braindead

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 it´s 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 didn´t 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 it´s 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 it´s 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 ´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 .

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 did´nt thought about things like non-slippery rubber mats to ease the climbing for the crew .

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. . 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 ´vulnerable´ .
The bottom of the BMP-2 is even worse . 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 . 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 . It´s 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 let´s get to the hatches . Driver´s 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 driver´s 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. rifleman´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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 let´s 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 it´s 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 it´s easier said than done . Look at M113 - needs uparmoring - clean sides , add as much add-on armor /ERA as possible . Simple solution and it´s done all the time . Broad tracks make it possible to get the higher weight , maintaining the mobility .
Now let´s 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 - we´ll 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 ´raisins´ - 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 it´s 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 I´d like to say the saga of BMP is over but not - in 2005 Russian Defence Ministry wanted to order a whole batch of ´strongly modernized´ 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

__________________
....

braindead

sorry for minor mistakes and loose translation .

I wonder if anybody here that has some experience with this machine thinks of this piece . Indians and Russians perhaps ?

Feanor

There are plans, I remember reading this somewhere, to phase out the BMP-2 for the BMP-3.

Firral

BMP-2 Not perfect machine, but I would not name its unsuccessful. As any other machine at it has lacks, but also there are advantages. I know people which had experience of service in the Chechen Republic 1999-2001, they do not express it negatively (as expresses it the article written by you).
As to MT-LB, the reason of replacement BMP by this machine - its low cost and simplicity.

__________________

Feanor

Could you tell us more Firral? I would be very interested to hear about it's actual employment. Also if you have any friends who have used the BMP-3 that would also be very interesting.

TopHatter

Firral, can you give us a rundown on both? We get so little firsthand information on fSoviet/Russian equipment here.

Thanks

braindead

Thank you Firral ! Any firsthand experience is much appreciated .

The scariest thing about BMP-1/2 is the fact that it is so unprotected . If it has armor like this I´d probably ride on top it too . At least would have a chance to jump off of it when **** starts to fly .

Some posters mentioned on my local mil.forum that BTR-70 that was set up as target on firing range was completely shot-up by a squad using G-3-s and MAG .

On the other side the rather small silhouette is on plus-side and the infamous door/fuel-cells : if professionals (USA´s ATF bureau) cannot even shoot a car into flames like they do in the movies , what odds are that the enemy uses tracer rounds and would be a threat to BMP-s doors ?

Firral

Unfortunately I am a little limited in time...
In occasion of the weak armour is a question disputable. Once I had a good time with friends, shooting old case MT-LB from 7,62 AKM (For those who does not know, armour MT-LB about 6 mm, and it is arranged under more blunt corners). From distance 50 meters are closer, I could count on penetration into the armour, but with is far it did not occur. Bullets jumped aside, leaving only a trace.
Now compare to stronger of 10 mm of armours arranged under a sharp corner. In fact the author in clause, abuses inclined sheets of the armour, not speaking us about that what for them such have made. To amaze an inclined leaf very difficultly. (for example to amaze BMP in front difficultly even from РПГ and heavy machine guns).
The author of clause which to us has shown braindead, dissembles a little. Armour BMP from a small arms can be punched only in an emphasis, from very close distance. Even if you the gone mad terrorist, you not begin to run up to BMP on 25 meters and to shoot it from the rifles. In the Chechen Republic as a rule BMP destroyed from РПГ, and from a small arms only its observation instruments.
As to practical survivability BMP could sustain 1-2 hits RPG (here certainly all depends on success driver).
In occasion of driving an infantry on roof BMP. You are right it was done for protection of crew as at penetration RPG in inside, the machine turned to a communal grave of all infantrymen (but here there is no difference, whether there will be it BMP-2, or M2A3). For this purpose, for example (correct for me if I am not right) in Iraq remove lateral doors with HMMWV. Also the infantry from above on the armour had the best review (especially in mountains), and also had an opportunity quickly to be hastened in case of an ambush.

Firral

Hardly later. And what you particularly would would like to learn?
Find case BTR and try to make it. Shoot at it from 50-100 meters, then approach and check up. Only remember at BTR there is 14.5 machine gun, (which your shelter will easily destroy, and at hit in the person breaks off him on pieces), and also very malicious ten infantrymen with rifles. So do not do it in fight.

Feanor

Sounds dubious. You sure it was BTR-70's there were talking about? Oh and ask them for a picture.

ArmchairGeneral

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

Ucar

In the Turkish experience against the fight against PKK, we have observed the following about the BTR-60 and BTR-80 vs. HMGs.

1 - They are vulnerable to fire from KPV,DShK and NSV series heavy machine guns at a range of 7-800 meters or less. Much to our regret, we have learned that frontal penetrations are possible at these ranges. Sandbags solve this problem adequately.

2 - The BTR series have shown themselves to be completely resistant to AK-47/74 and G-3 series. Perhaps at a range of 20-30 meters there may be a change for penetrations, however that would be hard to achieve because of the employment method of these platformes by Turkish Armed Forces and the existence of "malicious infantry men with rifles" That was a good one Firral.

braindead

Having seen the doors of BTR-70 , if they are going to get out of this ALIVE under fire and with some equipment , they probably are malicious dwarfs with rifles. NO WAY i (1.80 , 90kg.) would fit me out of this with some gear from last seat under 20 sec.

In our case the realistic distance does not exceed 100-300 metres . Pretty forested country . For longer ranges and heavier firepower there are M69 (the Chinese RPG) ,Carl Gustaf , israeli B-300 (USMC SMAW) and Milan , some M2 .50caliber HMG-s too .

Still would not want to try it.

Firral

You are not right, there is a specification " Landing the soldier in structure of squad from BTR on a place ". You can see it here (unfortunately a current in Russian).

" Soldiers in the machine on the regular places. Covers of hatches (door) of the machine are closed on the lock.
Time is counted from a signal before forming the soldier near the machine in conformity by staff. At a finding the soldier in warm clothes or footwear (valenoks) time for performance of the specification increases for 2 seconds.
Estimations-
8 seconds - are excellent
9 seconds - are good
11 seconds - are satisfactory "
All the main means of strife with the armour-machines is RPG. Even heavy machine guns are disputable enough means (especially for BMP).
Besides you should understand, that BTR is not intended for a conduct of combat, this means of transportation of an infantry and its support. BMP is a machine which it should be used together with tanks. It also participates in battle in the second numbers.
"With the beginning of attack on BMP (BTR) the mechanic-driver drives a car behind the tank on removal of 100-200 m."
"Having overcome barrages, BMP (BTR), using folds of district, jumps from a boundary by a boundary (from shelter to shelter) moves ahead behind the branch on the removal providing reliable support by its fire, and it is sometimes direct in a circuit of branch, thus the mechanic-driver (driver) creates to the gunner-operator (the gunner of a machine gun) favourable conditions for defeat of means of the opponent."
The manual on a conduct of combat

braindead

Ok , thanks Firral . I still am not sure I´d get out there in time ...