Voennoe Delo: BMP-3 of Russian Army! (English subtitles)

[MingGuoLi]

The BMP-3 is a sweet system, but why rear engine? The exit process is complicated and the troops are really exposed during exit having to climb over the engine. I agree with the Chinese (not because I am Chinese) in using a different chassis, because with the 97, you exit through the back without any problem or complicated dance moves. Amphibious too.

[BitnikGr]

@MingGuoLi Rear engine layout was chosen for better weight balance for better stability on water.

Chinese indeed achieved same stability and speed on water (at least on papers) with a front-engine layout.

Till the end of 2012 Russia will probably present new FOV Kurganets-25, including IFV. According to recent interviews it will have engine at front or middle. It will be much more protected than BMP-3. Its weight - 25t and it will remain amphibious.

[MatoVuc]

I've heard that Gen. Popovkin was bitching about the BMP-3 being poorly protected and how "the soldiers ride on top of the vehicle, because they don't want to ride inside the coffin."

it's almost as if the soldiers want to be able to observe more of their surroundings so they aren't ambushed with RPG-s and what not... it's like they learned this lesson the ahrd way somewhere.

[MatoVuc]

@MatoVuc further more, what exactly does he want?

does he want to up-armour it? if so, how much and to protect from what weapons?

does he still expect it to have the mobility it possesses or is he willing to sacrifice it?

if so, then there is a fairly simple solution to this, namely the heavy IFVs. convert a surplus tank into a troop transporter (BMPV-64, BTR-T...) and there you go, but of course these things are twice as heavy as a BMP or BTR, so...

[BitnikGr]

@MatoVuc Exactly. With what does he try to compare protection of BMP-3? Does he know any other better protected AMPHIBIOUS IFV with weight of 20t? Maybe he wants to say that a 33t CV-90 and Bradley M2A2 is better protected... yes, but they are not amphibious and BMP-3 also can be up-armored up to 28t, loosing its amphibious properties of course.

[MingGuoLi]

@BitnikGr The K-21 is amphibious also but its bladder system is different. Not sure about its protection though.

The CV-90 isn't amphibious, but can the BMP-3 mimic the CV90's mobility?

[BitnikGr]

@MingGuoLi K-21 is amphibious only on papers right now. Two vehicles sank during trials.

[MatoVuc]

@MingGuoLi in terms of mobility, the BMP-3 can outperform pretty much any IFV atm

[franknbeans4761]

@MatoVuc "in terms of mobility"

True, but it seems like some of that is at the sake of the infantry, what an infantry fighting vehicle is based around.

[MatoVuc]

@franknbeans4761 up to a point. even if the exit procedure isn't very straight forward, it can still carry 7-9 dismounts, take them over hills,plains and rivers and support them with impressive amounts of firepower.

it's very high level of autonomy is very useful for mechanized infantry, particularly for a doctrine that emphasizes mass maneuverability.

[franknbeans4761]

@MatoVuc Correct. It does have many great qualities. It will just be hard to say what will outweigh one another in viable combat.

It's outstanding firepower and high mobility are great, but it's poor troop configuration and lack of armament are big problems too.

Oh well. Time will tell.

[MatoVuc]

@franknbeans4761 armament?

[franknbeans4761]

@MatoVuc Oops! Sorry! Armor. Big typo.

[MatoVuc]

@franknbeans4761 Very big typo. :P

[BitnikGr]

@MatoVuc Popovkin, just as other dicks from MoD, can't make a reasonable criticism to BMP-3 (and other weapon systems) in his/their attempts to throw a mud over Russian systems. Not that Russian weapons are ideal and don't have flaws, but fact that MoD Generals can't do correct criticism shows their incompetence in field of armored forces. Popovkin himself is from Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN).

...

[BitnikGr]

@MatoVuc ...

I consider riding on top of APC/IFV as a mistake. Same mistake as when Americans were riding on top of M113 in Vietnam.

Some say that riding on top saves lives in case of driving on a mine... But in war with a regular army, which has artillery and air-force, (f.e. Georgian Army 2008) riding on top can lead to increased losses of personnel. Despite that Russian troops were driving on top of vehicles in August of 2008.

[franknbeans4761]

@BitnikGr What is the point of complaining when the BMP-3 can be easily uparmored with ERA, offering very high levels of protection? If he has a problem with it, then upgrade it.

If anything he should be weighing the odds of having a highly mobile force that is still amphibious or a heavily protected force that isn't.

I read about his claims, it seems as if he doesn't understand compromises.

