Russian BMPs are pieces of junks. It is underpowered and the amunition is around the crew. One hit and it will blow up. It's a poor and cheap Russian design. The Bradley has better self awareness to the rest of the armored column. The comunications and weapons systems are acrurate than that piece of junk BMP.
the BMP makes a great hard target for the U.S.military to shoot up!I love these vehicles so much,,,lol,,,they burn up so nicely and explode like the KURSK did! how did Russian do it?congradulations to the brilliant minds in Mother Russia that thought up this new way to get their armour crews killed!thanx for the laughs guys,keep up the great work!
@m4rvi4no Arena is the russian APS system, it works and it and it's predecesor have been produced and used for a long time before the Trophy was even concieved (Drozd system was supposedly created in 1977/78 and Arena in 1993)
It will be interesting to see if Trophy or Arena actually work in heavier combat with multiple incoming rockets. Israel said the Trophy system worked 2 weeks ago with a missile coming out of Gaza. Is this accurate, or propaganda? Just wondering.
@ruskymerc they actually have upgrade packages that feature that, but i personally find the Arena system a much more appealing option. yes, there is a risk to the infantry once they deploy but they'll get killed either way if the vehicle get's hit with an RPG, ERA or no.
plus, all you have to do to minimize the risk is to employ proper tactics, as to have the infantry more spread out or stay behind the BMP (from the opponents POV)
@krazzed101 Of course it would... even an RPG29 could kill a Bradley, or an advanced RPG 7. But a Bradley does not have all that higher caliber ammo. My main point is that autoloaders are a great way to lose a hand or arm for the crew.
Eto ocherednoe gavno sozdannoe bezdarnimi tupimi polupyanimi russkimi konstruktorami!!!Posmotrite zachem v nei nuzhen tualet??Zachem ei plavat? esli boi v 99% idet na sushe,ona nihuya ne zashishaet svoi ekipazh!! Soldati v nei chustvuyut sebya kak v grobu,oni v nei psihicheski podavleni,znayut chto v luboi moment umrut..U BMP3 net nikakih shansov protiv Bradlei,CV90,Puma i angliiskih i uyzhnokoreiskih analogov Vi Russkie sheite luchshe lapti eto u vas luchshe poluchitsya!!!
@150izapit I'm pretty sure that your mother is fucking WHORE! ask her yourself,all russian girls are whores ! in which they are famous around the world,your mother had thousands of boyfriennds before she met your idiot father who married fucking bich.If you dont believe me ask people from kaukaz and ZA they will tell you all russian girls and womans ARE fucking WHORES!that's why nobody from former soviet republics respect motherfucker russians! you know it!!!!
@USAAIRPOWER Bradley isn't amphibious and doesn't have a 100mm gun. And once the Bradley fires it's external 2 TOW missiles, it must retreat to reload safely. The BMP-3 has an internal loading mechanism for its missiles. So it can keep fighting.
@soundslave Wrong. Bradley can be made amphibious by use of a swimming kit and it takes less than a minute to rearm the TOW missiles by opening the top rear crew hatch. I have done so. The TOW alone makes the Bradley better than the BMP3.
Rearming the TOW taking less than 1 minute is not the issue. The issue is that you have to step outside of the vehicle for that 1 minute or less, which is enough for the enemy to kill you 10 times over. Not to mention that Bradley has to stay stationary while the TOW is being reloaded, playing a sitting duck for that nice 100m shell from BMP-3.
Let's not forget that TOW is wire guided, while BMP-3 Arkan is a beam riding SACLOS missile.
Arkan missile has a max range of 6km, while TOW has 4km max range. It takes Arkan 12 seconds to a range of 4000m, while TOW takes 20 seconds to it's max range.
Bradley besides TOW has a 30mm chaingun, BMP-3 has a 30mm autocannon and a 100mm gun that it can use for destruction of fortifications. That's something Bradley cannot do.
And while Bradley is amphibious, it needs to stop and have it's crew erect the swimming barrier. BMP-3 simply rides smoothly into the water.
@Iggy82xl All Bradleys were modernized and uparmored? :) No early models remained? :)
I've found a little dirty secret :) Somewhere in mid of 90s there was an order to take out rubber pontoons from every Bradley and to stop maintenance of water pumps on all vehicles, because they would never need them anymore. Since mid of 90s no Bradley is amphibious, regardless its version and weight.
@Iggy82xl How often would it engage targets at it's maximum range? Almost never. The TOW can destroy fortifications just as well as the 100mm gun if not better. And if you say the 100mm gun is better for close range you are wrong because an automatic 30mm weapon is better for the job. NO IFV should be amphibious unless for certain Naval Infantry units. It puts huge limitations on the vehicle. The Bradley is heavily armored.
TOW has HEAT warhead , and how many of TOWs is Bradley carrying? A lot less than BMP-3 has 100mm shells.
And how do you actually know that BMP-3 will not engage targets at maximum range? You also missed a little bit of info on how much time it takes for both missiles to reach their targets. That's means that BMP- 3 will have destroyed his target that fired a TOW at it by the time TOW reaches BMP-3, which means that TOW looses the guidance and misses the BMP-3.
@Iggy82xl The TOW is much more capable of knocking out tanks that a 100mm gun. Although the BMP-3 has faster firing technology, I would prefer survivability over that characteristic.
You are talking about knocking out tanks, when even the TOW cannot penetrate modern tanks from the front, and from the sides 100mm gun of BMP-3 is more than enough.
Bradley was uparmored, so in that vein, you should be looking at the BMP-3 with ERA blocks added for comparison, so Bradley being more survivable is open for debate. The deal is, both of them are very susceptible to man portable AT rockets and missiles.
What is definitive advantage of BMP-3 over Bradley is the weapon complex. While 100mm HEAT rounds and ATGM missiles are not as potent as TOW against tanks, 100mm gun allows superior flexibility in engaging different types of targets like armored vehicles, fortified positions and infantry, with enough ammunition for all of these tasks. As you know it also sports a 30mm autocannon for suppresive fire against infantry in cover and light armored vehicles, same as Bradley.
@Iggy82xl The ATGM count for both vehicles is near equal. The 100mm cannon does seem good and is a good quality but only for anti-structures operations. It cannot take out a tank and neither can the Bradley's main armament. A 25mm auto cannon can be devastating against hardened infrastructures just like the 100mm gun. The Bradley may not be perfect but that is because it was designed to perform a variety of jobs but cannot perform any single job incredibly well. But the war zone is always ...
@Iggy82xl changing and it is better to have a vehicle that can take on a variety of missions. And yes the BMP-3 can be outfitted with ERA blocks but I am talking about what is is place now with all vehicles. ERA blocks are not standard issue to the BMP-3 like it is to the Bradley now.
@MetalGearArmA What planet do you live on? Arkan may have long range, but it is only a 100mm warhead. Not nearly powerful enough to destroy modern MBTs from the frontal arc. The TOW has a 152mm warhead (50% bigger!) and is top attack, meaning it can avoid all currently deployed ERA.
@MetalGearArmA It all depends how thick the armor is in that particular spot. 40 year old infantry launchers will penetrate the rear of the engine block, but state-of-the-art missiles may bounce off the front of the turret.
@MetalGearArmA If tank is hit by RPG and it wounded driver, crew cannot keep fighting, because there are fire and toxic smoke in crew compartment and after such hit you never know what happened next if there is ammunition in the gun it might ignite. Crew would evacuate unless under fire.
@MetalGearArmA Because driver sit in front of the tank, behind frontal hull armor, while rest of the crew in the turret. Turret have much thicker armor usually and better protected. Poor driver can be killed from frontal hit and side hit, where armor is much thinner.
And no matter how thick Bradley's armor is at the front, it simply cannot withstand BMP-3 100mm HEAT shell. On the other hand BMP-3 is impervious to 30mm shells (Bradley has a 25mm chaingun) on the front and front sides at 60 degree angles. BMP-3M with added side armor is even better protected, not to mention the version ERA on the turret and sides.
Also not having an amphibous IFV that is able to follow tanks that can force rivers deeper than 1.5m is stupid.
