translated post from my local forum , which was translated from Russian . So beware of minor mistakes. Most of this is prob. well-known , but much of it was new to me . so therefore I thought maybe itīs typeworthy for somebody else too 
Development of armored personel carriers started in S.U. in 1930-s , but fielding them was seriously delayed . First generation of sov. APC-s were fielded after WW2 . By that time in other countries had already had 1-2generations of similar vehicles . In the same time when the first generation of Sov. APC-s were constructed on ordinary AWD-truck basis , in USA and other western countries they were developed on designated chassis .
Attempt to catch and surpass the USA on the field of APC-s brought us the BMP-1 . Unfortunately this vehicle , fielded in 1966 had more negative sides than positive ones . But this didnīt interfere with the start of mass production of the vehice .
BMP-2 , developed on the basis of BMP-1 in the beginning on 1970-s retained all the faults and added some more . Back then , when BMP-1 was created , the idea was to create an universal machine , that could move in land and and water . Besides that itīs armament was supposed to exceed the weaponry of ordinary APC-s and be situated in turret . The ability to swim assumed a rather thin armor in order not ot sink the vehicle - you can not argue with Archimedes . Because the new machine had to have a heavy turret , it had even less armor than the previous one (BTR-50) . But then the whole concept became pointless - new machine was not even safe from rifle-caliber bullets . TO break out of this viscious circle the constructors sought several orginal solutions - for example provide it with add-on pontoons or dismantable additional armor . Also there was possibility of using aluminium armor as used by americans on their M113 . But this was considered too expensive and another method was chosen . It was decided to use steel armor , but to save on weight as much as possible . But the result was that the new machine could not be provided with bulletproof armor and many other aspects deteriorated too .
If you look at the BMP-2 (and BMP-1 as well ) frontal view the narrowness of the tracks certainly catches the eye - their width was only 300mm. BTR-50 track width was 360mm., M113 - 381mm., french AMX-10 had 420mm.
With such measure the constructors of BMP reduce the weight of the rolling stock
(?-BD) , but ended up with higher ground pressure . BMP-2 has ground pressure of 0.65kg./cm2 , the AMX-10P only 0.53 . Seemingly not a very big difference , but the machine is supposed to cross rivers by swimming . But the shores could be rather soft , resulting that where AMX-10
can freely go to water and easily climb out of , BMP can get hopelessly stuck . The same weight-issue seriously narrows the possiblity of upgrading the BMP should the upgrade add any weight to vehicle .
Besides the narrowing of the tracks the constuctors of the BMP-2 left out all forms of dedicated drive for moving in water , leaving the machine only to itīs tracks to propel it in the water . All this resulted in a machine that is not amphibian in the common sense of the word , the machine can cross water obstacles in quite limited capacity and therefore is not suitable for naval operations - but AMX-10P for example is capable of this . BMP-2-s tracks are meant for combined use , in land and in water , but this works rather badly in transition phases . In water the track must move at high speed in order to propel the vehicle but on the shore it is vice versa - slowly to be able to climb out of water .
Often this results with situation where tracks turn too slowly to get out of water and to the shore , but too fast to get a traction and crawl out .
This is a constant problem for BMP-1&2 - at certain angle of the shore and with soft bottom they cannot get out of water , but BMP-50 at the same conditions has no problems . Therefore the high īnoseī of BMP-2 , created in an effort to improve swimming capability , is an unnecessary exagerration that creates many problems on land . In this sense the M113 that is also propelled by tracks in water , is engineered much more professionaly .
The hulls of BMP-1&2 are worth a dedicated examination . The logic , followed by engineers who designed the machines , is simply impossible to understand . Seemingly everything attempt is made to get the machines as complicated to produce as possible , while none of these enchancments betters their battle-worthiness or usability . If one looks at the hulls of AMX-10P and M113 for comparison , then it sees that everything is simple and understandable : hulls are made of some sleek and straight sheets of metal .Bodywork like this is simple to make and repair as well . But BMP-2 armored hull is made of numerous straight and curved details that are welded together at different angles . Bodywork like this is complicated to manufacture and at same time provides no advantages . When I went to Army Central Museum to measure the BMP-2D to make blueprints , I quickly understood that even simply standing on this machine is dangerous - both feet are at different angles that change unpredictably with every step . And should the machine be wet after a rain , falling off from it would be very easy . And the constructors even didīnt thought about things like non-slippery rubber mats to ease the climbing for the crew .
