Oh man, the BMP-3 would have been soo much better for the Finnish army compared to the expensive & useless CV90 we bought :/ BMP-3 has better armament, it can swim and its cooler :)
the holl filosophie of armored forces differ in the estern and former estern blok contrys from the western armys. Doctrine give shape to BMP 3 and i belive the doctrine is unapropiate for the moment. Russia and the BMP buyers do not have strong airtransport capabilitys, the machine carry fewer troops, the dependence from spare parts to Russia etc Remember the India s nuclear plants...and the political cost payed.
ahmadov i do not desagreed with you, but the main capability of that machine, in my opinion, is the full amphibios capability. Yes, BMP 3 has also a superb main gun and the package for support infantery is the best. But, in the desert, the tracked vehicles have a verry serios problem with the sand, like Rommel. The mudd lubricate, the dust and sand make corosion. The decision of UAE to buy BMP was a political one, not a military one
The BMP 3 is a cool vehicle. However it will be destroyed by any main battle tank. Also the flat bottom of the vehicle will make it easy to destroy with IEDs.
@strongdiddy Just like any other apc/ifv in the world. This haves more of chance for surviving as it haves more armor than almost any other apc/ifv...
Do not forget Saddam Hussein decizion to remove all laser telemetres from the armoured vehicles and tanks, saing Allah will direct the iraqis hits. No compare with russians operators!
That machine i snt for desert, lika many russian weapons. It is built for euroasian theatre, with many rivers and lakes. Also i see one comment who said: iraqis forces was poor trained for desert. What? Poor trained for there one contry?
So, my opinion is favorable BMP 3, a great machine. War in desert is not relevant and the victory was achievs with intelligence, satelites etc, not with tanks. The bulk of Iraq forces was destroied from air in first GulfWar.
@vasile1900 well tracked vechiles can all do well on desert because their tracks allow them to do so.eurasian theatre does have many deserts, there are some in china. the fact that uae bought this bmp shows that it is suitable for desert and uae has enough money to buy more expensive weapons if they want to.
Well considering Russian vehicles are not known for their looks, and the outside doesn't represent what the inside looks. And why do the interiors always look like sht, WELL, save money on non practical things.
Yanks tend to think they have the best military equipment and that russian's stands for nothing, but they forget that they never fight against Russia or against any European country that uses no war machine of the Russian. It is very simple destroyed old Iraq army which is not well trained on the desert. Try ty figh well trained army in the mountainous country and I issue you, that you won't believe :-) Viz Yugoslavia (today Serbia) you used only aircraft, on the land you feared. assholes!
The best weapon armed APC in the world! I like BMP3 turret - it is big. massive, almost like tank turret. Nice job! And for american idiots who write nonsense - you have never experienced war at your houses... European and Russian did and not only one times! Write into memory that your army on land isn´t so impressive as you think. East have no comparrable machine asi BMP 3 is. The closest of this vehiecle is only older BMP/BVP 2 and also has benn modernized. Fuck shits as M113, Bradley etc :-)
The Abrams has a mean operational time of 8 hours before mechanical failure.
Russian equipment canonically falls into one of two categories - very simple, sturdy and easy to repair with parts from whatever you can find OR highly complex (in some cases revolutionary) but temperamental and prone to failure.
The older BMP models had weak armour (only on the front sixth of the vehicle). These use newer aluminium armor like any western IFV and are still completely amphibious.
By the way, I couldn't help noticing that whenever Greece and Cyprus try to buy Russian military equipement, the USA and Turkey freak out. If Russian gear is as bad as american propaganda claims, what do they have to worry about?
By the way, expensive can be good, but more often means overpriced.
@bake3020 - Hmm, maybe you think about how there was no Russian tanks in Iraq. Learn real facts, then comment, kid. ;) ...also, you act like you know how to maintenance BMP-3 or something? xaxa... you are dumb.
@bittemeinrammstein are you fucking kidding? The Iraqi army had all kinds of RUSSIAN tanks in operation during iraqi freedom as well as in the present time. T-54/55, and most notably the RUSSIAN T-72. looks like YOU need to get your facts right before acting like a condescending jack ass.
@jebus4444 - Iraq had 150 T-72M's (those are export models idiot) built from knock down kits from Poland. export dont have even 20% capabilities of real T-72A. And Iraq had 400~ Asad Babil tanks who was simply Iraqi indigenous copy of T-72M export tank. Iraq had some T-55 but you will compare T-55 to anything modern? lol you are stupid. Besides... do some reaserch moron, bulk of Iraq tank force in gulf war was Chinese Type-59's. XAXA... looks like YOU need to get your facts right. ;)
@bittemeinrammstein yeh look how many bmp3 used by the united arab emirates army! those things kick ass!!!!! the uae army have more of them in service than any other country ( the bmp3 type only i mean)
@bittemeinrammstein the demonstration of the bmp with the desert camo is in united arab emirates in IDEX, search the videos about idex 2011 they r awesome!!! /watch?v=9WqEkHr4PZ4
@bake3020 - Hmm, maybe you think about how there was no Russian tanks in Iraq. Learn real facts, then comment, kid. ;) ...also, you act like you know how to maintenance BMP-3 or something? xaxa... you are dumb.
@bake3020 most "russian" tanks in Iraq were some sort of monkey versions, T-72's that havent been modern in many years, unlike the Russian T-72's that are in very good condition and very capable of fighting against Western tanks even these days
@bake3020 Like AKs they are so~ un-reliable. Dude, everything russian made NOT for war is cheap and unreliable, only beacue everything made FOR war IS cheap AND reliable.
Soviet households rarely saw titanum, plastics and complex ceramics only beacuse they all went for military use.
Now american stuff... it's medium reliability and high-price, though hi-tech. It's all beacuse american economy is based on always making new stuff for reapairs.
@KeyManDan Can you say me, why NATO fighting so long in Afghanistan, If you say that USA have best weapon and high tech, which weapon have Talibans when they fighting so long against USA and at the end USA will withdraw back?
@bake3020 lol, Iraq and top of the line russian tanks? You're funny... the Iraq tanks were crap, the crew had miserable training & the maintenance was seriously lacking...
Against truly top of the line russian tanks the Abrams would be glad for a 1:1 loss ratio...
@bake3020 huge lulz on the russian unreliable equipment :D russians are famous for building stuff thats not rugged, is overly complicated, needs lots of maintenance and doesnt perform in extreme weather conditions. :D awesome comment there m8 :D
@bake3020 and also, imagine the deciept you have lived your life in until now, that only whats expensive can be reliable. youre the perfect consumer mate, please dont change, some of us get rich off your thinking :D
@bake3020 btw fyi the bmp 3 was viewed even in the 2000s as such a dangerous armored carrier that the nato country soldiers serving in foreign countries had a reporting obligation at once when they identified one. a recon para friend of mine told me this in 2003 , dont know if its still in effect.