@Iggy82xl I never said it should withstand the 100mm round. But the 25mm chain gun could penetrate the armor when it uses it's sabot armor-piercing round like it did in the Iraq war. When using that type of ammunition it was able to knock out T-55 tanks.
In US Army case having an amphibous IFV was deemed not important since Abrams can't force rivers deeper than 1.5 m as it does not have a snorkel system.
@TATARSTAN59500 The BMP-2M still has terrible protection. I know it can be fitted with ERA like the Bradley but it definitely isn't standard issue with that. The BMP-2M is only different than most other BMP-2's due to it's additional missiles. That is about it (for the most part). Maybe it makes it more of a tank killer but not a superior IFV.
@Iggy82xl That's all true, but the Arkan is a weak 100mm ATGm compared to the top-attack 152mm TOW. A BMP-3 could engage a Bradley from safety, but its missile cannot penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBTs. The TOW can do so, but only from within range of the tank's main gun. It's a tradeoff of power vs range.
@ppitm It's not true, Arkan is tandem warhead rocket just like RPG-29 with 750 mm RHAe after ERA. It can penetrate frontal armor of the tank in most of the cases, if it failed first time, from 5km range it have plenty of time to shoot again.
@Hashishtani lol, 750mm. That's nowhere near good enough for any modern, Western tank. You need over 1000mm of penetration to even have a chance. And no, at 5km, you will never get a second shot. Any target will shoot back and kill you first, or simply move behind cover in the looooong time it takes for another missile to get there. And any BMP that sits immobile for such a length of time is a dead pile of scrap. Mobility is survival. Arkan will massacre Bradleys though.
@ppitm I would lol because all RHA numbers given for armor are very approximate, it's basically an expectation rather than real thickness. In fact RPG-29 with 750mm RHA penetration, did penetrated frontal armor of Challenger in Iraq and Merkava in Lebanon. BTW TOW penetration is 900mm RHA not THAT much better.
@Hashishtani True, RHA numbers are approximate. But when you have an estimate of 750mm vs an estimate of 1700mm, it's obvious what will happen. All modern tanks have small weak spots where smaller AT weapons can penetrate. This has happened once, in Iraq. But that means your weapon relies on sheer luck, not power. Merkavas took mostly side hits. And TOW-2B has 900mm *against the top armor.* Mankind will never create a tank with 900mm of armor above the turret. It would be too heavy.
@ppitm Lets see Leopard 2 specs "Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2 range from 590 - 690 RHAe on the turret, 600 RHAe on the glacis and lower front hull", I never seen any numbers like 1700mm in any tank specification. May be that would be the frontal turret armor with ERA. While Arkan specification is 750RHA after penetrating ERA. In any case at least hull armor of Leo 2 is vulnerable.
@Hashishtani Leopard 2 has outdated armor, not enough composites, sort of like the T-90. M1A1 HA turret estimates are 1300mm-1500mm. Hull armor estimates are as high as 1700mm because of so much slant. And no ERA, of course.
@ppitm Shooting at Bradley with Arkan is overkill it can be taken down using 100mm gun from the same range using normal 100mm HE ammunition. Bradley armor is aluminum, it's designed for small arms not 100mm guns.
@Iggy82xl never mind the smaller range of the TOW, the Bradley has to stop and stand still to fire it... also, the A2 and A3 versions can't swim because they're simply too heavy...
@Cennedi You aparently know nothing about the bmp3 then and the stryker is the biggest failure of armored personel carriers of all time, wouldn't even let my dog drive in one. The bradleys TOW is no magic aswell, just outdated piece of 80's machinery, the Bmp3 outclasses the bradley in pretty much every way possible.
@soundslave yes but the Bradley tactics they usually travel in groups. So I think it's 2 external TOW missles are plenty. But I know what your saying though. I personally think the Bradley is better technically but I rather would have the BMP-3 since its cheaper and with the right crew and tactics is deadly.
@soundslave The Bradley isn't amphibious because it is much more heavily armored. It can withstand much more than the BMP-3. All Bradleys have reactive armor and many armor add on's and in many situations in Iraq and Afghanistan Bradley's have been hit by RPGs and still been able to continue the fire fight. IFV's shouldn't be amphibious, sure it is convenient to have but in combat it severely limits the vehicle.
@soundslave Oh no, to be honest Russia probably uses the most ERA out of any country (which is good). I wish the Abrams would make it standard issue rather than just on the TUSK. But yes I am just speaking from what is standard issue and what is deployed. If Relikt reactive armor is introduced then it would enormously help the effectiveness of Russian ground vehicles. However it is not in use and there is still a lot of vulnerability to the armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot.
FINALLY one of these russian docs in english. God i love how its all from a russian point of view instead of being stupid purley onesided biased american historychannel bullshit
this is awsome man much appreciated your upload cheers!
Your fucking moron. You too much Russian war machines propaganda. I see billion and billion dead communist pieces of shits of war machines in Korean war, Six Days War, Yom Kippur War, Indo Pakistan war, 1982 Lebanon civil war, Iraq Iran war, Soviet Afghan War, 1991 Gulf War, Kosovo war, and 2003 war in Iraq.
@renegadekav Couldn't say anything more stupid. M1A1 is main heavy battle tank, this thing is for infantry support and wide range field support missions.
@SlavaSvarogu it even says in the video light armor.the abrams armor is so thick and so high quality there is no chance even shooting once and running is risky.wether it is better for clearing towns depends if the town has heavy anti armor assets.maybe if it hit the mbt in the right place it could disable it or immobilize it but a clean kill like killing the tank and the crew seems like quite a long shot to me,this thing is a pussy tank at best.
@renegadekav Please stop propaganda You can shoot Abrams with old Soviet RPG i dont talk about new weapons,today you can destroy any tank in the world its not problem at all,this is problem of modern war,expensive tanks and cheap missiles,so tanks has no future,only things like BMP or maybe USA hummers,but tanks good against poor millitaty countrys like Iraq or Africa,if you fight vs strong countrys,you can push 100 tanks and you will loose 100 tanks in one moment
@renegadekav Russian T-90 using dinamic sheeld protection its better then Abrams but even with this its not problem to destroy any tank in the world 4-8 million dollars one tank vs 400 usd RPG so armor is not the answer
@SlavaSvarogu what is dinamic sheeld?the t-90 is one the the top rate tanks but rarely considered the best by any non russians.I thought it was small but armor is the cornerstone of the tank thats what sets a tank apart.the abram has been proven time and again aganst a variety of threats including t-72.the who has time to launch 400 rpg's with infantry around?the abram has arguably the deadliest gun with the latest ammo and thickest armor,yes it is not the fastest and heavy but what can you do?
@renegadekav except that it fires only AT rounds, by now the Leo2A6 has a 1 meter longer L55 gun, it was knocked out every now and then in iraq by rpg7s, as opposed to the Challengers who had no cassualties in Desert Storm and next to no in Iraq, is a bitch on logistics, it's exhaust ranges to +915°C (which is more than visible on IR), it can take 60+ seconds to get the turbine started and being as heavy as it is, softer terrain turns into quicksand for it.
@MatoVuc no modern tank has seen more combat and killed more enemies,it has been tested and improvements have been made where needed it also has high numbers.the challengers barely saw any combat compared to the abrams and there is a difference between being stopped or having a track taken out by an rpg and having armor penetrated the devil is in the details.
@reneg i'm sorry, i must have confused the pictures of abrams with very obvious holes in the side of the armour. the challengers were hit with anything and everyting in the gulf (even friendly fire), and yet none were taken out of action. what's the toll of the Iraq war on abrams? 151 knocked out, of those 80 needing overhauls and 5 total write offs?
As for being combat proven, you're right. It's been combat proven to be little to no better than it's contemporaries: Challenger2, Leo2A4+, T90
@MatoVuc it doesn't need to be better we have more of them and its the match more or less of any tank.you can put a hole in something but if you don't penetrate completely it doens't do much good where do you think all that weight you were talking about comes from?the challenger did take damage in oif it survived but could not return fire and another time I heard one fired on another killing one crew member cause the hatch was open.basra wasn't the main stage of the conflict anyway.