But the main criticism about BMP-2īś armor hull is that itīs not really armor hull . The sheets of armor are not thicker than 10mm. . This reminds the prewar APC , TR-4 , based on T-26 light tank that was not taken to service because of too thin armor - this armor was also 10mm. thick . So before WW2 armor of such thickness was not enough , but long after the war it was suitable . Comparison : the fronal armor of M113 is 38mm. of aluminium armor (
which is roughly equal protection - BD) . Soon the makers of BMP realised that 10mm. is not enough . Therefore on the later modifications of BMP-2 the protection of lower frontal part of the vehicle is 15mm. NATO forces have a placard which pictures the vulnerable spots of the BMP . Only spot on that placard that can stop a bullet is the contour of the engine - it is not adviasable to shoot there - but the rest of the hull is shown as īvulnerableī .
The bottom of the BMP-2 is even worse . Probably the constructors didnīt even acknowleged the existance of mines . If the whole bottom is impossible to protect evenly then at least the drivers seat could have gotten a local protection . First left wheel is situated so that after hitting a mine it usually killed the driver . In A-stan the drivers stuffed sandbags under their seats - again the creativity of the soldiers helped .
The turret of the BMP-2 is projected on the same principle as the hull - hard to manufacture and without any useful benefits . Itīs shaped like a truncated cone . The armor on the turret front is the thickest - 23 mm. This is the best protected part of the whole machine , but still penetrable to heavy machine gun fire . Sides are much thinner and backside is the thinnest -10mm. Why it was necessary to make the turret out of rounded details instead of slanted straight ones is beyond me . Probably for the constructors as well . The top of the turret is just as dangerous to walk on as upper hull , difference being that turret has even more different gadgets welded on which increases the chances of hitting something as well .
Now letīs get to the hatches . Driverīs hatch is allright - it raises and turns sideways , but for some reason the hatch behind him raises only up-and-backwards . As it blocks at certain angle the 30mm. gun and vice versa - the gun blocks the hatch , it is simply baffling . Seems like a simple solution ? Replace the second hatch with a one like driverīs hatch ?
Rear hatches for the troops were constructed with similar artisanship . And the constructors were esecially proud of the rear doors . They could press the fuel cells into them ! A strange reason to be proud of as this leaves in case of fire no chance of survival for the troops
OK , if such construction in BMP-1 could be taken as mistake, in BMP-2 it was a criminal act . The hatches on troop compartment are taken from BMP-1 . In-1 there were 4 of them , but in -2 there was room only for 2 of them - the turret was much bigger . Theoretically each hatch should be good enough for 2 troops to exit but practically for only one and even this with some difficulties . Sov.era mot. riflemanīs equipment was not so much different from WW1 era soldiers ; uncomfortable greatcoat , gas mask on shoulder , bag with grenades and ammo , shovel , bottle and bayonet . So high chance to get stuck to something . So when a BMP sink , it usually went with itīs crew . On top of everything these hatches could well block the cannon and vice versa .
The 30mm. automatic cannon 2A42 which was stabilized in 2 directions gave the new machine much better combat performance , but the main problem of -1 , the low highest angle of the gun , remained the same . This brought many problems when shooting from difficult position and constrained the stabilisation of the weapon . Usually it is written that BMP-2 is armed with ATGM-s . Formally it is so , but not in reality . The point is that the 9P135M launcher is situated on the top of the turret and has no armor protection . This means that basicly BMP-2 goes to battle with a explosive charge that could go off from any random (or not random) bullet . To attach the missile to the launcher just before shooting it , somebody has to climb half-way out of hatch (
well the same goes to Marder and british IFV-s as well - BD). All this resulted in this , that the ATGM is put on the launcher only on parades but not in actual combat situations .