@bake3020 You must be stupid as Abrams and Bradleys spend more time in Iraq/ Afghan in the workshop being fixed and maintained than they roll out, while Russian vehicles are like Ak's they can keep on moving and the engines are 10x mroe reliable and 10x less flamable. Abrams fast? Yeah, like 5km faster than a T90 and that's on flat firm ground, try moving one of them on soft european like ground, will see how far it gets before it gets stuck. 1000's pics of flipped and stuck abrams 5m from roads
@bake3020 Get your facts right. It is the other way around. Anything russian is usually reliable AND cheaper than western counterparts. Oh and GOOD JOB your Abrams turned the Iraqi tanks to scrap metal in Iraq. Well guess what 1) Anything close to russian in their tank corps was Chinese Type 59's, export crappy T-72's built from Poland. Plus some T-55's. T-55 is a medium tank by service standards. T-72's are 2nd generation MBT's. And abrams are 3rd generation. No wonder the Abrams won dumbass!
@SuperFinnish nevertheless still more formidable than the junk Iraq and the other middle east countries generally have? That was my point. therefore would offer some stiffer resistance than what was encountered in those proxy wars
@Baldwynmayhem Of course, Iraq had Polish part kits aswell as some other export models, with old ammunition and poor training. T-72BM is in whole other league as the T-72s Iraq had, even Iran has better T-72 models. Too bad that most people think T-72 = automatically shit, when the real Russian models have been quite succesfull.
Iraq had the shit export versions of russian tanks...all russias export tanks are made with less armor than thier russian military counterparts.Russias new generation armored vehicles are quite formidable. if this was pit up against a m3 bradly the bradly would be smoked. also the bradly has no amphibious capabilities and is also extremely heavy.
@bake3020 u mean the Asad babil?, the downgrade of the downgrade of the downgrade of the real T-72?, yeah right. and if we compare, reliability lets compare the 15 minutes of runtime manteniance that a russian tank requires every day compared to the 8 hours that the abrams, wonder how come they really never show the manteniance of an abrams exept for the engine switch over, which to this day has depleted the entire reserve of engines, Just go back to ur MW3 and keep dreaming.
debatable since the bradley has been found to be one of the worst IFVs ever made, it loves to catch on fire, seal the doors shut (because of the fire)
@karambiatos The army found a solution for that and made a designed bradley with armored external fuel tanks and some of the ammo on the outside.The bradley is the best protected and heavily armed IFV out there. The badley knocked out more iraqi armor in the first gulf war than the 120mm cannon of the abrams tank, explain that since you say it was debated one of the worst IFV's out there. The BMP-1, 2 AND 3 are no different, they both have ammo and fuel stored in the vehicle, a death trap.
the BMP1,2 have their fuel tanks on the back while the 3 has them in on the floor, but the 3 comes usually equipped with ERA packages,
of course youll have your ammo on the inside how will you access it if its on the outside, you can have blowback hatches but IDK if APCs have those, the BMP-3 floats, but when it comes to firepower no other APC can beat it in that category
@karambiatos The Bradley makes up for the fuel and ammo stored in the vehicle by having excellent armor agianst rpg's, 30mm rounds and most anti tank missiles. Most reports whenever a bradley got destroyed was the crew was able escape the vehicle but at the expense of the vehicle. Plus only about 550 bmp-3's were built for the russians. The m113 in 2018 and later bradley will be replaced by the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle which will be the best IFV in the world.
@SuperFinnish It's built on the same frame as the new MBT will be so it armor levels will hugh for a IFV. that about what we know though their not reason it couldn't be like the Merkava 4 which is the best IFV today and Not a bad MBT to.
@tonygogap you mean rpg not anti tank missiles. though the rpg-28,29 would kill any apc, ifv.the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be nice yet the bmp 5 or 6 be out then. oboma keep delay any new tech we got going.
russia thinks if its good on wheels its good on tracks. nope. nothing on russian vehicles goes good with the part next to it making it harmful for the crew. russia doesnt realize the crew is the most important thing
Guys, that is not a BMP. Rather, it is a BMD. They were originally designed as an air dropable support vehicle for soviet airborne troops, kinda like the U.S. Army Sheridan, only with troop carrying capabilities. The military here needs to get their collective heads outa their butts and equip our light forces with something similar.
Hehehe, the idea behind this vehicle must've been 'Let's just see how many guns we can put on here!'. They obviously succeded; 100mm gun, 30mm Autocannon, coax MG, and two bow-mounted MGs, not to mention that fact that the gun tube can fire missiles!!
@MegaBablGam You can suck my great white american cock. American technology is FAR superior, at least as far as tanks are concerned. Look at Desert Storm, the Six-Day War, AND the Yom Kippur War.
@WASPfreak all old in 1 way or the other. the m1a2 fought out dated export models poorly trained and steel rounds. though t-72 export models were out dated after their from 1970s. Wile the m1a2 from about 2000. we do have close too the best armor though.
@starknight97 Exactly. You have CLOSE to the best armor, but you don't HAVE the best armor. That honor goes to the M1 Abrams, the most battle-proven tank of the modern era.
@WASPfreak the changer 2 bets it only by about 5 to 10%. that not much. then i was referencing the m1a2sep/tusk. If you were thinking of the t-90 per it has a higher los per mm in RHe. Meaning for 48 tons vs 68 tons. it armor of 920mm on the turret vs the m1a2sep 960mm vs ke. It doing the job better per ton.
BMP-3 and the Swedish CV-9040 are the best IFV's in my opinion. I've only experience from BMP-2 and I've been inside the CV couple of times and it's top notch when it comes to high tech. It only lacks the ATGM's.
Если танк правильно использовать то в городских условиях он очень эффективен, с того же т 72 подача осколочнофугасным здания разносит. Танк в городском бою сам по себе вперед не прорыввается, его с тыла еще прикрывать пехота должа, тогда к танку еще и подобраться с рпг надо.
Ты, чувак, видимо просто не представляешь, что такое танк на опорном пункте в окопе по башню. А если ты говоришь, что танки в городах не ахти, почитай, как штурмовали Берлин в 45-м
Улицу за улицей, дом за домом..Конечно, не с рьяным использованием танков..Ты просто, не знаешь как жгут танки в горах, тем более в городах..когда по малым улочкам, да из окна из рпг..
Обожаю её!! С БМП - БМД - 3 и танков не надо!!! Чего бы не сделать ставку на такие машины ? Танки в городских условиях не ахти, а в горах вообще стальное мясо!..