@renegadekav arguing semanthics here. fact of the matter is that the Challengers chobam armour is better than the Abrams analogue of it. yes, chalenger losses in oif minor. in the first gulf war however, Chalenger losses 0, even though one was ambushed in a volley of rpg fire to all it's critical spots. on the other hand, abrams losses during that 21, of which 4 blue-on-blue and 5 red-on-blue tank attacks.
Anyway, agreed on one thing, not the best, but still a very good tank
@MatoVuc im afraid I can't take your word for it everything i've seen leads me to believe nobody knows which tank has better armor protection and I thought they were classified.the reason I brought up the abram in the first place is that someone was trying to argue that this bmp can engage main battle tanks successfully.the T-90 if im not mistaken isn't that good its just a modern version of the t-72 with armor kits and not sure how effective they are in combat.
@renegadekav you would be mistaken on that one. if you're refering to the t72s that the abrams encountered in iraq, that's not much of a comparison considering that those models had inferior steel skin, and thinner to boot. the t90 has russian designed composite armour, plus the never versions come with a welded turret as opposed to being cast. it has "integrated" ERA armour and an array of various countermeasures. also it's got a better power plant and electronics, communication and FCS
@MatoVuc I already touched up on that but overall its armor is not the best and when faced with the newest AT sabot rounds we'll see and i've seen nothing to prove its in the same league as the others.it won't be raped as easily as t72 but probably beaten non the less.its the russians that have to prove themselves now they lost round one.combat experience counts a lot and bradley and abram are top notch they have been tested and improved like I said before.where has t-90 been proven?
@renegadekav how about in chechenya, where one was hit by 7 RPG hits and still remained in action? or maybe kuwaiti m84s, that are by many considered a properly done t72, that fought effectively in the first gulf war? or hell, even the t72B and T72BMs (it's predecesors) in Georgia, maybe?
what are you basing the assumption that it's armour is no good? even most western analysts think that the armour on the real russian tanks is some of the best.
@MatoVuc its much lighter and smaller and I see no evidence they use the same quality of armor like chobham or something like it.I heard a chinese anti tank missile that is used on their attack helicopters penetrated the frontal armor in one hit,plus based on the fact its so mass produced for little money and exported I have my reasons.also when talking about modern tank armor rpg 7s are substandard newer models like kornet I would be more impressed by,see isreal and hezbolla conflict.
@renegadekav it's much lighter and smaller for a reason. among them terrain and speed, but that doesn't mean that it's armour is necesarily that much worse. No one but the british use chobam, so the comparison is pointless. even the abrams composite armour is equally hear-say, going down that route. no modern MBT can take a hit from the newest ATGMs without damage, be they fired by infantry or from a helicopter, thus pointles comparison.
@MatoVuc of course I know why its smaller and lighter and its not pointless comparison damage and complete penetration and killing of the crew are not the same thing especially now that many tanks are designed to engage helicopters with new rounds.a tank isn't done until it and its crew can't engage in the fight anymore.I don't even know why your arguing with me unless you believe t-90 or any other model of russian armor is on par or better.
@renegadekav ok. i'll take that point, but if the tank can't move because it lost it's thread it can't engage adversaries properly and is for all intents and purposes a sitting duck. even if it isn't destroyed and able to be repaired, for that fight it is neutralized.
let's put it this way, i don't believe the western weapons and vehicles are as godly as they are portrayed, nor that the eastern, particularely the modern ones, are as pathetic as they are portrayed.
@MatoVuc it may not be able to move or be repaired but its still a sitting turret if thats functional and if the crew lives and escapes the vehicle if im not mistaken they are armed almost as good as an infantry team with usually an AT weapon of some sort like an AT4 the point is there is good reason to completely eliminate the threat.
@renegadekav that wouldn't really work. if the battle does bog down, it still leaves them open for attacks and there is the risk that they'll be gunned down as soon as they open the hatch. on the other hand, if the battle continues on, the crew will hardly run after the rest of the division, plus i'm pretty sure their orders will be to stay there and wait for the recovery vehicles, if there is a chance to salvage the tank.
@MatoVuc there is no telling what they will do if their vehicles mobility is compromised unless armor is high,and the main armament is functional you'd think they would ditch and hide out nearby they rehearse for this sort of thing im sure besides what I said before still stands you don't want a tank able to shoot even if it can't move theoretically it can hit things accuratly for a few miles around and the crew might make for an effective AT team.not sure how effective at4 is.
@renegadekav as for the mass production part, i can see that about the t72, but i can't see the same for the t90. supposed numbers: ~400-450 russia, ~620 india, ~100-180 Algeria, ~150 Saudi Arabia, 10 Turkmenistan.
so that's about 1280-1410 since begining of production on 1995 does not yell mass production. that's <100 a year since start of production, compared to the 25000+ T72 since 1971 (625 a year)
@MatoVuc I believe for a tanks main mission armor protection is more important then speed there are plenty of other platforms that have speed even on the ground but if confronted with an abram or challenger or whatever and they can't knock it out with the first or second hit and thats assuming they get the first shot they are less likely to dominate.those cannon launched missiles they have to stay still while firing if im not mistaken.until they face each other im sticking with abrams.
@renegadekav that would be true if the only factors that need to be taken into account are protection, firepower. but there's also the little bit called mobility, but that name doesn't quite fit, because you need to take into account also how it will handle terrain and logistics. excesive weight can make traversing terrain hard to impossible, insufficiently fortified bridges hazardous (an M1 Abrams that sadly fell through a bridge into the Euphrates river an it's crew drowned), ...
@MatoVuc im aware of that story also the story of an exposed driver who was sniped in the head and drove into a river but again I don't think it was a mistake putting all that thick heavy armor on even if its heavy and not quite as fast it can still go about 45 miles per hour and the turbine engine has a govenor on it the bigger issue is logistics and the fact its a gas guzzler.I don't know how bad it is compared to other tanks cause I only ever hear about the m1.
@renegadekav the gas turbine has a number of other flaws aside from that, but consider this. For the most part such heavy vehicles tend to demolish most traffic infrastructure that isn't strong enough giving the logistics that follow it nightmares. there's aso the little thing that the Leopard2 has a power unit of equal power, but it's a diezel engine, and as such much simpler and less expensive in both cost, maintenance and consumption
@MatoVuc the turbine is quieter thou its used for a reason.I thought they have been working on those engine reliability short comings for a while now.like in m1a2 sep and m1a3 although its hard to find much good info on either.
@renegadekav it can take over 60 seconds to get it running, it devoures fuel, particularely when idling and on low RPMs, it's a lot harder to repair, it's exhaust is a jet of +915°C hot air, which pretty much turns into a 3-5 meter tall column on IR imaging, it's a lot more susceptible dirt, and all that... Being quieter is a moot point here, considering that the tracks themselves make a hell of a racket and just how much quieter it is than a diezel is also questionable...
@MatoVuc again I though they fixed some of that in the latter models at least the projected ones.im not an expert all I know is thats what everyone keeps saying about it being quiet I mean and for the mean time at least the IR signature hasn't been much of an issue with the enemies we've been fighting.I think they also tried to address the heat signature also it sounds like your talking about the original or the m1a1.it sounds like we are going in circles now what in your opinion is the best jet
@renegadekav from what i've read, all the variants thus far use the ATG 1500 gas turbine, and if anything was improved at best it was the reliability. Its exhaust still makes it very hazardous for the infantry to shadow it in urban combat, it doesn't really offer that much better performance in terms of speed and max range, particularely when you realize that it is seriously limited by the speed of the logistics columns that have to follow it to even keep it running.
@MatoVuc true but those lessons were learned the easy way in the second iraq war and I though a tank infantry phone was planned or already installed.its not built for speed and range its moderate in those areas and armies are more concerned with modernizing their airforces and navies where tech plays a larger factor.we have for the most part at least as good ground vehicles overall and many of them so I guess they called it a day then.
@renegadekav catering to your current enemies capabilities is far from smart, imo. while it does work on limited production improvements for a specialized purpose, in the long run it is a philosophy that is likely to bit you in the ass. Maybe I'm wrong here, but my opinion is that you should be prepared for any eventuality and that minimizing as many chinks in your armour is always a good tihng. "Hope for the bet, but prepare for the worst"
@renegadekav honestly, i would love to know a lot more details about it to give anykind of an opinion. the m1a2 is at the very least as good as it's contemporaries as far as direct combat effectivnes goes, but it has a number of big minus points when you look at it from not just a combat perspectiv, imo. the m1a3 is still in development and i really haven't heard what exactly they are trying to do with it except lower the weight, so i can't say anything about it at all
@renegadekav the russians claim that the BMP3 can use all it's weapons on halt, on the move and while afloat with the same effectivness, but i've seen nothing to convince me that that also applies to the ATGMs, so...
