantry before (or as soon as) battle starts and play standard "light tank" role after.

 

[Waylander]

@The HAPCs based on T-54/55 (Achzarit) or on Centurion (Puma, Nagmachon) are for sure not able to follow a Merk (I am talking about Mrk III and IV).

Not with a cross country perfromance of roughly 40km/h max.

As for infantry having to dismount.
Lebanon is a good example.

If the IDF would have accompanied their Merks with a nice IFV this would have given them some nice advantages over the small tank packs they used.
The IFVs would not have slowed them down but would have given them the infantry which was needed when encountering enemy bunker/tunnel complexes and fortified positions.

But if they just encounter some light resistance or have to hurry to reach their destination point the infantry stays mounted.

Maybe we are really talking about the same thing bit didn't notice.
I agree with you that infantry often dismounts for battle but there are also many possible situations were infantry doesn't dismount. At least we do it so.

@Manfred
There were some minor software problems right after introduction but those have been solved quick.
Our artymen love the new gun and its perfromance is impressive.
The dutch and greek forces are also very saitisfied with it.
The performance in A-stan was also very good even while the shoot-and-scoot ability was not needed. But reliability, firing speed and persistance has been showed.

BTW, maybe interesting for the Taiwan thread. They showed that it was able to hit moving sea targets during trials with the first shots on the swedish coast. Give older arty some more time and some AT-bomblets, the rest is imagination...

 

[Chrom]

@The HAPCs based on T-54/55 (Achzarit) or on Centurion (Puma, Nagmachon) are for sure not able to follow a Merk (I am talking about Mrk III and IV).

Not with a cross country perfromance of roughly 40km/h max.

Man, how often do you think Merks driving faster than 40km/h off road for prolonged amount of time???? They will cross whole Israel in 2 hours with that speed... Either way, speed is definitly not limiting point.

As for infantry having to dismount.
Lebanon is a good example.

Lets see

If the IDF would have accompanied their Merks with a nice IFV this would have given them some nice advantages over the small tank packs they used.
The IFVs would not have slowed them down but would have given them the infantry which was needed when encountering enemy bunker/tunnel complexes and fortified positions.

Are you actually suggesting sending a useless coffin full of soldiers under enemy ATGM's? Thanks god Israel commanders are somewhat smarter.
Soldiers cant help in these cases - but good armed IFV can. And i repeat - mobility is NOT limiting factor of Achzarit, at least not in the type of terrain/warfare.

But if they just encounter some light resistance or have to hurry to reach their destination point the infantry stays mounted.

Maybe we are really talking about the same thing bit didn't notice.
I agree with you that infantry often dismounts for battle but there are also many possible situations were infantry doesn't dismount. At least we do it so.

Well, you seems to think its ok to expose IFV full of infantry under direct enemy fire - especeally when said infantry will be of little help. I think its not. Moreover, you think its ok to expose APC to direct enemy fire when that APC is useless - and that is just dumb in my opinion. We seems to disagree here what risk is neccessary for what benefit. Or we disagree what situations are more likely to happen?
Either way, heavy APC with that weight can as well carry same real weapon and support tanks/infantry. You cant have too much firepower, no?

 

[Waylander]

Man, how often do you think Merks driving faster than 40km/h off road for prolonged amount of time???? They will cross whole Israel in 2 hours with that speed... Either way, speed is definitly not limiting point.

Have you seen how the IDF operated their Merks in Lebanon. Small fast tank packs. Speed was a viable factor there.
And I am not only talking of constant high speed but of sprints needed in some situations.

Are you actually suggesting sending a useless coffin full of soldiers under enemy ATGM's? Thanks god Israel commanders are somewhat smarter.
Soldiers cant help in these cases - but good armed IFV can. And i repeat - mobility is NOT limiting factor of Achzarit, at least not in the type of terrain/warfare.

Yeah, I suggest that sometimes the advantage you get from letting your soldiers dismount does not outweights the time you loose and the loss of mobility.

Well, you seems to think its ok to expose IFV full of infantry under direct enemy fire - especeally when said infantry will be of little help. I think its not. Moreover, you think its ok to expose APC to direct enemy fire when that APC is useless - and that is just dumb in my opinion. We seems to disagree here what risk is neccessary for what benefit.

When did I talked about using APCs under direct enemy fire? For me APCs are battle taxis. They exist to give infantry some sort of protected transport assets with limited self defense ability.

 

[Chrom]

Have you seen how the IDF operated their Merks in Lebanon. Small fast tank packs. Speed was a viable factor there.
And I am not only talking of constant high speed but of sprints needed in some situations.

Yes, needed. But so much what Achazarits cant follow... isnt gonna happen. I cant even imagine situation where Achzarit cant follow Merks cuz of they speed in field.

Yeah, I suggest that sometimes the advantage you get from letting your soldiers dismount does not outweights the time you loose and the loss of mobility.

Sometimes, yes. But how often? I would say extremely rare. And in any case, it is much, much, MUCH more often proper 40mm/100mm guns are more usefull than addidional 5mm armor or 4-5 rifles from soldiers.

When did I talked about using APCs under direct enemy fire? For me APCs are battle taxis. They exist to give infantry some sort of protected transport assets with limited self defense ability.

What you understand under "battle taxi"? For me its a vehicle what should never go near enemy troops - only transport own troops up to battlefield. In any case, once you reach certain weight (10+t) you can install heavy weapon with only very minor hit in perfomance. So, why not then?

 

[Waylander]

A battle taxi is an APC which is able to transport infantry under armor protection and has limited weapons for self defense.
Its role is to transport the infantry to a point close to their target area and not to take part in the fighting without need (aka ambushes, emergencies, etc.).

 

[Chrom]

A battle taxi is an APC which is able to transport infantry under armor protection and has limited weapons for self defense.
Its role is to transport the infantry to a point close to their target area and not to take part in the fighting without need (aka ambushes, emergencies, etc.).

Perfectly. CLOSE to the point. Not TO the point if its involves moving under direct enemy fire. Thats said, except emergency cases. Still, as i said, leaving such heavy platform without heavy weapon means mindlessly wasting procurement moneys and logistic capabilities. No army rich enouth for such waste.