apsts

Opening post contained so multiple errors that i had to answer to some points described there.
As with own experience with bmp's, i heard these claims are usual from people that never used the vehicle in any way.

Because the new machine had to have a heavy turret , it had even less armor than the previous one (BTR-50)

Bmp-1/2 don't have less hull armour than btr-50, actually most hull armor plates were thinner than in bmp's by 20-40%

But then the whole concept became pointless - new machine was not even safe from rifle-caliber bullets .


GBTU's requirement of Bmp's front armour were originally reguired to withstand frontal hit of 20x138mm
nato ammunition (of hs.30 vehicle) from frontal
quadrant in distance of 500m, and russian 23x115mm ammunition from same distance.

Side armor were required to protect point-blank from 7,62x39mm ammunition and in distance of 50-75m against armor-piercing
7,62x54mm bullet (as used in machine gun PKM for instance) and from 12,7x108mm b-32 bullet(as used in machine gun NSV for instance)
in distance of 600m.

These requirements were passed in original test firings of objekt 765 in 1965 prior starting of serial production in Kurgan.

Therefore the high ´nose´ 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 .

Bmp's properties in water and exiting water is very similar, not better or worse than m113

But the main criticism about BMP-2´ś armor hull is that it´s not really armor hull . The sheets of armor are not thicker than 10mm.

Hull armour front is sloped 19 mm plates at 55 degree angle, equivalent LOS protection is around 28-30mm
Side armour is welded from 16mm-18mm plates in vertical and 14 degree angle, and turret front 23mm sloped at 42 degree, mantlet
over 30mm. Armor is face-hardened, temper treated steel armor.

Comparison : the fronal armor of M113 is 38mm. of aluminium armor

This equivalents of 13-14mm of face-hardened steel armour. Notable is also that aluminium burns very dramatically when
heated in enough (rpg hits could light very serious fires even if the penetration itself was'nt lethal)

Therefore on the later modifications of BMP-2 the protection of lower frontal part of the vehicle is 15mm.

Simply not true, front armour plates very sam from beginning. If here it's referred to front bottom armor, then 15 mm value is true.
Additional armor plate was added in under the drivers/commanders bottom armor plate against mine threat.

Probably the constructors didn´t 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 .

Later modifications included added armor plate under driver and attachment of driver's seat to the wall to reduce spinal injuries.
It's worth to mention that any tracked ifv is in very vulnerable to anti-tank mines as bottom armour is very thin.
If you take a look for instance this picture:
BWFotos.de / Militaryphotos.de --- Hunderte Militärfotos --- über 3000 registrierte Benutzer --- then you will see that m113 driver isn't exactly in safe place
either nor any tracked vehicle driver. Admittetly is partially true however that protection of original bmp against mines should
still have been better.

Why it was necessary to make the turret out of rounded details instead of slanted straight ones is beyond me

Because uniform ballistic protection is much better when it's rounded. No weld seams, weakened zones between plates, less
spall to inside when no rivets/welds. Uniform protection all round, not just from certain angle.

..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

There is a reason for that. 30 mm is _not_ used when hatch is open, if my memory services right it wasn't even possible
if hatch is not closed alltogether. 30mm never can be shot with any hatches open in front of it. Why? Because hot fumes and
smoke would fill instantly front deparment,and hot shells would fall inside the vehicle, not to mention the danger level if someone
would stick out his head out of the hatch when 30mm is moving horisontally or with stabilizer on.

Place behind driver was a place
for vehicle commander in bmp-1 and the forward opening hatch was supposed to give some frontal protection for commander when vehicle
on march or closing battlefield, as commander usually was observing terrain and enemy head outside th vehicle.In these kind of actions
gun wasn't need to be full battle ready so commander could expose himself.

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

As is known, diesel fuel does not ignite easily, actually against many rounds it _adds_ nominal protection of armor. This construction is
vulnerable in fact only RPG's and incendiary AP-bullets. And there was a very rare occasion when rear is facing the enemy alltogether,
noting also the fact that this vehicle was meant for assault.