Awesome firepower, without question the most heavily armed ICV in the world, and it can even swim! Not really impressed by the auto-loader though, the strong right arm of a 19 year old is faster and more reliable. Not sure either about how much damage this vehicle could sustain, but they would be mixed with T-90s and those would definitely be the first targets of anyone they faced. Even NATO countries want to have this in their arsenals. Greece already does. Can Shtora be mounted on this?
this caliber (100mm) is a reaction of the cenarios in the wold conflict's (afganistan/georgia and and) the first weppon from all apc's off the world used 20mm or 30mm gun's . the damagd from this low caliber is not god for a fight in towns or in the montens the dmg area is to low. the first bmp bmp1 have a 100mm gun and the bmp2 a 20mm and the latest bmp2 have a 30mm gun.
This "piece of shit" will destroy any other IFV that exists and at much greater ranges than the other IFVs could be able to engage it.
United Arab Emirates are using this machine, Greece and Cyprus also, Saudi Arabia has put an order for 250 vehicles. These are the most important users beside Russia. Speaks for itself doesn't it?
Yeah..they dont give a shit about thier people...shove 'em in a deathtrap so we dont have to pay for a funeral....each of these vehicles come with a standard incinerator guarenteed to reduce a bofy to ash NO CASKET REQUIRED! ;)
again, when US tested there equipment with russians ones after the fall of USSR (from east germany), they knew exactly how capable Russian equipment were. On the early 90s they tested a T72B to withstand hits from M289a1 rounds whoch was unable to penetrate the T72s era. Only monkeymodel lion of babil iraqi tanks which had armour half as thick and made of poor basic steel were vunrable :)
I like you milk...your not a hot head...I respect that greatly.......I was just joking around trying to aggravate Iggy and it worked too.....reading his fired up comments give me one helluva laugh....but back to facts....they tested the original round on the T-72 ERA and your right it failed to penetrate then they upgraded to the A1...the A1 didnt fail the test it was created after
@bittemeinrammstein plz dont use opinion because i can punch a t90 and its go through 5 of those low qulity crap crap crap thats low quality civilian cars that were moddified to be a car with a gun
@bittemeinrammstein M829A2/3 is claimed to be able to pierce kontakt 5. Oh and the t-80 and t-90 are only cover by kontakt around the 60 degree arch in the front of the turret. If you shoot a t-90 or t-80 in the side or back, its a death trap jack in the box tank. No russian sabo can pierce DU layers on an Abrams cause nothing is denser than deplated uranium.
You can guess why; DU is nothing less harmful today than it was in eary reports in the 50ies which noted, among the other, that it is THAT TOXIC so it's ONLY to be used if the Soviets invade Western Europe...
have you ever hurd of monkeymodels( google it) all export bmp-1 had much weaker armour, optical insruments and no NBC system (to name but a few), YES ITS SIDE ARMOUR could be penetrated by 50 cali gun but only on monkey models.
oh for christ sake you and your stupid monkey model excuse for getting the shit kicked out of this peice of shit over seas...give it a rest and just admit its a piece of shit.
Nope, front and 1/3 of the side are protected from 30mm AP rounds, while other parts of BMP-3 are resistant to 20mm and protected from 14.5mm or lower caliber weapons.
That's for the standard BMP-3. There's also an aplique armour add-on kit that ups the protection on all sides from 30mm weapons, but it will not be able to float with it.
Not likely. With APDS ammo it is possible to penetrate the tower though, killing the crew, because Leopard doesn't have angled front armor.
Also, when we talk about tank performance combat situation always takes into count. Amreican and Israeli armor have one thing in common: they cannot take on the climate. If an M1A2 was ever to meet a BMP class tank in combat it would be up north. I.e snow, mud, trees, rocks, stumps would quickly disable M1 and the engine wouldn't last long in cold.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm suprised they didn't use the D-10 100mm gun from the T-54/55. Even with this massive gun, it's useless against an Abrams, and besides, and M60 crew or tank crew could kill this thing before it got in range. Still, I think it's superior to the Bradley or Stryker.
thats because you dont understand warfare you idiot, this vehicle is not in any way ment to battle tanks 1 on 1... dumbass, but just so you are not totally out of the loop, the BMP-3's guided missiles COULD destroy the Abrams and the M-60A3
I see no reason to insult people, bitte...WASP made a good remark.
BMP-3 is not built as a tank destroyer. 100mm cannon is low impulse, meant for lighter targets than tanks and bunkers. BMP-3 probably is able to take down an M-60, but certainly not an M1A2 from the front. from the back yeah, from the sides questionable, but from the front no way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You know this is some of the best amusement on earth for me......I was and I swear to god joking but for me its kind of like fishing...I really love fishing....I threw that comment out kind of like bait and BAM.....you gobble it right up.....LMAO
100 mm is 10 cm, this diameter can fit in the palm of your hand, well in my hand at least. Take a ruler and measure 10 cm, that's the thickness of that cannon. It is pretty small but definitely does a shit-load of damage.
@WASPfreak this tank is used by paratroopers, it can be dropped out of the sky by an airplane to support the troops, it can swim, and fire from it. You just cant compare it to abrams. Abrams is a heavy tank, this is light tank...moron
@WASPfreak You are stupid or what ? D10 is a HEAVY rifled barrel, with high pressure. If you put this on something like BMP3, it will broke the turret and suspension at the first shot !
2a70 is a smoothbore, lightweight, highly automatised gun that fire low pressure HE rounds and AT missiles, nothing in common exept the caliber !
@WASPfreak Not the same role, come on are you 10 years old or mental ? The D10 is a rifled high pressure gun, standard MBT armament, to destroy other tanks far away, nowadays, it's rubbish, but in HE role it's still exellent. The barrel of BMP3 don't fire AT rounds, but only HE, it's a sort of low pressure howitzer, with an ATGM capability for AT role.
@WASPfreak better. Fires HEAT rounds and far more accurate guided missiles than the D10. Weighs less, loads faster. And it's not a tankg un, it's a light cannon, like the Grom 73mm on the BMP-1. It's lethal at close range, not intended to be used at beyond 600m, that's what missiles are for.
Is it me or is a BMP-3 a light tank that carries troops? -.-
Похоже наметился переход машин пехоты в полутанк. Очевидно, что танк убить сложно, а легкие машины пехоты уничтожить легко. Очевидно, что потребность сегодня именно в достаточно тяжелой технике. Которую так легко из гранотамета не сшибешь. )
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
looks really heavy for those tracks to handle. it also looks like a nightmare to maintain. just from the appearance it looks like it weighs around 50-65,000 lbs. it really looks high maintainence.