I don't presume to be able to change your mind. I'm just giving you a couple of arguments to not underestimating the opposition
@MatoVuc I don't think the cannon launched atgm would have much knock out power on an abram a bradley should watch its back thou.also 100mm isn't big in the tank world if wether the t-90s 125mm cannon can stop an abram in one hit is in question all the more so with this thing and again somebody was taking that side and I said it would pass as a pussy tank at best light armor but so so fire power overall.
@renegadekav i don't know much about the 9M117, so i can't say much about it's effectivness. Supposedly, 600 to 750mm of penetration on RHA.
also, i'd much rather trust my life in a tanks cannon rahter than a ATGM, considering that a tanks shell passes the same distance in about a second, as opposed to over 10 seconds of the ATGM
@renegadekav it's a standard for testing, but as for how strong the armour of what tank is, i really can't say and neither can anyone who doesn't have access to confidential information.
@MatoVuc RHA is primitive WW2 era armor so we can start with that and with knowledge of armor thickness,I think I read that frontal armor thickness for abram was between 1300 and 1600 milimeters not sure about sides thou.what about others do you know them?merkava has some kind of strange sounding armor but it didn't fair too well against more modern AT obviously but im not sure how its armor stacks up.debating armor is difficult.
@renegadekav hmmm... i've read up on that. that's supposedly it's RHA equivalent thicknes against HEAT.
Again, without classified information, really hard to discuss. The BGM71 TOW max penetration is supposedly 900mm of RHA and the russian 9M133 Kornet 1000-1200 mm RHA. That's over a meter of penetration on RHA steel. I don't think any tank has armour the equivalent of that on anything but the frontal armour, so a shot to the side, back or top is going to go through.
And there's the fact that companies often test their warheads in labratory, not field conditions, leading to very high penetration figures that may not be true on the battlefield.
@renegadekav as for the BMP3 being able to succesfully engage MBTs, it's the same bullcrap as with the M2 Bradley, except the BMP3 is a bit better as their ATGM is gun fired and laser guided, plus tandem HEAT. The TOW systems are wire guided and can't be fired while on the move, nor can the bradley do anything else while guiding it. Both have the drawback of taking forever to get to the target.
@renegadekav Fighting tanks is not primary goal of this thing, it is support vehicle that ough to protect troops and if needed provide firesupport and light artilery fire.
Of course it may fight the tank, but unlike the tank it can't survive direct hit from 100mm cannon...
@renegadekav If you could hit it on right spot (from behind, from top, shot into tracks) , then i believe that yes. Depends how you define taken out..
@thomaspruzina im pretty sure in the gulf war abrams were hit directly by t-72's.if you hit it in the tracks you might immobilize it but that is limited in effectiveness,the point is other tanks would have a hard time knocking out a mbt like abram or challenger out in the ifv world 100mm is very large but look at the armor its up against.im not convinced
I love this new vehicle, but can it stand up to RPG and IED devices??? Those two are about the most lethal weapons IFV's come across these days. Did you notice at 8:30 and 8:45 AMERICAN tanks and helicopters were engaged?
I wouldn't say this machine is no good. If Saudi bought 450 of this, Venezuela, S. Korea etc. Then there's something in this machine that's attractive.
@tongoyj yea and that south korea will sell them in the near future, because of what they say is an oudated weapon in comparison with american vehicles
Couldn't they have paid a professional narrator, to deliver a great presentation, such as for the Bofors CV9040 video. This narrator is annoying, and his presentation is devastatingly bad. It illustrates highly poorly on the weapon itself. If directors in Tula read this comments, please view the CV9040 3P presentational video, and compare it to this nonsense.
that MG is wicked. BMP's need more long range, they can only fire a couple a those misiles before it would be exposed to a platoon of M1A1's then the thing is dead.
Nice wire-guided shots tho!!
exploderish 2 days ago
They shot a blimp. Lol.
exploderish 2 days ago
1700 mm! im pretty sure that i not achievable with current armor
thebaskill 2 weeks ago
Russian BMPs are pieces of junks. It is underpowered and the amunition is around the crew. One hit and it will blow up. It's a poor and cheap Russian design. The Bradley has better self awareness to the rest of the armored column. The comunications and weapons systems are acrurate than that piece of junk BMP.
quickzilver333 3 months ago
@quickzilver333 you r a asshole!!!
huntsguy17 3 months ago
@quickzilver333 And you say this because you are an expert in what field??????
nagmashdriver 1 month ago
the BMP makes a great hard target for the U.S.military to shoot up!I love these vehicles so much,,,lol,,,they burn up so nicely and explode like the KURSK did! how did Russian do it?congradulations to the brilliant minds in Mother Russia that thought up this new way to get their armour crews killed!thanx for the laughs guys,keep up the great work!
bobb22ful 3 months ago
its funny because america puts russian vehicles as targets,, and russian puts american vehicles as targets for the demo!!
we still are in a small silent cold war!!
AND yes america is really strong and wealthy but if its about APC russia got it!!
PILUPACKSXXX 7 months ago
YES, I shall use those to conquer the world, Muahahahahahahaha!!!
Ome99 8 months ago
This a brilliant design.
vegasbob007 9 months ago
one os the best documentary i have seen, where can buy them or download more of them, please reply.
basmatichawal 10 months ago
@basmatichawal not a documentary... promo-video
AKAtheA 10 months ago
@AKAtheA
basmatichawal 10 months ago
@m4rvi4no Arena is the russian APS system, it works and it and it's predecesor have been produced and used for a long time before the Trophy was even concieved (Drozd system was supposedly created in 1977/78 and Arena in 1993)
MatoVuc 10 months ago
It will be interesting to see if Trophy or Arena actually work in heavier combat with multiple incoming rockets. Israel said the Trophy system worked 2 weeks ago with a missile coming out of Gaza. Is this accurate, or propaganda? Just wondering.
cythera431 10 months ago
@ruskymerc they actually have upgrade packages that feature that, but i personally find the Arena system a much more appealing option. yes, there is a risk to the infantry once they deploy but they'll get killed either way if the vehicle get's hit with an RPG, ERA or no.
plus, all you have to do to minimize the risk is to employ proper tactics, as to have the infantry more spread out or stay behind the BMP (from the opponents POV)
MatoVuc 11 months ago
autoloaders suck. all that ammo in the cabin is just waiting for a dual HEAT round to ignite it.
cythera431 1 year ago
@cythera431 It doesnt matter if ammo is in the cabin..a hit from a RPG-32 to Bradley would kill it too
krazzed101 11 months ago
@krazzed101 Of course it would... even an RPG29 could kill a Bradley, or an advanced RPG 7. But a Bradley does not have all that higher caliber ammo. My main point is that autoloaders are a great way to lose a hand or arm for the crew.
cythera431 11 months ago
Eto ocherednoe gavno sozdannoe bezdarnimi tupimi polupyanimi russkimi konstruktorami!!!Posmotrite zachem v nei nuzhen tualet??Zachem ei plavat? esli boi v 99% idet na sushe,ona nihuya ne zashishaet svoi ekipazh!! Soldati v nei chustvuyut sebya kak v grobu,oni v nei psihicheski podavleni,znayut chto v luboi moment umrut..U BMP3 net nikakih shansov protiv Bradlei,CV90,Puma i angliiskih i uyzhnokoreiskih analogov Vi Russkie sheite luchshe lapti eto u vas luchshe poluchitsya!!!
robroy904 1 year ago
@robroy904
lolwat.
You have no brain, i feel sorry for you and your mommy.
DSpirith 1 year ago
@robroy904 I fucked your mother. This is the best IFV in the world. If you hid in the UK and sit there and not stuck his ass, fucking fagot.