Theoretically each hatch should be good enough for 2 troops to exit but practically for only one and even this with some difficulties .

These hatches are used in exit only in emergency and in very exceptional occasions. These hatches are meant for aerial shooting and
to when conducted shooting from vehicle only head exposed.

So when a BMP sink , it usually went with it´s crew .

And this applies for all armored vehicles. Top hatches in fact give more chances to escape the vehicle. Compare it to opening heavy ramp
at m113 under water, which would be easier to open?

..but the main problem of bmp-1 , the low highest angle of the gun , remained the same

Complete rubbish, bmp-1 elevation angles were about 33 degrees, and bmp-'s 2 2a42-cannon elevation angle
is one of the best in IFV's in world, up to 80 degrees (almost vertical) which makes it fantastic
anti-aircraft weapon.Compare it for instance praides Bradley fighting vehicle ( 60 degrees elevation)

Usually it is written that BMP-2 is armed with ATGM-s . Formally it is so , but not in reality .

And in reality it is armed with atgm's i f mission requires that.

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 .

Explosive charge doesn't go off easily, definitely it needs concentrated fire to blow off, and even then,
in most severe direct hits it just malfunctions not blowing off. And this concerns every atgm-eguipped IFV.

To attach the missile to the launcher just before shooting it , somebody has to climb half-way out of hatch


In bmp-2 atgm-konkurs missiles can be reloaded also from _inside the turret_

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 .

Bmp driver has four optical prisms and visibility is good for well-trained driver.Nose doesn't exactly reduce drivers real visibility much.
Just look other designs from that era, and bmp is no worse than them. Only in newer 1990-2000's vehicles has becoming to
equipped better prisms (as cv90 /AMV etc)


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

Most APC's and IFV's weren't equipped with _any_ sort (or only one or two) of imaging device in troop deparment so one prism per trooper
is considered luxury in this context.

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

Unditching log doesn't intrude using rear prism because they are attached to the doors. Unditching log is attached to hull above the doors.

The height of the new machine was over 800mm. over the old one ,

Bmp-2 was about 300mm taller than bmp-1 , definitely not 800mm.

..because of all the (un-necessary) gadgets on top of the turret .

Would really like to know more which "gadget" was unnecessary..?

Due to lack of height the troops cannot stand up and must slide themselves on their asses towards the rear door .

In which IFV infantry can grown-uo man stand up inside the back comparment?

Result is that the men farthest from the door will exit the vehicle probably 30 sec. after the command .

Exiting the bmp with trained crew is definitely not any slower than with other contemporary ifv designs.Admittetly it is not as comfort.

And both are smaller (silhouette-wise) than BMP-2 ..

Definitely not, in comparision height, m113 is even bit taller than bmp-2 and amx-10p even more.

And here it was clear that the machine was completely useless for it´s main purpose - to transport infantry .

Troops considered bmp-2 (especially D-version) very rugged and agile vehicle in afghanistan. Main complain was inadequate
stowing positions of personal items. Many vehicles lost in afghanistan were due poor tactics of soviet command
and ifv unsuitability whatsoever for terrain like in afghanistan.

Local populations century-old Lee-Enfields easiliy penetrated the hull..

Lee-enfield rifles ammuniton did not penetrate the basic hull of bmp-2, they did howerer penetrate top hatches in some instances when
fired from very high mountain positions down to bmp top armor hatches.

Look at M113 - needs uparmoring - clean sides , add as much add-on armor /ERA as possible .

This comment is absurd. Any additional weight added to any vehicle will deteoriate it's qualities from planned.
Top speed is lower, engine and transmission go through much harder stress, and especially suspension qualities will
drop very fast and make vehicle prone to torsion bar and shock absorber failures and generally weaker ride. And this applies
all vehicles which are not designed from ground to become equipped with modular armour (as AMV for instance)


Now let´s look at BMP-2 . To weld something to this body is quite hard..