...and our LAVs looks like it can still take it out
lol you come try faggot, the BMP-3 is a breeze to maintain, and your LAV would get fucked by our 100mm cannon... the LAV has thin tin armor compared to the BMP-3 IFV buddy, you will die
at 0:34 it has a snorkel, doesnt it float?
peuterschmidt 1 month ago
@peuterschmidt most likely there so the water doesn't flood the engine in rough conditions.
MatoVuc 3 weeks ago
хуйня говорят редкая, эта ваша бмп-3
poszevibery 2 months ago
@poszevibery Кто говорит и с чем сравнивали?
IamRussianSoldier 1 month ago
@IamRussianSoldier беха тройка, жутко ненадежна. знаю по собственному опыту
poszevibery 1 month ago
@poszevibery Где служил?
IamRussianSoldier 1 month ago
@poszevibery Короче нихера ты не знаешь только пиздИшь
P.S. PUTIN FOREVER!
IamRussianSoldier 1 month ago
@IamRussianSoldier че тролль до хуя? я трахал твою мать, а ты смотрел и мастурбировал
poszevibery 1 month ago
@poszevibery Пиздец ты извращенец порнухи пересмотрел?
P.S. Рэп говно
IamRussianSoldier 1 month ago
Oh man, the BMP-3 would have been soo much better for the Finnish army compared to the expensive & useless CV90 we bought :/ BMP-3 has better armament, it can swim and its cooler :)
TheVanezi 5 months ago
but is a well good machine...not enough to buyed
vasile1900 7 months ago
the holl filosophie of armored forces differ in the estern and former estern blok contrys from the western armys. Doctrine give shape to BMP 3 and i belive the doctrine is unapropiate for the moment. Russia and the BMP buyers do not have strong airtransport capabilitys, the machine carry fewer troops, the dependence from spare parts to Russia etc Remember the India s nuclear plants...and the political cost payed.
vasile1900 7 months ago
ahmadov i do not desagreed with you, but the main capability of that machine, in my opinion, is the full amphibios capability. Yes, BMP 3 has also a superb main gun and the package for support infantery is the best. But, in the desert, the tracked vehicles have a verry serios problem with the sand, like Rommel. The mudd lubricate, the dust and sand make corosion. The decision of UAE to buy BMP was a political one, not a military one
vasile1900 7 months ago
The BMP 3 is a cool vehicle. However it will be destroyed by any main battle tank. Also the flat bottom of the vehicle will make it easy to destroy with IEDs.
strongdiddy 9 months ago
@strongdiddy Just like any other apc/ifv in the world. This haves more of chance for surviving as it haves more armor than almost any other apc/ifv...
Aaidas2 7 months ago
Do not forget Saddam Hussein decizion to remove all laser telemetres from the armoured vehicles and tanks, saing Allah will direct the iraqis hits. No compare with russians operators!
But i prefer MLI 84JDER even is based on BMP 1.
vasile1900 10 months ago
sorry for my poor english.
That machine i snt for desert, lika many russian weapons. It is built for euroasian theatre, with many rivers and lakes. Also i see one comment who said: iraqis forces was poor trained for desert. What? Poor trained for there one contry?
So, my opinion is favorable BMP 3, a great machine. War in desert is not relevant and the victory was achievs with intelligence, satelites etc, not with tanks. The bulk of Iraq forces was destroied from air in first GulfWar.
vasile1900 10 months ago
@vasile1900 well tracked vechiles can all do well on desert because their tracks allow them to do so.eurasian theatre does have many deserts, there are some in china. the fact that uae bought this bmp shows that it is suitable for desert and uae has enough money to buy more expensive weapons if they want to.
ahmadov 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 people are jealous americans!
SBML99999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 people are jealous americans! :D
SBML99999 10 months ago
4 people are jealous americans! :D
SBML99999 10 months ago 4
Well considering Russian vehicles are not known for their looks, and the outside doesn't represent what the inside looks. And why do the interiors always look like sht, WELL, save money on non practical things.
vinsong 11 months ago
Yanks tend to think they have the best military equipment and that russian's stands for nothing, but they forget that they never fight against Russia or against any European country that uses no war machine of the Russian. It is very simple destroyed old Iraq army which is not well trained on the desert. Try ty figh well trained army in the mountainous country and I issue you, that you won't believe :-) Viz Yugoslavia (today Serbia) you used only aircraft, on the land you feared. assholes!
Megerazwei 11 months ago
The best weapon armed APC in the world! I like BMP3 turret - it is big. massive, almost like tank turret. Nice job! And for american idiots who write nonsense - you have never experienced war at your houses... European and Russian did and not only one times! Write into memory that your army on land isn´t so impressive as you think. East have no comparrable machine asi BMP 3 is. The closest of this vehiecle is only older BMP/BVP 2 and also has benn modernized. Fuck shits as M113, Bradley etc :-)
Megerazwei 11 months ago
The Abrams has a mean operational time of 8 hours before mechanical failure.
Russian equipment canonically falls into one of two categories - very simple, sturdy and easy to repair with parts from whatever you can find OR highly complex (in some cases revolutionary) but temperamental and prone to failure.
The older BMP models had weak armour (only on the front sixth of the vehicle). These use newer aluminium armor like any western IFV and are still completely amphibious.
p34cekeeper 11 months ago
Armor All Aluminum! The Russians are really good at Technology military. They are creating unique things! Very innovative
Lemaure44 11 months ago
@Lemaure44 M113 has also all aluminum hull.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
Great video, gotta love Russian armor
Greetings from Croatia!
TheFirstAces 11 months ago
Go back to what the Bible says about them. How they will be laid to waist at that
great battle.
bake3020 1 year ago
By the way, I couldn't help noticing that whenever Greece and Cyprus try to buy Russian military equipement, the USA and Turkey freak out. If Russian gear is as bad as american propaganda claims, what do they have to worry about?
By the way, expensive can be good, but more often means overpriced.
sakpan39 1 year ago
Great video my friend. I hope my country, Greece, gets BMP3s just like our Greek Cypriot brothers have.
I realy like the music on your video. What group is this?
sakpan39 1 year ago
Shear numbers is what Russian hardware is all about, they throw nothing away.
They keep it all, just incase they need it. Others could learn a few things from
them. They get a basic design and just keep upgrading it, it's cheaper. We on
the other hand simply throw it all away and start off fresh, no parts, back-ups,
but lots and lots of money spent to make it work. Most of the time it does well,
others not so good.
bake3020 1 year ago 2
Do they make the barrels out of steel or are they still using lignostone?
bake3020 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's like anything else Russian, cheap and un-reliable for the most part. Notice how
they never show you the service and repairs that are necessary to keep it running.