150izapit 1 year ago
@150izapit I'm pretty sure that your mother is fucking WHORE! ask her yourself,all russian girls are whores ! in which they are famous around the world,your mother had thousands of boyfriennds before she met your idiot father who married fucking bich.If you dont believe me ask people from kaukaz and ZA they will tell you all russian girls and womans ARE fucking WHORES!that's why nobody from former soviet republics respect motherfucker russians! you know it!!!!
robroy904 1 year ago
@robroy904 Пошёл на хуй, уёбок черножпый!
150izapit 1 year ago
M2A3 BUSK Bradley is better than this junks BMP-3M Troyka.
USAAIRPOWER 1 year ago
@USAAIRPOWER Bradley isn't amphibious and doesn't have a 100mm gun. And once the Bradley fires it's external 2 TOW missiles, it must retreat to reload safely. The BMP-3 has an internal loading mechanism for its missiles. So it can keep fighting.
soundslave 1 year ago 12
@soundslave Wrong. Bradley can be made amphibious by use of a swimming kit and it takes less than a minute to rearm the TOW missiles by opening the top rear crew hatch. I have done so. The TOW alone makes the Bradley better than the BMP3.
That said I prefer the Stryker.
Cennedi 8 months ago
@Cennedi When I said amphibious, I meant more than simple river crossing.
soundslave 8 months ago
@soundslave Fair enough.
Cennedi 8 months ago
@Cennedi
Rearming the TOW taking less than 1 minute is not the issue. The issue is that you have to step outside of the vehicle for that 1 minute or less, which is enough for the enemy to kill you 10 times over. Not to mention that Bradley has to stay stationary while the TOW is being reloaded, playing a sitting duck for that nice 100m shell from BMP-3.
Let's not forget that TOW is wire guided, while BMP-3 Arkan is a beam riding SACLOS missile.
Iggy82xl 8 months ago
@Cennedi
Arkan missile has a max range of 6km, while TOW has 4km max range. It takes Arkan 12 seconds to a range of 4000m, while TOW takes 20 seconds to it's max range.
Bradley besides TOW has a 30mm chaingun, BMP-3 has a 30mm autocannon and a 100mm gun that it can use for destruction of fortifications. That's something Bradley cannot do.
And while Bradley is amphibious, it needs to stop and have it's crew erect the swimming barrier. BMP-3 simply rides smoothly into the water.
Iggy82xl 8 months ago 8
@Iggy82xl Have you seen any Bradley swimming lately? Even on photos? In exercises, trials, anywhere?
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr
LOL, no. After the US Army upped the armor on it, the damn thing just sinks to the bottom, swimming barrier or not.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl All Bradleys were modernized and uparmored? :) No early models remained? :)
I've found a little dirty secret :) Somewhere in mid of 90s there was an order to take out rubber pontoons from every Bradley and to stop maintenance of water pumps on all vehicles, because they would never need them anymore. Since mid of 90s no Bradley is amphibious, regardless its version and weight.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr
Good luck to US soldiers fighting anywhere that isn't a desert. That's all I'm gonna say.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl How often would it engage targets at it's maximum range? Almost never. The TOW can destroy fortifications just as well as the 100mm gun if not better. And if you say the 100mm gun is better for close range you are wrong because an automatic 30mm weapon is better for the job. NO IFV should be amphibious unless for certain Naval Infantry units. It puts huge limitations on the vehicle. The Bradley is heavily armored.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761
TOW has HEAT warhead , and how many of TOWs is Bradley carrying? A lot less than BMP-3 has 100mm shells.
And how do you actually know that BMP-3 will not engage targets at maximum range? You also missed a little bit of info on how much time it takes for both missiles to reach their targets. That's means that BMP- 3 will have destroyed his target that fired a TOW at it by the time TOW reaches BMP-3, which means that TOW looses the guidance and misses the BMP-3.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl The TOW is much more capable of knocking out tanks that a 100mm gun. Although the BMP-3 has faster firing technology, I would prefer survivability over that characteristic.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761
You are talking about knocking out tanks, when even the TOW cannot penetrate modern tanks from the front, and from the sides 100mm gun of BMP-3 is more than enough.
Bradley was uparmored, so in that vein, you should be looking at the BMP-3 with ERA blocks added for comparison, so Bradley being more survivable is open for debate. The deal is, both of them are very susceptible to man portable AT rockets and missiles.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
What is definitive advantage of BMP-3 over Bradley is the weapon complex. While 100mm HEAT rounds and ATGM missiles are not as potent as TOW against tanks, 100mm gun allows superior flexibility in engaging different types of targets like armored vehicles, fortified positions and infantry, with enough ammunition for all of these tasks. As you know it also sports a 30mm autocannon for suppresive fire against infantry in cover and light armored vehicles, same as Bradley.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
Bradley carries 7 TOWs, while BMP-3 has 8 ATGMs and a mix 40 100mm rounds.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl The ATGM count for both vehicles is near equal. The 100mm cannon does seem good and is a good quality but only for anti-structures operations. It cannot take out a tank and neither can the Bradley's main armament. A 25mm auto cannon can be devastating against hardened infrastructures just like the 100mm gun. The Bradley may not be perfect but that is because it was designed to perform a variety of jobs but cannot perform any single job incredibly well. But the war zone is always ...
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl changing and it is better to have a vehicle that can take on a variety of missions. And yes the BMP-3 can be outfitted with ERA blocks but I am talking about what is is place now with all vehicles. ERA blocks are not standard issue to the BMP-3 like it is to the Bradley now.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl the BMP-3M ATGM is more powerful than the bradley TOW because it is M117 it is better
MetalGearArmA 4 months ago
@MetalGearArmA What planet do you live on? Arkan may have long range, but it is only a 100mm warhead. Not nearly powerful enough to destroy modern MBTs from the frontal arc. The TOW has a 152mm warhead (50% bigger!) and is top attack, meaning it can avoid all currently deployed ERA.
ppitm 2 months ago
@ppitm yes it can destroy the ERA but you must reload it safely
but it can take on the Challenger 2 Moduls ?
MetalGearArmA 2 months ago
@MetalGearArmA Are you talking about the TOW? No tank without major armor upgrades to the top of the turret is safe from modern TOWs.
ppitm 2 months ago
@ppitm because i hear that challenger 2 has hited with RPGs but the tank it still can fight
but the Driver lost his Legs what if it hit with TOW ?
MetalGearArmA 2 months ago
@MetalGearArmA It all depends how thick the armor is in that particular spot. 40 year old infantry launchers will penetrate the rear of the engine block, but state-of-the-art missiles may bounce off the front of the turret.
ppitm 2 months ago
@ppitm but which vehicle you like it more the M2A3ERA Bradley or the BMP-3M or K-21
MetalGearArmA 2 months ago
@MetalGearArmA They each have advantages. The TOW is a better anti-tank missile, but the BMP's Arkan missile could easily destroy a Bradely.
ppitm 2 months ago
@MetalGearArmA If tank is hit by RPG and it wounded driver, crew cannot keep fighting, because there are fire and toxic smoke in crew compartment and after such hit you never know what happened next if there is ammunition in the gun it might ignite. Crew would evacuate unless under fire.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
@Hashishtani but why always the Driver died and if he didn't he lose his legs
the tank Driver job isnt safe
MetalGearArmA 1 month ago
@MetalGearArmA Because driver sit in front of the tank, behind frontal hull armor, while rest of the crew in the turret. Turret have much thicker armor usually and better protected. Poor driver can be killed from frontal hit and side hit, where armor is much thinner.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
And no matter how thick Bradley's armor is at the front, it simply cannot withstand BMP-3 100mm HEAT shell. On the other hand BMP-3 is impervious to 30mm shells (Bradley has a 25mm chaingun) on the front and front sides at 60 degree angles. BMP-3M with added side armor is even better protected, not to mention the version ERA on the turret and sides.