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 Point is that MoD received an order to press MIC for better quality at better prices and transparency of costs of final product. That's why they do such criticism, but with very clumsy way.

Another obvious point is that purchase of foreign vehicles even for evaluation purposes offers to officials, who sign the deal, a very thick "kickback". This model works worldwide and now Russians learned it too.

[MatoVuc]

@franknbeans4761 can you provide the link. i couldn't find anything specific, which made me all the more suspicious of the whole thing.

as for the ERA, though there is the option, i've heard that the russian's aren't too fond of it, since they could be hazardous to the dismounts, being exploding boxes and all. I think they are looking into NERA, but not sure.

ofc, ERA or not, being shot at with RPG-s isn't going to be all to healthy for the dismounts in the first place.

[franknbeans4761]

@MatoVuc w w w . militaryphotos . net/forums/showthread . php?99908-BMP-3M-with-ERA

[MatoVuc]

@franknbeans4761 thanks, but i meant if you have a link to a more detailed account of what Popovkin said.

I've seen the ERA for the BMP-3. it seems as if they block the firing ports for the crew though.

[franknbeans4761]

@MatoVuc Oh alright I'm sorry. I will try to find the article.

As for the ERA, true. It is difficult to work around that when using ERA. I would say leaving the firing ports would still leave weaknesses in the armor. But I guess it's for the sake of compromise and crew protection.

[MatoVuc]

@BitnikGr I too personally think the more prudent option is to remain within the vehicle, maybe if you are feeling brave enough to stick your head out through the roof hatches to observe the situation.

I was just giving a more rational explanation as to why the soldiers might want to ride on top of the vehicle instead of within than what Popovkin did.

[luka2298]

thank you for this :)

[95andropov]

Love it <3

[bergonius]

Thank you for this video

[BitnikGr]

@bergonius You are welcome.

[JASHVEER22]

What it has a toilet too?

[BitnikGr]

@JASHVEER22 Isn't it clearly explained?

In case of prolonged operation on contaminated area (up to 2 days). Crew can live inside, without getting out.

By the way, Merkava crews were on long guard duties (more than 6 hours) along borders with Lebanon and Gaza. After several suggestions, manufacture company placed a toilet in Merkava IV as well.

[JASHVEER22]

@BitnikGr I did understand that but the fact is that its the first time that I heard that an IFV has a toilet

[BitnikGr]

@JASHVEER22 "As with all UK Armoured vehicles, it is equipped with a forced air system, so the crew can lock down in a CBRN environment, for this reason they are equipped with a boiling vessel BV, to cook and make hot drinks, it also has a hole in the center of the commander's seat that can be used as a toilet."

This is about UK FV107 Scimitar from 1971.

XM701 prototype for MICV-70 project also had toilet (1965).

[2205Razors]

Jumping straight into water at speed... it's quite inspiring. While I doubt that it is safe to do so in combat weight and full complement of soldiers inside... it is still inspiring. Good vid. Thank you so much. :)

[BitnikGr]

@2205Razors Well, maybe it can't jump in water like that with full combat weight and ERA. But it sure can swim with full combat weight and personnel inside.

There are photos available from UAE, where they tested their BMP-3 with sandbags on top to simulate full combat weight.

[2205Razors]

@BitnikGr I don't doubt its swimming ability in full combat load + ERA one bit. My doubt is only limited to the 'leap of faith' to the water XD. I've seen photos of BMP-3M packed with ERA. While it does add significant weight, but the design and arrangement of the ERA bricks on the hull also adds the surface area of the vehicle on the water, hence maintaining its buoyancy. So, yes. I'm sure it will swim, but not too sure anymore about jumping into water at 20 km/h plus. XD

[BitnikGr]

@2205Razors "I'm sure it will swim, but not too sure anymore about jumping into water at 20 km/h plus"

It's exactly what I said. :))

Actually. BMP-3F version for Marines can swim even with 3 Beauforts.

[2205Razors]

@BitnikGr You have to mention BMP-3F. My country (Indonesia) just procured 17 of it last November. I heard that Russia is still open for more order. I sincerely hope that our government would acquire more in the future. :)

[javabeserk]

i like what u do..thumbs up!

[BitnikGr]

Interesting fact, many people might not know.

Watch at 0:33. There are two big caps on driver's "wheel". These caps cover 2 buttons. They are triggers for left and right PKT machineguns in the body of BMP-3, if those are not manned by infantry.

[solimaniv]

welcome back my friend great video thx