Absolutely decieving. Also remember how fast our Abrams went through the top
of the line Russian tanks, etc in Iraq. Think about it,
bake3020 1 year ago
@bake3020 - Hmm, maybe you think about how there was no Russian tanks in Iraq. Learn real facts, then comment, kid. ;) ...also, you act like you know how to maintenance BMP-3 or something? xaxa... you are dumb.
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago 21
@bittemeinrammstein are you fucking kidding? The Iraqi army had all kinds of RUSSIAN tanks in operation during iraqi freedom as well as in the present time. T-54/55, and most notably the RUSSIAN T-72. looks like YOU need to get your facts right before acting like a condescending jack ass.
jebus4444 1 year ago
@jebus4444 - Iraq had 150 T-72M's (those are export models idiot) built from knock down kits from Poland. export dont have even 20% capabilities of real T-72A. And Iraq had 400~ Asad Babil tanks who was simply Iraqi indigenous copy of T-72M export tank. Iraq had some T-55 but you will compare T-55 to anything modern? lol you are stupid. Besides... do some reaserch moron, bulk of Iraq tank force in gulf war was Chinese Type-59's. XAXA... looks like YOU need to get your facts right. ;)
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago 27
@bittemeinrammstein yeh look how many bmp3 used by the united arab emirates army! those things kick ass!!!!! the uae army have more of them in service than any other country ( the bmp3 type only i mean)
XxKO3xX 8 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein the demonstration of the bmp with the desert camo is in united arab emirates in IDEX, search the videos about idex 2011 they r awesome!!! /watch?v=9WqEkHr4PZ4
XxKO3xX 8 months ago
@bake3020 - Hmm, maybe you think about how there was no Russian tanks in Iraq. Learn real facts, then comment, kid. ;) ...also, you act like you know how to maintenance BMP-3 or something? xaxa... you are dumb.
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
@bake3020 most "russian" tanks in Iraq were some sort of monkey versions, T-72's that havent been modern in many years, unlike the Russian T-72's that are in very good condition and very capable of fighting against Western tanks even these days
RatedRsupeRme 1 year ago
@bake3020 Like AKs they are so~ un-reliable. Dude, everything russian made NOT for war is cheap and unreliable, only beacue everything made FOR war IS cheap AND reliable.
Soviet households rarely saw titanum, plastics and complex ceramics only beacuse they all went for military use.
Now american stuff... it's medium reliability and high-price, though hi-tech. It's all beacuse american economy is based on always making new stuff for reapairs.
KeyManDan 1 year ago
@KeyManDan Can you say me, why NATO fighting so long in Afghanistan, If you say that USA have best weapon and high tech, which weapon have Talibans when they fighting so long against USA and at the end USA will withdraw back?
mahhindra 1 year ago
@mahhindra It's just a war for control of drug trafic... so who knows
KeyManDan 1 year ago
@bake3020 Also there were few real soviet tanks in Iraq, mostly local copies and old chopped 20 yeras old export variants.
KeyManDan 1 year ago
@bake3020 lol, Iraq and top of the line russian tanks? You're funny... the Iraq tanks were crap, the crew had miserable training & the maintenance was seriously lacking...
Against truly top of the line russian tanks the Abrams would be glad for a 1:1 loss ratio...
AKAtheA 1 year ago
@bake3020 huge lulz on the russian unreliable equipment :D russians are famous for building stuff thats not rugged, is overly complicated, needs lots of maintenance and doesnt perform in extreme weather conditions. :D awesome comment there m8 :D
Baalika 1 year ago
@bake3020 and also, imagine the deciept you have lived your life in until now, that only whats expensive can be reliable. youre the perfect consumer mate, please dont change, some of us get rich off your thinking :D
Baalika 1 year ago
@bake3020 btw fyi the bmp 3 was viewed even in the 2000s as such a dangerous armored carrier that the nato country soldiers serving in foreign countries had a reporting obligation at once when they identified one. a recon para friend of mine told me this in 2003 , dont know if its still in effect.
Baalika 1 year ago
@bake3020
LOL, you're an idiot!
You've never used a Russo-Soviet weapon!
"top of the line Russian tanks", LOL, do you mean Chinese copies of old T-54s and cheap Iraqi copies of the oldest most basic T-72?
Sismiques 11 months ago
@bake3020 yes just look at the AK47, falling to bits if you so mush as sneeze in it's direction...
Vickanful 9 months ago
@bake3020 You must be stupid as Abrams and Bradleys spend more time in Iraq/ Afghan in the workshop being fixed and maintained than they roll out, while Russian vehicles are like Ak's they can keep on moving and the engines are 10x mroe reliable and 10x less flamable. Abrams fast? Yeah, like 5km faster than a T90 and that's on flat firm ground, try moving one of them on soft european like ground, will see how far it gets before it gets stuck. 1000's pics of flipped and stuck abrams 5m from roads
Aaidas2 7 months ago
@bake3020 Get your facts right. It is the other way around. Anything russian is usually reliable AND cheaper than western counterparts. Oh and GOOD JOB your Abrams turned the Iraqi tanks to scrap metal in Iraq. Well guess what 1) Anything close to russian in their tank corps was Chinese Type 59's, export crappy T-72's built from Poland. Plus some T-55's. T-55 is a medium tank by service standards. T-72's are 2nd generation MBT's. And abrams are 3rd generation. No wonder the Abrams won dumbass!
SoulsStealerMalti 6 months ago
@bake3020 what T72s rofl, from 40 years ago? Be a different story up against a T90
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem T-90 = Upgraded T-72.
SuperFinnish 2 months ago in playlist Lisää videoita käyttäjältä bittemeinrammstein
@SuperFinnish nevertheless still more formidable than the junk Iraq and the other middle east countries generally have? That was my point. therefore would offer some stiffer resistance than what was encountered in those proxy wars
Baldwynmayhem 2 months ago
@Baldwynmayhem Of course, Iraq had Polish part kits aswell as some other export models, with old ammunition and poor training. T-72BM is in whole other league as the T-72s Iraq had, even Iran has better T-72 models. Too bad that most people think T-72 = automatically shit, when the real Russian models have been quite succesfull.