Also not having an amphibous IFV that is able to follow tanks that can force rivers deeper than 1.5m is stupid.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl I never said it should withstand the 100mm round. But the 25mm chain gun could penetrate the armor when it uses it's sabot armor-piercing round like it did in the Iraq war. When using that type of ammunition it was able to knock out T-55 tanks.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
In US Army case having an amphibous IFV was deemed not important since Abrams can't force rivers deeper than 1.5 m as it does not have a snorkel system.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl Irrelevant. I am saying no IFV should be amphibious unless it is in a Naval Infantry role. It puts far to many limitations on the vehicle.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@Iggy82xl small bmp-2m destruct bradley finger in the noise with 4 kornet
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 The BMP-2M still has terrible protection. I know it can be fitted with ERA like the Bradley but it definitely isn't standard issue with that. The BMP-2M is only different than most other BMP-2's due to it's additional missiles. That is about it (for the most part). Maybe it makes it more of a tank killer but not a superior IFV.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 yes but bradley is not comparable to bmp-2
choice its bmp-3m
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@Iggy82xl That's all true, but the Arkan is a weak 100mm ATGm compared to the top-attack 152mm TOW. A BMP-3 could engage a Bradley from safety, but its missile cannot penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBTs. The TOW can do so, but only from within range of the tank's main gun. It's a tradeoff of power vs range.
ppitm 2 months ago
@ppitm It's not true, Arkan is tandem warhead rocket just like RPG-29 with 750 mm RHAe after ERA. It can penetrate frontal armor of the tank in most of the cases, if it failed first time, from 5km range it have plenty of time to shoot again.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
@Hashishtani lol, 750mm. That's nowhere near good enough for any modern, Western tank. You need over 1000mm of penetration to even have a chance. And no, at 5km, you will never get a second shot. Any target will shoot back and kill you first, or simply move behind cover in the looooong time it takes for another missile to get there. And any BMP that sits immobile for such a length of time is a dead pile of scrap. Mobility is survival. Arkan will massacre Bradleys though.
ppitm 1 month ago
@ppitm I would lol because all RHA numbers given for armor are very approximate, it's basically an expectation rather than real thickness. In fact RPG-29 with 750mm RHA penetration, did penetrated frontal armor of Challenger in Iraq and Merkava in Lebanon. BTW TOW penetration is 900mm RHA not THAT much better.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
@Hashishtani True, RHA numbers are approximate. But when you have an estimate of 750mm vs an estimate of 1700mm, it's obvious what will happen. All modern tanks have small weak spots where smaller AT weapons can penetrate. This has happened once, in Iraq. But that means your weapon relies on sheer luck, not power. Merkavas took mostly side hits. And TOW-2B has 900mm *against the top armor.* Mankind will never create a tank with 900mm of armor above the turret. It would be too heavy.
ppitm 1 month ago
@ppitm Lets see Leopard 2 specs "Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2 range from 590 - 690 RHAe on the turret, 600 RHAe on the glacis and lower front hull", I never seen any numbers like 1700mm in any tank specification. May be that would be the frontal turret armor with ERA. While Arkan specification is 750RHA after penetrating ERA. In any case at least hull armor of Leo 2 is vulnerable.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
@Hashishtani Leopard 2 has outdated armor, not enough composites, sort of like the T-90. M1A1 HA turret estimates are 1300mm-1500mm. Hull armor estimates are as high as 1700mm because of so much slant. And no ERA, of course.
ppitm 1 month ago
@Hashishtani tow its not for same work
you comparaison fail
TATARSTAN59500 12 hours ago
@ppitm Shooting at Bradley with Arkan is overkill it can be taken down using 100mm gun from the same range using normal 100mm HE ammunition. Bradley armor is aluminum, it's designed for small arms not 100mm guns.
Hashishtani 1 month ago
@Iggy82xl never mind the smaller range of the TOW, the Bradley has to stop and stand still to fire it... also, the A2 and A3 versions can't swim because they're simply too heavy...
AKAtheA 2 hours ago
@Cennedi You aparently know nothing about the bmp3 then and the stryker is the biggest failure of armored personel carriers of all time, wouldn't even let my dog drive in one. The bradleys TOW is no magic aswell, just outdated piece of 80's machinery, the Bmp3 outclasses the bradley in pretty much every way possible.
Aaidas2 8 months ago
@soundslave yes but the Bradley tactics they usually travel in groups. So I think it's 2 external TOW missles are plenty. But I know what your saying though. I personally think the Bradley is better technically but I rather would have the BMP-3 since its cheaper and with the right crew and tactics is deadly.
khmerog1 7 months ago
@soundslave The Bradley isn't amphibious because it is much more heavily armored. It can withstand much more than the BMP-3. All Bradleys have reactive armor and many armor add on's and in many situations in Iraq and Afghanistan Bradley's have been hit by RPGs and still been able to continue the fire fight. IFV's shouldn't be amphibious, sure it is convenient to have but in combat it severely limits the vehicle.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Modern BMP-3s (pretty much a BMP-4 now) can be fitted with reactive armour, just like that on the T-90.
soundslave 7 months ago
@soundslave Most vehicles can be. I am mostly referring to what the standard issue is for the vehicles and what would be seen on the battlefield.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Ah sorry, I thought you were implying that the Russian army doesn't use reactive armour.
soundslave 7 months ago
@soundslave Oh no, to be honest Russia probably uses the most ERA out of any country (which is good). I wish the Abrams would make it standard issue rather than just on the TUSK. But yes I am just speaking from what is standard issue and what is deployed. If Relikt reactive armor is introduced then it would enormously help the effectiveness of Russian ground vehicles. However it is not in use and there is still a lot of vulnerability to the armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
FINALLY one of these russian docs in english. God i love how its all from a russian point of view instead of being stupid purley onesided biased american historychannel bullshit
this is awsome man much appreciated your upload cheers!
FourDollarDoobie 1 year ago
@FourDollarDoobie
Your fucking moron. You too much Russian war machines propaganda. I see billion and billion dead communist pieces of shits of war machines in Korean war, Six Days War, Yom Kippur War, Indo Pakistan war, 1982 Lebanon civil war, Iraq Iran war, Soviet Afghan War, 1991 Gulf War, Kosovo war, and 2003 war in Iraq.
USAAIRPOWER 1 year ago
How old is this video?
Breakerchase 1 year ago
PT 76 with a kickass gun! Can it be parachuted and used in airborne operations? You guys have an innovative parachute system with retro rockets
rds13601 1 year ago
so the best documentary on bmp i english, whoever made this should not stop...
basmatichawal 1 year ago
what is the difference with BMP-3F ?
IndoAtheist 1 year ago
this thing attacking an abram is suicide.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav Couldn't say anything more stupid. M1A1 is main heavy battle tank, this thing is for infantry support and wide range field support missions.
It is like sending Humvee against T-95...
thomaspruzina 1 year ago
@thomaspruzina considering they mention this thing going up against tanks perhaps it wasn't that stupid.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav its more mobil then tank and have same fire power,i like it more then classic tank
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@SlavaSvarogu this things cannon is not as powerful as most mbt's.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav Its shoot different ammo, guided missiles to,so it can take out tank,in towns and lockal conflicts its better then tanks
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@SlavaSvarogu it even says in the video light armor.the abrams armor is so thick and so high quality there is no chance even shooting once and running is risky.wether it is better for clearing towns depends if the town has heavy anti armor assets.maybe if it hit the mbt in the right place it could disable it or immobilize it but a clean kill like killing the tank and the crew seems like quite a long shot to me,this thing is a pussy tank at best.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav Please stop propaganda You can shoot Abrams with old Soviet RPG i dont talk about new weapons,today you can destroy any tank in the world its not problem at all,this is problem of modern war,expensive tanks and cheap missiles,so tanks has no future,only things like BMP or maybe USA hummers,but tanks good against poor millitaty countrys like Iraq or Africa,if you fight vs strong countrys,you can push 100 tanks and you will loose 100 tanks in one moment
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@renegadekav Russian T-90 using dinamic sheeld protection its better then Abrams but even with this its not problem to destroy any tank in the world 4-8 million dollars one tank vs 400 usd RPG so armor is not the answer
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@SlavaSvarogu
high mobility is the answer and fast wepons reaction
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
@SlavaSvarogu what is dinamic sheeld?the t-90 is one the the top rate tanks but rarely considered the best by any non russians.I thought it was small but armor is the cornerstone of the tank thats what sets a tank apart.the abram has been proven time and again aganst a variety of threats including t-72.the who has time to launch 400 rpg's with infantry around?the abram has arguably the deadliest gun with the latest ammo and thickest armor,yes it is not the fastest and heavy but what can you do?
