BMP-1: Is this truly the best IFV?

[Waylander]

Because of these limitations it is an APC and not an IFV.

I really don't get what you want to say. What is the problem with the different approachs of mech inf and light inf (And nearly every kind of unit which needs protection like combat engineers, command posts, medics, EW, etc.) with APCs on the other hand?

 

[Chrom]

Because of these limitations it is an APC and not an IFV.

I really don't get what you want to say. What is the problem with the different approachs of mech inf and light inf (And nearly every kind of unit which needs protection like combat engineers, command posts, medics, EW, etc.) with APCs on the other hand?

Medics, EW, etc are perfectly ok with whatever they get. But we are speaking here specifically about general infantry IFV/APC, right?
I just will stress my point - any infantry vehicle capable of taking heavy weapon should be equipped with such. Any vehicle what is intended to be attached to soldiers squad - MUST carry heavy weapon. Obviosly, medics, EW, engineers etc, dont fall in that category. A modern soldier with 30mm autocannon and thermals is much more usefull than a soldier with 5.56 AR.

 

[Waylander]

But APCs are not designed to carry heavy weapons.
Why should you invest money and compromise weight, squad strength, dimensions and need additional crew if the mission doesn't requires it.

The mission of mech infantry is to accompany tanks and vice versa, perform classical infantry tasks when needed while also having the ability to fight when mounted on a mobile engagement (with the weapons of the vehicle and their own ones to a limited percentage).
For this tasks you need a vehicle which can follow the tanks, and has enough weapons for engaging at least enemy vehicles up to IFVs and a limited AT capability, as well as can give support fire to the squad when it dismounts.

Light infantry is there to fight in heavy wood, MOUT, etc.
They don't require a vehicle which is able to all the tasks an IFV can. They need a transport which gives them limited protection while on their way to their destination as well as self defense capabilities against soft targets.
Heavy weapons are in the heavy weapons section of the btn.
There they have their man portable ATGMs, auto-grenade launchers, HMGs as well as heavier weapons like heavy ATGMs and 20mm on weapon carriers.
And they are able to use them there were they operate.

 

[Chrom]

But APCs are not designed to carry heavy weapons.
Why should you invest money and compromise weight, squad strength, dimensions and need additional crew if the mission doesn't requires it.

Becouse there is no such thing as "too much firepower". If you can get more with little cost - do it.

The mission of mech infantry is to accompany tanks and vice versa, perform classical infantry tasks when needed while also having the ability to fight when mounted on a mobile engagement (with the weapons of the vehicle and their own ones to a limited percentage).

Sadly, there is no vehicle in the world where infantry can fight MOUNTED. Russian BMP-T is as close as it gets to that task - sadly its not designed to carry infantry, but rather to replace it.

For this tasks you need a vehicle which can follow the tanks, and has enough weapons for engaging at least enemy vehicles up to IFVs and a limited AT capability, as well as can give support fire to the squad when it dismounts.

Yup.

Light infantry is there to fight in heavy wood, MOUT, etc.
They don't require a vehicle which is able to all the tasks an IFV can. They need a transport which gives them limited protection while on their way to their destination as well as self defense capabilities against soft targets.
Heavy weapons are in the heavy weapons section of the btn.

It is very, very VERY ineffecient to greate specialized "light infantry". It will be very inflexible unit in modern fast battle. Heavy infantry always can do tasks of light infantry - but not vise versa. Besides, fighting in such hard-to-reach places where IFV cant follow is a special task on they own, and is generally leaved to special forces.

There they have their man portable ATGMs, auto-grenade launchers, HMGs as well as heavier weapons like heavy ATGMs and 20mm on weapon carriers.
And they are able to use them there were they operate.

And all that they will carry by themselves? Dont be dillusional, infantry with all that can mount unmobile defence at max. They NEED vehicle with them - and that vehicle is much better to carry heavy wepon then. Its just counter-productive to NOT use such opportunity to carry heavy weapon.