The troops in BMP can shoot from their personal weapons - machine has 2 ambrasures for PK and 6 for AK-s . Shooting sectors are limited, but toi shoot from unstabilised ambrasures during movement is waste of ammo . But this is all simply theoretical , since during combat the troopsare not sitting in the machine .
Now some points about BMP-2 optical devices . How is the driver supposed to drive -2 with a closed hatch during combat is probably a mystery for the constructors as well .Too high nose reduces the visibility for drivers periscopes . The man behind him has even worse , but at least he does not have to drive the thing . Especially lousy is the situation for troopers in the back compartment . They are equipped with fixed periscopes , therefore they can get only glimpses from outside world and after exiting the vehicle must orient at frist in the new situation . 2 rear-facing periscopes are useless if the veh. stands in caponir , they could not been placed on top of the hull because of self-ditching beam there (
???- BD)
Generally if one looks at BMP-2 the thought comes to mind that the vehicle was created huriiedly and the constructors had no time to improve things . But itīs not so . BMP-1 was fielded in 1966 , BMP-2 first prototypes were trialled in 1972 and mass production started 1980! And yet they could not fix not one of BMP-1-s faults . The height of the new machine was over 800mm. over the old one , because of all the (un-necessary) gadgets on top of the turret .
With such height they could have improved the volume of the turret and hull , to at least little bit improve the conditions for the crew and troops . Due to lack of height the troops cannot stand up and must slide themselves on their asses towards the rear door . Result is that the men farthest from the door will exit the vehicle probably 30 sec. after the command . Now letīs compare this to M113 or AMX-10P : after command hydraulicly-operated ramp is opened and in couple of seconds slightly bent troops run out of the vehicle . But M113 was fielded in 1960-s , AMX-10 in 1973 ! And both are smaller (silhouette-wise) than BMP-2 yet have much higher and more comfortable hull . No comments .
Practicly after fielding the BMP-2 went to Afghanistan War . And here it was clear that the machine was completely useless for itīs main purpose - to transport infantry . Local populations century-old Lee-Enfields easiliy penetrated the hull and hitting even a AP mine brought usually fatalities . As already written , the drivers started sandbagging their seats , hulls were uparmored with everything that could be laid hands on . And the troops gave up riding in troop compartment . Quick improvements were necessary and fast . But itīs easier said than done . Look at M113 - needs uparmoring - clean sides , add as much add-on armor /ERA as possible . Simple solution and itīs done all the time . Broad tracks make it possible to get the higher weight , maintaining the mobility .
Now letīs look at BMP-2 . To weld something to this body is quite hard and narrow tracks do not allow much weigh-increase . But the makers of BMP cannot get to the roots of all their self-inflicted problems . Needs more armor - weīll up-armor ! Hull was surrounded with 6mm. add-on armor on raised attatchments . Similar protection was added to rear of the turret . Top of the hull , where side screens did not reach , 6 mm. add-on armor was welded . Drivers seat , commanders seat and engine got additiona underside protection .
But the makers could not give up their īraisinsī - door/fuel cells . Add on armor was atttched to the sides and turret rear with quite big gap , but no attempt was made to close it from upwards . Result is that this gap caught easily grenades throw from upside . If troops exit the vehicle from turret/roof hatches , they can easily get their foot in the gap , which usually results with broken ankle or even death due to enemy fire . But at least it stops rifle bullets now.
This new version BMP-2D was suitable for Afghanistan - dry climate and no soft ground . But what about wetter climate areas and esp. since the added weight was concentrated on the the nose of the vehicle . Plus itīs not amphibious any more .
As a result all of this BMP-2D was not used outside of Afghanistan and southern parts of Sov.Union . In Chechniya all thew faults of BMP-2 came to light again . Sufficient ot say troops prefer MT-LB there .
As much as Iīd like to say the saga of BMP is over but not - in 2005 Russian Defence Ministry wanted to order a whole batch of īstrongly modernizedī BMP-2-s . Interesting , what is there left to be modernised ? Unfortunately the machine that should be scrapped right after trials , will remain in Russias inventory in XXI century as well