SuperFinnish 2 months ago
@bake3020 don't worry, we will soon find out whats good and whats not, ww3 is coming soon :)
Berrly91 2 months ago
@bake3020
Iraq had the shit export versions of russian tanks...all russias export tanks are made with less armor than thier russian military counterparts.Russias new generation armored vehicles are quite formidable. if this was pit up against a m3 bradly the bradly would be smoked. also the bradly has no amphibious capabilities and is also extremely heavy.
warriorofsteel01 1 month ago
@bake3020 u mean the Asad babil?, the downgrade of the downgrade of the downgrade of the real T-72?, yeah right. and if we compare, reliability lets compare the 15 minutes of runtime manteniance that a russian tank requires every day compared to the 8 hours that the abrams, wonder how come they really never show the manteniance of an abrams exept for the engine switch over, which to this day has depleted the entire reserve of engines, Just go back to ur MW3 and keep dreaming.
MXAI00D 1 week ago
though the best ifv which is also a MBT is the Israel Merkava Mk 4. yes in addition to it's crew this MBT carries infantry too.
starknight97 1 year ago
I don't really care much for the weaponry but... very nice use of Slavic folk tunes. Who is the song by?
dharmanova 1 year ago
The M3A3 Bradley would knock this bitch out.
tonygogap 1 year ago
@tonygogap
debatable since the bradley has been found to be one of the worst IFVs ever made, it loves to catch on fire, seal the doors shut (because of the fire)
karambiatos 1 year ago
@karambiatos The army found a solution for that and made a designed bradley with armored external fuel tanks and some of the ammo on the outside.The bradley is the best protected and heavily armed IFV out there. The badley knocked out more iraqi armor in the first gulf war than the 120mm cannon of the abrams tank, explain that since you say it was debated one of the worst IFV's out there. The BMP-1, 2 AND 3 are no different, they both have ammo and fuel stored in the vehicle, a death trap.
tonygogap 1 year ago
@tonygogap
an iraqi armor were outdated t-72 and 62s
the BMP1,2 have their fuel tanks on the back while the 3 has them in on the floor, but the 3 comes usually equipped with ERA packages,
of course youll have your ammo on the inside how will you access it if its on the outside, you can have blowback hatches but IDK if APCs have those, the BMP-3 floats, but when it comes to firepower no other APC can beat it in that category
karambiatos 1 year ago
@karambiatos The Bradley makes up for the fuel and ammo stored in the vehicle by having excellent armor agianst rpg's, 30mm rounds and most anti tank missiles. Most reports whenever a bradley got destroyed was the crew was able escape the vehicle but at the expense of the vehicle. Plus only about 550 bmp-3's were built for the russians. The m113 in 2018 and later bradley will be replaced by the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle which will be the best IFV in the world.
tonygogap 1 year ago
@tonygogap How do you know if the GCV will be the best IFV, it could be terrible for all we know.
SuperFinnish 1 year ago
@SuperFinnish From what I have read, it sounds pretty good, better than any IFV out there.
tonygogap 1 year ago
@tonygogap Many things have sounded good on paper but failed on testing. But only time will tell whether its world breaker or not.
SuperFinnish 1 year ago
@SuperFinnish It's built on the same frame as the new MBT will be so it armor levels will hugh for a IFV. that about what we know though their not reason it couldn't be like the Merkava 4 which is the best IFV today and Not a bad MBT to.
starknight97 1 year ago
@tonygogap you mean rpg not anti tank missiles. though the rpg-28,29 would kill any apc, ifv.the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be nice yet the bmp 5 or 6 be out then. oboma keep delay any new tech we got going.
starknight97 1 year ago
@tonygogap If it could cach up to it ;) and not be knocked out itself.
KeyManDan 1 year ago
What is this song?
2rhx 1 year ago
I LOVE that IFV!!! <3
:D
2rhx 1 year ago
Masha is sure driving a BMP-3 to :D
Wofka1986 1 year ago
russia thinks if its good on wheels its good on tracks. nope. nothing on russian vehicles goes good with the part next to it making it harmful for the crew. russia doesnt realize the crew is the most important thing
nunchuck19 1 year ago
Guys, that is not a BMP. Rather, it is a BMD. They were originally designed as an air dropable support vehicle for soviet airborne troops, kinda like the U.S. Army Sheridan, only with troop carrying capabilities. The military here needs to get their collective heads outa their butts and equip our light forces with something similar.
n5syr1 1 year ago
wow wow wow .. this beast is really Bitching !
bunnyrabbit008 1 year ago
I thought russia broke up into three parts?
gypshasballs22 1 year ago
Please who are the group and the song name of this video?
SchutzstaffeIWoIf 1 year ago
@SchutzstaffeIWoIf
group: Arkona
song: Kolyada
TheSlipsen 1 year ago
Hehehe, the idea behind this vehicle must've been 'Let's just see how many guns we can put on here!'. They obviously succeded; 100mm gun, 30mm Autocannon, coax MG, and two bow-mounted MGs, not to mention that fact that the gun tube can fire missiles!!
TheJojo45678 1 year ago
America sucks
MegaBablGam 1 year ago 8
@MegaBablGam You can suck my great white american cock. American technology is FAR superior, at least as far as tanks are concerned. Look at Desert Storm, the Six-Day War, AND the Yom Kippur War.
WASPfreak 1 year ago
@WASPfreak all old in 1 way or the other. the m1a2 fought out dated export models poorly trained and steel rounds. though t-72 export models were out dated after their from 1970s. Wile the m1a2 from about 2000. we do have close too the best armor though.
starknight97 1 year ago
@starknight97 Exactly. You have CLOSE to the best armor, but you don't HAVE the best armor. That honor goes to the M1 Abrams, the most battle-proven tank of the modern era.
WASPfreak 1 year ago
@WASPfreak the changer 2 bets it only by about 5 to 10%. that not much. then i was referencing the m1a2sep/tusk. If you were thinking of the t-90 per it has a higher los per mm in RHe. Meaning for 48 tons vs 68 tons. it armor of 920mm on the turret vs the m1a2sep 960mm vs ke. It doing the job better per ton.
starknight97 1 year ago
Where is the exit for the infantry compartment. Not through its roof I hope.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Spetsnazovets It has little hatches on the back which are opened with the top of the infantry compardment. so through the roof or from the back.
SuperFinnish 1 year ago
Nice piece of equipment.
1048luca 1 year ago
that gun nearly replaces AA guns it fires so fast!
TRBNGR666 1 year ago
it's missing an rpg cage, but otherwise it seems good to go.
0Ivan0 1 year ago
@0Ivan0
There are kits for cage and ERA packages for it, but there is not footage of this.))
bittemeinrammstein 1 year ago
I liked the music, anyone knows what it is?
TheSlipsen 1 year ago
BMP-3 and the Swedish CV-9040 are the best IFV's in my opinion. I've only experience from BMP-2 and I've been inside the CV couple of times and it's top notch when it comes to high tech. It only lacks the ATGM's.