It isn't any harder than in any other steel manufactured afv, actually much easier in field conditions than welding aluminium
armor of m113. welding aluminium is in most instances much trickier than welding steel, and least requires more experienced
welder.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

TopHatter

*Groan* Please please please tell me that you're joking

"Hardly later"...I don't understand what you mean

I'd like to learn anything you able able to tell from your personal experience or others that you know very well, particularly anecdotal information, in other words, the stuff that the textbooks doesn't talk about.

apsts post is a good example

braindead

Great post apsts !
I posted it after it appeared in my local mil.forum . Found it interesting but wanted more (if possible , inside ) information .
The orig. post was translated from estonian language , and was originally translated from russian language . Translation was done in middle of night and ended in 05.15 in morning which explains at least 1 of MY mistake(s) - rearward prism , not periscope !
As I´m at work now , i cannot confirm it , but the original writer was a russian with military background (a Major AFAIK) . Of course there is always a chance that it is a poser/wannabe or Rus. version of Sparks .

Again , great post , hope for more !

with your permission , I´d like to take your post and put it up on my local forum ?

__________________
....

braindead

[quote=TopHatter;430089]*Groan* Please please please tell me that you're joking



QUOTE]

what i meant is - it is really hard to shoot and make the car explode as they do it in the movies .
A gun instructor wrote in a newspaper article about the ridiculity of Hollywood stunts - how car door/ cardboard wall protects from automatic fire , how every bullet that hits gas tank makes the car explode . For illustration he mentioned a test how ATF agents tried to shoot up a car as described in movies and failed .

It was meant as a doubt of orig. post´s claim of BMP-s fuel-cell doors .

apsts

I would be very surprised if that was written by military personnel who has ever worked with armour in real. There is also some facts and true things in his post too, but most of it consists of exaggeration, false information and clearly not insight knowledge.

I am not saying in any way that for instance bmp-1/2 are perfect vehicles or that would not have flaws - they do- but many times russian/soviet
equipment gets unfair treatment in the light of recent conflicts (chechnya, afghanistan)

Bmp in original development started end of 1950's and it's qualities and properties were determined very much by doctrines used back then. Main reason was of course making it suitability for nuclear war and another very prominent feature was ability to swim. Some features in bmp's seems to be impractical and illogical in todays world, but in original it matched the required properties very well. Cramped and unergonomic interiors in soviet armor may seem unbelievable to western observer but in many ways everything was logical in soviet point of view and matched the needs of it's army.

Bmp-1 was in many ways very elegant design. It included full NBC protecting system with chemical filters and overpressure, it was equipped with gamma radiation detectors, gyrocompass gpk-59 and had very good engine UTD-20 (which is still produced as utd-20s1 after 43 years in production), it was first soviet vehicle to introduce steering yoke instead of levers, very good driving qualities, top speed in rough terrain was good, it used new type of track and was very hard to shed a track on this vehicle, It was first time configured how to get such a big caliber (73mm) in such light platform in form of the gun 2A28 and many other things that were in many ways ahead of it's time.

Many time is forgotten that development of armored vehicle from ground to operational use, is very long project, 10 years is no exception in development, when bmp-2 was started 1972, operational 1980, and it was already end of 70's, _before_ Afghanistan when they started to work on to future bmp-3 prototypes. At the very moment Russia has many projects (according those little hints what are made to public) besides bmp-t and developing different interesting solutions for new IFV. And trend in Russia seems to go for heavier armour and protection as in west.

That's ok.

Feanor

Apsts you might want to fill out your public profile and make a thread in the introductions forum about yourself. Welcome to WAB. That post was certainly a good read.

JohnFlint1985

BTR-70 almost became my grave. It is a pure garbage.

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

Gun Grape

Somewhere around 100%.

100% if it is conventional US forces. Standard ammo mix is 1 Tracer to 4 Ball rounds in rifles and machine guns. Various unit SOP's may will call for more. Like last 5 in a magazine to be tracers or squad leaders using mags of nothing but tracers to designate targets.

Feanor

How?

JohnFlint1985

I hit a mine on the road

Feanor

First or second Chechen? Or were you old enough to have fought in Afghanistan?