PS. Russian version of light infantry have BMD-4 - and vehicle obviosly intentended to maximize firepower and mobility at the expencive of weight and protection (well, they got as much protection as possible in 13t vehicle)

 

[Waylander]

A Wiesel with 20mm or TOW can go were no other vehicle with such a firepower can go. For sure not an IFV.
And the lighter ATGMs, HMGs, 40mm AGLs, are stowed in the heavy weapons platoon and only carried by foot when needed. You are not going to take ATGMs with you into the wood for a patrol but you are going to take it with you for an overwatch post for example.

And it is much more expensive to have a real IFV than an APC. A turret for example is not that cheap. And you need another crew member.

Ask some members of mech inf and some members of light inf who gets more traning in MOUT, heavy wood, mountains, etc. And those places are not left for special forces.

 

[Chrom]

A Wiesel with 20mm or TOW can go were no other vehicle with such a firepower can go. For sure not an IFV.
And the lighter ATGMs, HMGs, 40mm AGLs, are stowed in the heavy weapons platoon and only carried by foot when needed. You are not going to take ATGMs with you into the wood for a patrol but you are going to take it with you for an overwatch post for example.

UNmobile defence i said, remember? Its exactly that.

And it is much more expensive to have a real IFV than an APC. A turret for example is not that cheap. And you need another crew member.

Partially i agree with you. Still, having just 30mm cannon is very cheap. Whole BMP-2 turret cost less then, ugh, 100k $? I believe whole BMP-2 cost like 250k $ to produce. A whole BMP-3 cost about 1mil $ to produce - well, compare it to a average modern heavy APC price.... Weapon is not that expencive.

Ask some members of mech inf and some members of light inf who gets more traning in MOUT, heavy wood, mountains, etc. And those places are not left for special forces.

Well, of course not completely left to. But you are comparing apple to oranges here. IFV's cant go to such places so there is absolutly no point diskussing they quality regarding these places. If there is enemy danger expected on the way to such place - then IFV weapon is essential. If there is no enmey expected - then you can get away with any APC of course - but as i said you will not save much money, and the whole unit will be very inflexible, and have to be used only in such unreachable for IFV places. It is only absolutly minor task for any army, as any war won or lost out of such places.

While i could agree what, say, 1/5 of all infantry could be such light infatry - the question remain what IFV is suitable for rest 4/5?

 

[Waylander]

While i could agree what, say, 1/5 of all infantry could be such light infatry - the question remain what IFV is suitable for rest 4/5?

Ok, let's stay at this theme.

We just have 1 light infantry btn as well as 3 mountain infantry btns and one airmobile reg which are going to be equipped solely with it.

 

[Maskirovka]

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.

But that was one of the most useless purchases the swedish army have ever done. Bought 350 of them for around 10.000$ each, modified them for over 200.000$/each, drove them a couple of years and put them in storage and are now being scrapped. The last modified BMP-1 were delievered in 2001, they were driven directly from the factory to the storage/scrapyard. That´s well spent money

 

[eckherl]

But that was one of the most useless purchases the swedish army have ever done. Bought 350 of them for around 10.000$ each, modified them for over 200.000$/each, drove them a couple of years and put them in storage and are now being scrapped. The last modified BMP-1 were delievered in 2001, they were driven directly from the factory to the storage/scrapyard. That´s well spent money

You would think that they could find a buyer for them, or they could tow some of them to their tank gunnery ranges and use them for hard targets.
Seeing some of the top quality equipment that Sweden is investing in for their Army they probably can`t fit them into their TO&E.

 

[Waylander]

Our gunnery range staff never liked light vehicles with turrets as hard targets. They tend to loose their turrets even more often than old tanks when fired upon.

 

[Maskirovka]

You would think that they could find a buyer for them, or they could tow some of them to their tank gunnery ranges and use them for hard targets.
Seeing some of the top quality equipment that Sweden is investing in for their Army they probably can`t fit them into their TO&E.

I don´t think that many countries are interested in a bunch of old BMP-1´s today. But if someone were, I guess they´re more then welcome to come to Sweden and get them for free. And as for using them as targets in shoting practice, that can be very expensive with our hard environmental laws. Everything that can be harmful to the environment has to removed from the vehicle, as well as everything that can be harmful for the personel cleaning up the wrecks afterwards. I think there are a bunch of other older vehicles they use as targets today, like the old Centurion MBTs and Pbv-301 APCs, and there are no shortage of targets...