R0bb89 1 year ago
Если танк правильно использовать то в городских условиях он очень эффективен, с того же т 72 подача осколочнофугасным здания разносит. Танк в городском бою сам по себе вперед не прорыввается, его с тыла еще прикрывать пехота должа, тогда к танку еще и подобраться с рпг надо.
saimur8 1 year ago 4
Слава Руси!!!
CHEREPOVCHANIN 2 years ago 13
Ты, чувак, видимо просто не представляешь, что такое танк на опорном пункте в окопе по башню. А если ты говоришь, что танки в городах не ахти, почитай, как штурмовали Берлин в 45-м
lynx299792 2 years ago 3
Улицу за улицей, дом за домом..Конечно, не с рьяным использованием танков..Ты просто, не знаешь как жгут танки в горах, тем более в городах..когда по малым улочкам, да из окна из рпг..
xDKetamin 1 year ago
Обожаю её!! С БМП - БМД - 3 и танков не надо!!! Чего бы не сделать ставку на такие машины ? Танки в городских условиях не ахти, а в горах вообще стальное мясо!..
xDKetamin 2 years ago
Танк не нужен ели его нету но если он есть то пусть останеца Танк это как кулак !!!
MrLGpaul 1 year ago
Красава машина всегда мечтал о тройке. В 95году ездил на копейке
aquamanstd703 2 years ago 3
100mm main, 30 mm second, 3 - 7x62 mm machineguns. Main 100 mm allows to fire antitank missles.Have active deffence systems. Really good APC.
iloverebeccachambers 2 years ago 5
Awesome firepower, without question the most heavily armed ICV in the world, and it can even swim! Not really impressed by the auto-loader though, the strong right arm of a 19 year old is faster and more reliable. Not sure either about how much damage this vehicle could sustain, but they would be mixed with T-90s and those would definitely be the first targets of anyone they faced. Even NATO countries want to have this in their arsenals. Greece already does. Can Shtora be mounted on this?
deutschschoen 2 years ago
"Shtora" is its basic equipment. "Arena" is optional.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
this caliber (100mm) is a reaction of the cenarios in the wold conflict's (afganistan/georgia and and) the first weppon from all apc's off the world used 20mm or 30mm gun's . the damagd from this low caliber is not god for a fight in towns or in the montens the dmg area is to low. the first bmp bmp1 have a 100mm gun and the bmp2 a 20mm and the latest bmp2 have a 30mm gun.
imwolf3 2 years ago
What is the name of song?
prometius145 2 years ago
Name of song-"Kollyada".Musical group name-"Arkona".Russian-Коляда(Аркона).Forgive for my English
oxblin 2 years ago
the 100mm gun is the strongest ever mounted on an armed transport
stalingradComando 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
are you kidding this piece of shit couldnt even penetrate a paper back...proven to blow up in your face just by looking at it !
smyers820gm 2 years ago
And you PROVE again that you're a complete ASS.
This "piece of shit" will destroy any other IFV that exists and at much greater ranges than the other IFVs could be able to engage it.
United Arab Emirates are using this machine, Greece and Cyprus also, Saudi Arabia has put an order for 250 vehicles. These are the most important users beside Russia. Speaks for itself doesn't it?
Iggy82xl 2 years ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah..they dont give a shit about thier people...shove 'em in a deathtrap so we dont have to pay for a funeral....each of these vehicles come with a standard incinerator guarenteed to reduce a bofy to ash NO CASKET REQUIRED! ;)
smyers820gm 2 years ago
again, when US tested there equipment with russians ones after the fall of USSR (from east germany), they knew exactly how capable Russian equipment were. On the early 90s they tested a T72B to withstand hits from M289a1 rounds whoch was unable to penetrate the T72s era. Only monkeymodel lion of babil iraqi tanks which had armour half as thick and made of poor basic steel were vunrable :)
Be intellectually honest please
milkoyan 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
I like you milk...your not a hot head...I respect that greatly.......I was just joking around trying to aggravate Iggy and it worked too.....reading his fired up comments give me one helluva laugh....but back to facts....they tested the original round on the T-72 ERA and your right it failed to penetrate then they upgraded to the A1...the A1 didnt fail the test it was created after
smyers820gm 2 years ago
And even today, Russian T-80U and T-90 tanks can not be penitrated by American
M289A2's :]
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
Well of course a HEAT round. If you are saying SABOT, good luck.
3adtanker 2 years ago
@bittemeinrammstein для ваших м289а2 у нас есть Хризантемы... Красивый цветок на могилу американских танкистов- земля им пухом...
Azazello114 1 year ago 2
@bittemeinrammstein plz dont use opinion because i can punch a t90 and its go through 5 of those low qulity crap crap crap thats low quality civilian cars that were moddified to be a car with a gun
nunchuck19 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein because those tanks are not meant for fighting heavy Armour tanks
1Rockyboxer1 1 year ago
@bittemeinrammstein M829A2/3 is claimed to be able to pierce kontakt 5. Oh and the t-80 and t-90 are only cover by kontakt around the 60 degree arch in the front of the turret. If you shoot a t-90 or t-80 in the side or back, its a death trap jack in the box tank. No russian sabo can pierce DU layers on an Abrams cause nothing is denser than deplated uranium.
tonygogap 1 year ago
@tonygogap
Tungsten is denser...
Russians make their sabo rounds out of it...
You can guess why; DU is nothing less harmful today than it was in eary reports in the 50ies which noted, among the other, that it is THAT TOXIC so it's ONLY to be used if the Soviets invade Western Europe...
Yep; it is that 'safe'...
Orthodoxcrusader 1 year ago
@tonygogap
But you know that they care for the troops...
That's why they used the (in)famous agent orange even if it proved to be a little more than a herbicide... Off the charts cancerous for instance...
P.S. But atleast it's toxicity doesn't last half the age of the Earth(And I don't mean 3000 years by half the age) like DU...
Orthodoxcrusader 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BMP's have weak armor, even a cheap 50 cal rifle can penetrate the back and rear
generaldeejee 2 years ago
BMP-1,2 yes, 3-no
zheka1780 2 years ago
have you ever hurd of monkeymodels( google it) all export bmp-1 had much weaker armour, optical insruments and no NBC system (to name but a few), YES ITS SIDE ARMOUR could be penetrated by 50 cali gun but only on monkey models.
milkoyan 2 years ago
oh for christ sake you and your stupid monkey model excuse for getting the shit kicked out of this peice of shit over seas...give it a rest and just admit its a piece of shit.
smyers820gm 2 years ago
even the US congress admitted they were fooled by the monkey model idea :) so i wouldnt call it an excuse.
milkoyan 2 years ago
Nope, front and 1/3 of the side are protected from 30mm AP rounds, while other parts of BMP-3 are resistant to 20mm and protected from 14.5mm or lower caliber weapons.
