View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
05:17 what is that guy saying about western APC's CV90, Bradley etc? maybe some russian member can translate.
05:17 what is that guy saying about western APC's CV90, Bradley etc? maybe some russian member can translate.
Sweet tank.... looks promising!
that they are analogues and competitors of BMP-3 in the same class but they are heavier, cant swim and have less ammo storageOriginally Posted by Jµµso
Thanks for translation.
Btw, that's BMP-3M with Bahcha-U weapons module.
and also not so reliable as BMP-3
BMP-3 saw desert storm?! I find it hard to believe.
I have the impression that just like the Hind the BMP family were more of attack vehicles rather than troop carriers. While western IFV put the emphasis on troop transport rather than firepower.
So we compare apples to apples, the Russians started the Infantry Fighting Vehicle ball rolling with the BMP-1 circa 1970. The BMP-1 caused the west to rethink mechanized infantry. The response was the Bradley, Marder, Warrier class. The west went with heavier armor protection and decided that a 20/25/30mm autocannon was a better way to go, especially after the poor performance of the BMP-1's 73mm gun. The performance of the BMP-1 in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was not good, it was a death trap. The West still continued develoiping their IFVs as they felt the concept was valid. The Russians saw the performace of the 73mm and AT-3 Sagger were below expectations, so they upgraded to the BMP-2 with a nice 30mm and AT-5 Spandrel combo. The next real test for the BMP came in Cechnya and it wasn't pretty. The reaction is the BMP-3, it retains the the nice 30mm, but adds the cannon. The cannon gives more firepower, especially in urban terrain, it also doubles as the through-the-barrel TTB ATGM launcher so overall a better use of space. They added the forward firing PKs for additional anti-personnel protection as it was light infantry tank killer teams with RPGs that killed so many BMP-2s. So the BMP-3 is newer than the Bradley/Marder/Warrior class, and with the East-West dynamic different, the West isn't rushing out to counter the BMP-3 threat per se.
Ultimately you can't have your cake and eat it too. There is a trade off in every vehicle design, they have crammed a lot in there - 3x PKM, 1 x 30mm (with ammo storage and feed mechanism), 1 x 85mm cannon (also with ammo storage and auto-loader) - 3 man crew + infantry squad and their gear. My guess is that I wouldn't want to be in there when it gets hit...
I'd like to add that in the Chechnya example.. there is NO IFV that would have performed good.
No IFV in the world is made for that.
Sending a light armoured[compared to a tank] IFV into a city without air cover is a very very very very very very very very very very very very very bad idea.
One RPG-7, and it's all gone. With the men inside.
Like the guy in the video said it was designed for a different war, not chechnya/iraq style conflicts. Even MBTs are vulnerable to rpgs/atgms, lightly armored vehicles are death traps. I'm pretty sure Russian soldiers will ride inside these bmps only during parades or in non hostile environments but when the time comes to patrolling hostile territory they will be sitting on top of the armor using the bmp as a flatbed truck.
As far as combat APCs Israeli Ahzarit type vehicles are the way to go.
You information regarding BMP 3 armament is wrong
BMP-3 ARMAMENT
The main armament of the BMP-3 is a 100mm 2A70 semi-automatic rifled gun/missile launcher, which is stabilised in two axes and can fire either 3UOF HE-FRAG (High Explosive-Fragmentation) rounds or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles. Effective range for the HE-FRAG round is 4,000m. Muzzle velocity is 250m/s. 22 HE-FRAG rounds can be carried in the automatic loader, total ammunition load being 40 rounds. Rate of fire is 10 rounds per minute.
The gun fires the 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missile round, which consists of the 9M117 laser beamriding missile and container. This missile is used in the Bastion missile system (NATO designation AT-10 Stabber). The missile can engage tanks with explosive reactive armour (ERA) as well as slow, low-flying targets such as helicopters. Range is 100 to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is 8 rounds.
Armament also includes a 30mm 2A72 automatic gun, stabilised in two axes, which fires 3UOR-6 and 3UOR-8 rounds. Ammunition load is 500 AP (Armour-Piercing) or HE-FRAG rounds. Rate of fire is more than 300 rounds/min and range is 1,500 to 2,000m. There are also one 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun and two 7.62 bow machine guns.
Very impressive machine and overall the best IFV on the market today
Advantages over other IFVs
-Firepower (by far)
-Mobility
It is light, fast, nimble and amphibious
Once CV90, Bradley come across any creek, river, lake, destroyed bridge and such - they have to wait for the engineers and play target, BMP doesn't even have to slow down...
Also BMP 3 can be propelled by anything and everything from jet fuel to diesel, what about the rest of IFVs?
-Crew protection
Modern day RPGs, as was demonstrated in Iraq, can defeat even the Chobham armour, so the trick is avoiding getting hit altogether. Arena & Shtora give BMP 3 that chance while no other IFV offers anything similar
- Reliability
Saudi Arabia has both Bradley and BMP 3 (about 420 of them) and the latter are proven to be far more reliable.
- NBC protection equipment allows BMP 3 crew to operate in the contaminated zone for 2 days without leaving the vehicle (apparantely there is some kind of toilet device present)
It was designed for offense, fast and brutal and that what it does better than any other IFV today.
So which one is better? The Ruski bmp-3 or the Americanski Bradly?
Ok, its a 100mm instead of a 85mm...Doesn't change what I was saying, it is a nice combo weapon - ATGM AND Cannon is a space saver and gives more firepower than just a 30mm/ATGM combo from BMP-2.
Granted, one needs to use proper tactics, but I am just talking about hit effects. Sorry, man we have had plenty of Bradleys hit with RPGs, M1s, too and though there have been casualties, they are not catastrophic kills like was typical with BMP-2s. Hell, we have HMMWVs hit with multiple RPGs and not brew up.
Russian designs cram alot in a small space. I have shot BMP-1s and T-55s with a 25mm and both brewed up very quickly.
Last edited by MississippiMarine; 06-20-2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason: Corrected numbers
I would like see how other IFVs and their crews would have done if they were in the same situation as Russians were in Grozny...
Luckily for the "coalition" Iraqi insurgents are not much of the warriors, didn't serve in the American military and are not equipped with the latest antitank weapons US military has in its arsenal. Not to mention terrain and climate.
Well, the BMP-3 is a much newer design, so that is a huge plus as the Bradley design is pushing 30 years old. I would need to see classified crew survivablity and hit effects tests to make a call though. Funny how seeing your buddies burn to death hurts morale
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