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav except that it fires only AT rounds, by now the Leo2A6 has a 1 meter longer L55 gun, it was knocked out every now and then in iraq by rpg7s, as opposed to the Challengers who had no cassualties in Desert Storm and next to no in Iraq, is a bitch on logistics, it's exhaust ranges to +915°C (which is more than visible on IR), it can take 60+ seconds to get the turbine started and being as heavy as it is, softer terrain turns into quicksand for it.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc no modern tank has seen more combat and killed more enemies,it has been tested and improvements have been made where needed it also has high numbers.the challengers barely saw any combat compared to the abrams and there is a difference between being stopped or having a track taken out by an rpg and having armor penetrated the devil is in the details.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@reneg i'm sorry, i must have confused the pictures of abrams with very obvious holes in the side of the armour. the challengers were hit with anything and everyting in the gulf (even friendly fire), and yet none were taken out of action. what's the toll of the Iraq war on abrams? 151 knocked out, of those 80 needing overhauls and 5 total write offs?
As for being combat proven, you're right. It's been combat proven to be little to no better than it's contemporaries: Challenger2, Leo2A4+, T90
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc it doesn't need to be better we have more of them and its the match more or less of any tank.you can put a hole in something but if you don't penetrate completely it doens't do much good where do you think all that weight you were talking about comes from?the challenger did take damage in oif it survived but could not return fire and another time I heard one fired on another killing one crew member cause the hatch was open.basra wasn't the main stage of the conflict anyway.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav arguing semanthics here. fact of the matter is that the Challengers chobam armour is better than the Abrams analogue of it. yes, chalenger losses in oif minor. in the first gulf war however, Chalenger losses 0, even though one was ambushed in a volley of rpg fire to all it's critical spots. on the other hand, abrams losses during that 21, of which 4 blue-on-blue and 5 red-on-blue tank attacks.
Anyway, agreed on one thing, not the best, but still a very good tank
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc im afraid I can't take your word for it everything i've seen leads me to believe nobody knows which tank has better armor protection and I thought they were classified.the reason I brought up the abram in the first place is that someone was trying to argue that this bmp can engage main battle tanks successfully.the T-90 if im not mistaken isn't that good its just a modern version of the t-72 with armor kits and not sure how effective they are in combat.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav you would be mistaken on that one. if you're refering to the t72s that the abrams encountered in iraq, that's not much of a comparison considering that those models had inferior steel skin, and thinner to boot. the t90 has russian designed composite armour, plus the never versions come with a welded turret as opposed to being cast. it has "integrated" ERA armour and an array of various countermeasures. also it's got a better power plant and electronics, communication and FCS
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc I already touched up on that but overall its armor is not the best and when faced with the newest AT sabot rounds we'll see and i've seen nothing to prove its in the same league as the others.it won't be raped as easily as t72 but probably beaten non the less.its the russians that have to prove themselves now they lost round one.combat experience counts a lot and bradley and abram are top notch they have been tested and improved like I said before.where has t-90 been proven?
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav how about in chechenya, where one was hit by 7 RPG hits and still remained in action? or maybe kuwaiti m84s, that are by many considered a properly done t72, that fought effectively in the first gulf war? or hell, even the t72B and T72BMs (it's predecesors) in Georgia, maybe?
what are you basing the assumption that it's armour is no good? even most western analysts think that the armour on the real russian tanks is some of the best.
As you can see, i don't share your sentiment
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc its much lighter and smaller and I see no evidence they use the same quality of armor like chobham or something like it.I heard a chinese anti tank missile that is used on their attack helicopters penetrated the frontal armor in one hit,plus based on the fact its so mass produced for little money and exported I have my reasons.also when talking about modern tank armor rpg 7s are substandard newer models like kornet I would be more impressed by,see isreal and hezbolla conflict.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav it's much lighter and smaller for a reason. among them terrain and speed, but that doesn't mean that it's armour is necesarily that much worse. No one but the british use chobam, so the comparison is pointless. even the abrams composite armour is equally hear-say, going down that route. no modern MBT can take a hit from the newest ATGMs without damage, be they fired by infantry or from a helicopter, thus pointles comparison.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc of course I know why its smaller and lighter and its not pointless comparison damage and complete penetration and killing of the crew are not the same thing especially now that many tanks are designed to engage helicopters with new rounds.a tank isn't done until it and its crew can't engage in the fight anymore.I don't even know why your arguing with me unless you believe t-90 or any other model of russian armor is on par or better.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav ok. i'll take that point, but if the tank can't move because it lost it's thread it can't engage adversaries properly and is for all intents and purposes a sitting duck. even if it isn't destroyed and able to be repaired, for that fight it is neutralized.
let's put it this way, i don't believe the western weapons and vehicles are as godly as they are portrayed, nor that the eastern, particularely the modern ones, are as pathetic as they are portrayed.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc it may not be able to move or be repaired but its still a sitting turret if thats functional and if the crew lives and escapes the vehicle if im not mistaken they are armed almost as good as an infantry team with usually an AT weapon of some sort like an AT4 the point is there is good reason to completely eliminate the threat.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav that wouldn't really work. if the battle does bog down, it still leaves them open for attacks and there is the risk that they'll be gunned down as soon as they open the hatch. on the other hand, if the battle continues on, the crew will hardly run after the rest of the division, plus i'm pretty sure their orders will be to stay there and wait for the recovery vehicles, if there is a chance to salvage the tank.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc there is no telling what they will do if their vehicles mobility is compromised unless armor is high,and the main armament is functional you'd think they would ditch and hide out nearby they rehearse for this sort of thing im sure besides what I said before still stands you don't want a tank able to shoot even if it can't move theoretically it can hit things accuratly for a few miles around and the crew might make for an effective AT team.not sure how effective at4 is.
renegadekav 1 year ago
Comment removed
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@renegadekav as for the mass production part, i can see that about the t72, but i can't see the same for the t90. supposed numbers: ~400-450 russia, ~620 india, ~100-180 Algeria, ~150 Saudi Arabia, 10 Turkmenistan.
so that's about 1280-1410 since begining of production on 1995 does not yell mass production. that's <100 a year since start of production, compared to the 25000+ T72 since 1971 (625 a year)
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc I believe for a tanks main mission armor protection is more important then speed there are plenty of other platforms that have speed even on the ground but if confronted with an abram or challenger or whatever and they can't knock it out with the first or second hit and thats assuming they get the first shot they are less likely to dominate.those cannon launched missiles they have to stay still while firing if im not mistaken.until they face each other im sticking with abrams.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav that would be true if the only factors that need to be taken into account are protection, firepower. but there's also the little bit called mobility, but that name doesn't quite fit, because you need to take into account also how it will handle terrain and logistics. excesive weight can make traversing terrain hard to impossible, insufficiently fortified bridges hazardous (an M1 Abrams that sadly fell through a bridge into the Euphrates river an it's crew drowned), ...
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc im aware of that story also the story of an exposed driver who was sniped in the head and drove into a river but again I don't think it was a mistake putting all that thick heavy armor on even if its heavy and not quite as fast it can still go about 45 miles per hour and the turbine engine has a govenor on it the bigger issue is logistics and the fact its a gas guzzler.I don't know how bad it is compared to other tanks cause I only ever hear about the m1.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav the gas turbine has a number of other flaws aside from that, but consider this. For the most part such heavy vehicles tend to demolish most traffic infrastructure that isn't strong enough giving the logistics that follow it nightmares. there's aso the little thing that the Leopard2 has a power unit of equal power, but it's a diezel engine, and as such much simpler and less expensive in both cost, maintenance and consumption
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc the turbine is quieter thou its used for a reason.I thought they have been working on those engine reliability short comings for a while now.like in m1a2 sep and m1a3 although its hard to find much good info on either.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav it can take over 60 seconds to get it running, it devoures fuel, particularely when idling and on low RPMs, it's a lot harder to repair, it's exhaust is a jet of +915°C hot air, which pretty much turns into a 3-5 meter tall column on IR imaging, it's a lot more susceptible dirt, and all that... Being quieter is a moot point here, considering that the tracks themselves make a hell of a racket and just how much quieter it is than a diezel is also questionable...
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc again I though they fixed some of that in the latter models at least the projected ones.im not an expert all I know is thats what everyone keeps saying about it being quiet I mean and for the mean time at least the IR signature hasn't been much of an issue with the enemies we've been fighting.I think they also tried to address the heat signature also it sounds like your talking about the original or the m1a1.it sounds like we are going in circles now what in your opinion is the best jet
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav from what i've read, all the variants thus far use the ATG 1500 gas turbine, and if anything was improved at best it was the reliability. Its exhaust still makes it very hazardous for the infantry to shadow it in urban combat, it doesn't really offer that much better performance in terms of speed and max range, particularely when you realize that it is seriously limited by the speed of the logistics columns that have to follow it to even keep it running.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc true but those lessons were learned the easy way in the second iraq war and I though a tank infantry phone was planned or already installed.its not built for speed and range its moderate in those areas and armies are more concerned with modernizing their airforces and navies where tech plays a larger factor.we have for the most part at least as good ground vehicles overall and many of them so I guess they called it a day then.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav catering to your current enemies capabilities is far from smart, imo. while it does work on limited production improvements for a specialized purpose, in the long run it is a philosophy that is likely to bit you in the ass. Maybe I'm wrong here, but my opinion is that you should be prepared for any eventuality and that minimizing as many chinks in your armour is always a good tihng. "Hope for the bet, but prepare for the worst"
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc do you think m1a2 sep or m1a3 are good enough?
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav honestly, i would love to know a lot more details about it to give anykind of an opinion. the m1a2 is at the very least as good as it's contemporaries as far as direct combat effectivnes goes, but it has a number of big minus points when you look at it from not just a combat perspectiv, imo. the m1a3 is still in development and i really haven't heard what exactly they are trying to do with it except lower the weight, so i can't say anything about it at all
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@renegadekav the russians claim that the BMP3 can use all it's weapons on halt, on the move and while afloat with the same effectivness, but i've seen nothing to convince me that that also applies to the ATGMs, so...
I don't presume to be able to change your mind. I'm just giving you a couple of arguments to not underestimating the opposition
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc I don't think the cannon launched atgm would have much knock out power on an abram a bradley should watch its back thou.also 100mm isn't big in the tank world if wether the t-90s 125mm cannon can stop an abram in one hit is in question all the more so with this thing and again somebody was taking that side and I said it would pass as a pussy tank at best light armor but so so fire power overall.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav i don't know much about the 9M117, so i can't say much about it's effectivness. Supposedly, 600 to 750mm of penetration on RHA.
also, i'd much rather trust my life in a tanks cannon rahter than a ATGM, considering that a tanks shell passes the same distance in about a second, as opposed to over 10 seconds of the ATGM
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc how do you convert rha damage to modern tank armor?
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav it's a standard for testing, but as for how strong the armour of what tank is, i really can't say and neither can anyone who doesn't have access to confidential information.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc RHA is primitive WW2 era armor so we can start with that and with knowledge of armor thickness,I think I read that frontal armor thickness for abram was between 1300 and 1600 milimeters not sure about sides thou.what about others do you know them?merkava has some kind of strange sounding armor but it didn't fair too well against more modern AT obviously but im not sure how its armor stacks up.debating armor is difficult.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav hmmm... i've read up on that. that's supposedly it's RHA equivalent thicknes against HEAT.
Again, without classified information, really hard to discuss. The BGM71 TOW max penetration is supposedly 900mm of RHA and the russian 9M133 Kornet 1000-1200 mm RHA. That's over a meter of penetration on RHA steel. I don't think any tank has armour the equivalent of that on anything but the frontal armour, so a shot to the side, back or top is going to go through.
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@MatoVuc thats why I was wondering how the isreali tanks armor stacks up against other I guess we can't know until the deed is done.
renegadekav 1 year ago
@MatoVuc
And there's the fact that companies often test their warheads in labratory, not field conditions, leading to very high penetration figures that may not be true on the battlefield.
Breakerchase 1 year ago
@renegadekav as for the BMP3 being able to succesfully engage MBTs, it's the same bullcrap as with the M2 Bradley, except the BMP3 is a bit better as their ATGM is gun fired and laser guided, plus tandem HEAT. The TOW systems are wire guided and can't be fired while on the move, nor can the bradley do anything else while guiding it. Both have the drawback of taking forever to get to the target.
in both cases it's "if need be, but best not"
MatoVuc 1 year ago
@renegadekav Fighting tanks is not primary goal of this thing, it is support vehicle that ough to protect troops and if needed provide firesupport and light artilery fire.
Of course it may fight the tank, but unlike the tank it can't survive direct hit from 100mm cannon...
thomaspruzina 1 year ago
@thomaspruzina are you saying an abram would be taken out by this things cannon?
renegadekav 1 year ago
@renegadekav If you could hit it on right spot (from behind, from top, shot into tracks) , then i believe that yes. Depends how you define taken out..
thomaspruzina 1 year ago
@thomaspruzina im pretty sure in the gulf war abrams were hit directly by t-72's.if you hit it in the tracks you might immobilize it but that is limited in effectiveness,the point is other tanks would have a hard time knocking out a mbt like abram or challenger out in the ifv world 100mm is very large but look at the armor its up against.im not convinced
renegadekav 1 year ago
Gimme one BMP3 and I'l defeat Iraq by myself >:)
BritneyAddicted4EVA 1 year ago
This weapon system is pure genius.
vegasbob007 1 year ago
bmp-3 better than any european or american ifv
crazyfabio1 1 year ago
audio quality on this is just plain offensive.
PocusUK 1 year ago
If you don't get bored in 2 minutes, you will hear that this vehicle has protection agianst 50. caliber rounds.
frenchfrys12 1 year ago
I love this new vehicle, but can it stand up to RPG and IED devices??? Those two are about the most lethal weapons IFV's come across these days. Did you notice at 8:30 and 8:45 AMERICAN tanks and helicopters were engaged?
PotatoGunsRule 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
А то уже заколебали всезнающие детишки: двух слов связать не могут, а конструкторам военной техники советы дают
RUTISAB7 1 year ago
I wouldn't say this machine is no good. If Saudi bought 450 of this, Venezuela, S. Korea etc. Then there's something in this machine that's attractive.
tongoyj 1 year ago
@tongoyj yea and that south korea will sell them in the near future, because of what they say is an oudated weapon in comparison with american vehicles
djadodh 1 year ago
All that firepower doesn't do you a damn bit of good if the vehicle's armor can still be breached by a .50 caliber round.
tortallyorsome 1 year ago
@tortallyorsome
Actually, it is well protected against 12.7mm rounds.
GvardiyaBY 1 year ago
Good video I guess, Never knew the bmp's auto cannon was actually accurate (the other video suggested it sucked but I guess it was kinda old).
Ninecracker 2 years ago
this might be the funniest accent ive ever heard
airbreathingengine 2 years ago
Like the easy tune
Bratarsch69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
too bad theyre aslldeathtraps. any model any country
Santoslhelpa 2 years ago
5:09 very nice explosion
andreyRUS17 2 years ago
Couldn't they have paid a professional narrator, to deliver a great presentation, such as for the Bofors CV9040 video. This narrator is annoying, and his presentation is devastatingly bad. It illustrates highly poorly on the weapon itself. If directors in Tula read this comments, please view the CV9040 3P presentational video, and compare it to this nonsense.
tropickman 2 years ago
This is an old video, from the mid 90s I think.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
Going on past record I think European countries are the most brutal in the world.
alieu156 2 years ago
War is brutal, thats why Russians are so good at it :D
jernmajoren 2 years ago
would hate to be the gunner. sitting amung stored ammunition
TikiShootah 2 years ago
That's deal with any IFV. Where do you think the ammo in Bradley is stored? In the turret ring as well.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
that MG is wicked. BMP's need more long range, they can only fire a couple a those misiles before it would be exposed to a platoon of M1A1's then the thing is dead.
gaotu 2 years ago
they shoot a m1a1 at 7 km
masterrace666 2 years ago 3
@masterrace666 when?where?
renegadekav 1 year ago
A platoon of M1A1's??? You really know your military stuff....
tropickman 2 years ago