That's for the standard BMP-3. There's also an aplique armour add-on kit that ups the protection on all sides from 30mm weapons, but it will not be able to float with it.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
ok thanks this vehicle is a lot stronger then I thought
generaldeejee 2 years ago
5:25 onwards is a BMP-3 with the add-on armour.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
Not likely. With APDS ammo it is possible to penetrate the tower though, killing the crew, because Leopard doesn't have angled front armor.
Also, when we talk about tank performance combat situation always takes into count. Amreican and Israeli armor have one thing in common: they cannot take on the climate. If an M1A2 was ever to meet a BMP class tank in combat it would be up north. I.e snow, mud, trees, rocks, stumps would quickly disable M1 and the engine wouldn't last long in cold.
teutonieth 2 years ago
What lies?
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
I know that it isn't made to go head to head with tanks. The missile system is its only strength versus tanks.
WASPfreak 2 years ago
And your post is relevant to this video in what way?
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
way better then the strike standard version though you think they fatten though tracks buy now
starknight97 2 years ago
Deffinetly the best BMP ever made.
Mitkovich 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm suprised they didn't use the D-10 100mm gun from the T-54/55. Even with this massive gun, it's useless against an Abrams, and besides, and M60 crew or tank crew could kill this thing before it got in range. Still, I think it's superior to the Bradley or Stryker.
WASPfreak 2 years ago
thats because you dont understand warfare you idiot, this vehicle is not in any way ment to battle tanks 1 on 1... dumbass, but just so you are not totally out of the loop, the BMP-3's guided missiles COULD destroy the Abrams and the M-60A3
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago 2
@bittemeinrammstein i say damage the new m1a2sep not kill for sure kill the m60a3 with out era.
starknight97 1 year ago
the ATGM gives them a chance to destroy tanks, but remember It's not designed to go head to head with tanks; no Infantry Fighting Vehicle is.
thegreatchimp 2 years ago
I see no reason to insult people, bitte...WASP made a good remark.
BMP-3 is not built as a tank destroyer. 100mm cannon is low impulse, meant for lighter targets than tanks and bunkers. BMP-3 probably is able to take down an M-60, but certainly not an M1A2 from the front. from the back yeah, from the sides questionable, but from the front no way.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
30-mm BMP-3's cannon cracks Leopard's front armour
nikomo37 2 years ago 4
well the 100mm weopon is designed against other vehicals such as other IFVs and various soft skined targets. It can also use air birst shells.
They have ATGMs to deal with MBts
milkoyan 2 years ago
You're right, I forgot about ATGMs launched through the barrel.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
you dumbass thats with bigger MBT barrels!
smyers820gm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
only a fool would believe the bullshit of calling this a 100mm anybody with a brain can see it is clearly only 53mm in width. at MAXIMUM.
smyers820gm 2 years ago
Take a better look, dumbass. Compare it with 73mm cannon on BMP-1. The barrel has a bigger diameter and IT IS 100mm.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
Compare the barrel width of the coaxial 30mm cannon with the width of the main gun you can clearly see them together at 4:23 onwards.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You know this is some of the best amusement on earth for me......I was and I swear to god joking but for me its kind of like fishing...I really love fishing....I threw that comment out kind of like bait and BAM.....you gobble it right up.....LMAO
smyers820gm 2 years ago
100 mm is 10 cm, this diameter can fit in the palm of your hand, well in my hand at least. Take a ruler and measure 10 cm, that's the thickness of that cannon. It is pretty small but definitely does a shit-load of damage.
Unit987654321 2 years ago
Only 2 cm lesser than m1a1 Abrams gun
HappyRoger123 2 years ago 3
@WASPfreak this tank is used by paratroopers, it can be dropped out of the sky by an airplane to support the troops, it can swim, and fire from it. You just cant compare it to abrams. Abrams is a heavy tank, this is light tank...moron
Karabas84 1 year ago
@Karabas84
wrong, it is vehicle for infantry, paratroopers has own vehicle, they looks different.
38602 1 year ago
@WASPfreak You are stupid or what ? D10 is a HEAVY rifled barrel, with high pressure. If you put this on something like BMP3, it will broke the turret and suspension at the first shot !
2a70 is a smoothbore, lightweight, highly automatised gun that fire low pressure HE rounds and AT missiles, nothing in common exept the caliber !
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii So it's even worse than the D-10.
WASPfreak 1 year ago
@WASPfreak Not the same role, come on are you 10 years old or mental ? The D10 is a rifled high pressure gun, standard MBT armament, to destroy other tanks far away, nowadays, it's rubbish, but in HE role it's still exellent. The barrel of BMP3 don't fire AT rounds, but only HE, it's a sort of low pressure howitzer, with an ATGM capability for AT role.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@WASPfreak better. Fires HEAT rounds and far more accurate guided missiles than the D10. Weighs less, loads faster. And it's not a tankg un, it's a light cannon, like the Grom 73mm on the BMP-1. It's lethal at close range, not intended to be used at beyond 600m, that's what missiles are for.
Is it me or is a BMP-3 a light tank that carries troops? -.-
redreaper2020 1 year ago
this is realy the best infintary fighting veicile that ever seen. man this baby can damage eaven m-60 pattons,t-74 and outher mbt
umiumi12 2 years ago
the BMP-3 is the best IFV ever produced in my opinion, she is proof the Russia makes superior war machines.
redfrogftw 2 years ago 18
these vehicles are made for paradropping
to rush enemy emplacements with airborne troops + these vehicles
InRUSSIAweTRUST 2 years ago 3
actually these are IFV's... you are thinking of the BMD-3/4
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
very nice vehicle.very nice music.
greeting from Czech republic
coudyss 2 years ago 6
Похоже наметился переход машин пехоты в полутанк. Очевидно, что танк убить сложно, а легкие машины пехоты уничтожить легко. Очевидно, что потребность сегодня именно в достаточно тяжелой технике. Которую так легко из гранотамета не сшибешь. )
pws4321 2 years ago 3
а потом цикл начнется по новой:
Уазик => Грузивик с ЗУ-22 в кузове => БТР => БМП => танк с экипажем из 10 человек =))
38602 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
looks really heavy for those tracks to handle. it also looks like a nightmare to maintain. just from the appearance it looks like it weighs around 50-65,000 lbs. it really looks high maintainence.
...and our LAVs looks like it can still take it out
moelll 2 years ago
lol you come try faggot, the BMP-3 is a breeze to maintain, and your LAV would get fucked by our 100mm cannon... the LAV has thin tin armor compared to the BMP-3 IFV buddy, you will die
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago