why are soviet ifv so mediocre when compared to their western counterparts?
>soviets>protecting infantryThey exist to get squads to the front or just beyond. Survival was surplus to requirements
>>65048436Survival?
>>65048424If it works, it's good enough! Probably how they saw it
Which 60's western IFV you are comparing it to?
>>65048424I think they see their soldiers as more expendable than western armies do
>>65048424The BMP-1 and 2 are really old-ass IFV's, its not so much that they're worse but the fact they're still considered worth deploying in the 21st century without a lot of upgrades that makes them mediocreA lot of stuff from that era is still rattling around regardless of its obsolescence because 'new' costs big money
>>65048424The BMP was tthe first one that got mass produced, and they never really improved the thing because>>65048449
What's the minimum armament you'd need to wreck a BMP? An M72 LAW should work against all of them, right?
>>65048484Yeah, they die to Javelin and Gustav rounds as wellCertain 50cal should also fuck them up bad enough as well
>>65048450I’d unironically take an m113 with a pintle mounted m2 and a methed up gunner over a bmp1
>>65048449not really. There were "known issues" with it, but due to 1) Soviet war doctrine which emphasized that pretty much everything was expendable (even tanks were built for cheap so they yould be churned out by the thousands, used in a battle and never expected to make it back) and 2) There were constant internal power struggles inside the soviet system, with those in favour of the government being essentially untouchable and beyond any criticism, those who tried to hold on to their esteemed positions without rocking the boat and those who just had to make sure they met the monthly production quotas. All this reated an environment which discouraged any attempt for "individual thinking". If the design was approved by politbyro (the governing central commitee) then it was considered unassailable and to question that the design could be further improved would be to questiong the decision-making process of the government. That would get you very quickly either against the wall or on a train headed to Siberia. So you just do what you are told and keep your head down. Don't try to improve things, that's not your job. your job is to meet your monthly production quotas.
>>65048494That's an APC.
>>65048424They saw very little updating. Like the M113 got shunted aside by newer designs in the 80s, while the soviet equivalent of the Bradley or Marder is literally a BMP-1 with an ATGM and a slightly thicker hull. In 1966 a lower profile hull and an autocannon might have actually been better than western equivalents; but times change and if you don't change with them then you'll be victim to those that do.
>>65048424how many anti tank weapons can a squad sized force carry? the soviets will bring 1 more tank than that number.
>>65048492So I could technically eliminate a column of BMPs if I roll up and surprise them in a Vulcan Carrier?
>>65048484They're tinfoil armor level. Some are autocannon proof on the front only, but most are vulnerable to a regular rifle with AP ammo from the side or rear. Think STANAG 4569 level 1. You really need HMG level armor (STANAG 4569 lvl4) to get an acceptable western level of protection vs dumb artillery.Soviet BMPs are why HEDP for 40mm nade launchers exists.
>>65048509Yep it'll degrade all the optics and weapon systems in seconds and sail right through the sides, parts of the front and utterly butcher the crewMost of the armour is in the front and turret but I doubt it'd stand up to much in cannon class rounds for long
>>65048522>>65048529Amazing, and thank you. I should put that in my writefagging somewhere.
>>65048424>mediocreweird war of saying>complete and absolute horse shitBMP was dreamed up by hohol CIA double agents with the explicit purpose of killing as many of its inhabitants as possible
>>65048424>SovietYou may as well ask why retards are stupid. The soviets encouraged mediocrity.
>>65048454>its not so much that they're worseits very much that they are deeply flawed and absolute shit since their inception. Tired of pretending they were "good for their time." they deserve everything they get shat on for and more
>>65048541Lies!The biggest trick was enabling the VDV to pay $4.2mil for the air-dropped BMD with worse everything, interchangeable nothing, orphan platform where the only armour was a stack of the sales pamphlets
>>65048424I should call her
>>65048492everything dies to the Gustav with the right ammo. BMPs die to regular machine guns because of the thin armor since they needed to keep the "amphibious" joke. Which compromised the entire design due to the severe compromises they had to do to make that piece of shit float
>>65048551They made a child sized one?
>>65048424look at dem cheeks, the slut
>>65048424built on the cheap in absurd numbers'quantity has a quality all of it's own'
>>65048609This is true when the individual unit has a basic level of quality, such as the Sherman in WW2.
>>65048484
>>65048498pointless semantics with zero relation to combat capacity.
>>65048609>'quantity has a quality all of it's own'>builds half a dozen types of totally incompatible vehicles for the same roles with zero interoperability and parts commonality>on the cheapare you sure about this?
>>65048657The primary physical distinction IS their combat capability.If it can fight with the infantry you can call it an IFV with ease.If it's at best a mobile gun carrier, then you're better off calling it an APC.
>>65048657Are you retarded?
>>65048626>armored>CBRN protection>amphibious>main gun and ATGM capable of frontally penetrating contemporary enemy MBTsIt's good enough.
>>65048668>If it can fight with the infantry you can call it an IFV with ease.ok, M113 ACAV(1963) is an IFV, by design.
>>65048673lol, lmao even
>>65048679>>65048681You get one pull of the trigger. 100% accuracy.What is more likely to kill an enemy tank, 73mm HEAT projectile or 12.7mm steel core bullet?
>>65048679Until the gunner on top gets domed.It needs some modification to actually function as an IFV.
>>65048689>Until the gunner on top gets domed.that's why the gunner shield is there.>It needs some modification to actually function as an IFV.it was used as an IFV even before the gunner turret had been added, stop coping.
>>65048688>What is more likely to kill an enemy tank, 73mm HEAT projectile or 12.7mm steel core bullet?according to the soviet tests, neither.>GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds.>A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
>>65048693>that's why the gunner shield is there.Luckily, the enemy limits himself to only fighting us directly from the front.There is no imaginable situation where an IFV could require all-around protection for the gunner on top.
>>65048703>Luckily, the enemy limits himself to only fighting us directly from the front.the shield covers the gunner from all sides except for the rear. stop coping like an absolute ragged bitch.
>>65048708
>>65048714>still inventing cope scenarios because your idiotic semantic bullshit got dabbed on
>>65048718>indirect fire is a cope scenarioYep, sure is.
>>65048424different philosophy. BMPs were built for a war that never happened, designed around rapid deep battle advances, recovery is not something that factored into the design there since once the IFV is disabled the soldiers inside it would no longer be able to participate in the rapid, multi-directional advance. So from a strategic perspective they might as well be dead anyways. It's why they favored cheaper designs (so they can have more of them), bigger guns (so the BMP could operate more independently/respond to more potential threats in the way of its advance, in theory) and amphibious operation (no need to stop for rivers/worry about bridges being out, in theory), and all of these things tend to require you to reduce armor which reduces crew survivability. Like a lot of Russian advancements on Soviet designs the BMP-3 is an attempt to kludge western design features onto old Soviet models with limited success. >>65048503even the M113 was generally better protected than BMPs were, not that this is a high bar to clear. Mostly because US/NATO doctrine was more based around combined arms/armor. The Bradley actually moved towards a more independent/flexible IFV but in a very different way, for very different reasons than the BMP.
>>65048718Shrapnel in a combat engagement is imaginary cope scenarios? It doesn't even need to be an airburst munition, it can just be frag making its random merry way around from its explosion, as it so often does.
>>65048726>those ever-present north vietnamese and soviet airburst shells are totally the decisive factor that doesn't allow M113 to be an IFV under the definition that i declared>and even if a roof was added i'd invent another cope to autofellate myself with semantics about IFVs instead of manning up and admitting that i'm a subhuman braindead drolling retard
>>65048735The M113 is supposed to be an IFV?
>>65048734>Shrapnel in a combat engagement is imaginary cope scenarios?airburst shells in SEA are>t doesn't even need to be an airburst munition, it can just be frag making its random merry way around from its explosion, as it so often does.nope, not even close. what a disingenous lying scumbag you are, hanging onto the last straw just to prop up your senseless bullshit,
>>65048745So an indirect mortar shell which hits somewhere in the vicinity is completely unthinkable?
>>65048743did you miss >ok, M113 ACAV(1963) is an IFV, by design.because you were dropped on your head too many times or was it because your mom shat you out from the wrong hole?>According to Ralph Zumbro the ARVN had modified the M113s to function as "amphibious light tanks" and not as the battle taxis U.S. designers had intended. Instead of an armored personnel carrier, the ARVN used the carried infantry as extra "dismountable soldiers" in "an oversized tank crew". These "ACAV" sets were eventually adapted to U.S. Army M113s with the arrival of the army's conventional forces in 1965. The vehicles continued to operate in the role of a light tank and reconnaissance vehicle, and not as designed in theater. The U.S. Army soon came out with their own ACAV version.https://reference.org/facts/M113_armored_personnel_carrier/N3aekwcp
>>65048735>and even if a roof was addedAnd armor included and firepower increased to make it capable of effectively fighting with the infantry.
This guy is very mad.
>>65048749it wouldn't threaten M113 any more so than a BMP would, so i don't see your point. are you saying that BMP is unfit to be called an IFV? i agree.
>>65048757Oh, my mistake, I thought you were arguing for the BMP. No, I don't think it's well suited as an IFV.
>>65048752>to make it capable of effectively fighting with the infantry.>effectivelyanother weasel word here. just how much of a lying loser are you?>hurr durr there are later modifications of the M113 therefore ACAV cannot be an IFV just because.ok i guess there were no IFVs before Bradley since they were all worse. M2 is the only true IFV in existence.
>>65048761then we're mostly in agreement and there's no point in arguing further.
>>65048668To be fair, the 60s BMP-1 is arguably bringing less fight than an M113 with an M2.What does the 60s bmp bring? A 73mm only loaded with HEAT rounds that are basically incapable of killing infantry without a direct hit due to minimal fragmentation and a high explosive load comparable to an offensive hand grenade? I guess the PKT is pretty nice.
>>65048774>What does the 60s bmp bring?CBRN protection and slightly thicker frontal armor. BMP supposedly could withstand full caliber 20mm AP while M113 could resist .50 cal AP from several hundred feet distance.that's about it.
>>65048765>another weasel word here. just how much of a lying loser are you?I'm sorry you're wrong and upset about it.>ok i guess there were no IFVs before Bradley since they were all worse. M2 is the only true IFV in existence.BMPs were quite capable of fighting effectively with the infantry. The combination of armored firepower significantly improved the vehicle's effectiveness in battle. Being capable of frontal penetration of MBTs even with the main gun was an obvious bonus too.>>65048774A 73mm HEAT round into your window, foxhole or bunker slit will do enough.
>>65048774>I guess the PKT is pretty nice.That makes me think, what's the smallest vehicle you could devise to make a tank coaxial gun with a big box of ammo really mobile? Something like the MALP from Stargate but with and M240 or PKT on it?Probably not practical, more of a funny idea.
>>65048786>I'm sorry you're wrongi'm not sorry that you're incapable of arguing except through double standards, lying and goalpost moving. i hope you die as miserably as every occupant of a BMP did in combat ever since it was built.>BMPs were quite capable of fighting effectively with the infantry.lol, lmao even
>>65048787A motorcycle of course.
>>65048790Oh yeah, that's much better than my idea.
>>65048786>A 73mm HEAT round into your window, foxhole or bunker slit will do enough.If they can even hit it I suppose. There's a reason why they ditched it for an autocannon and upgraded the old BMP1s with one as well
>>65048796Ah and yet BMP-3 has both.
>>65048774>A 73mm only loaded with HEAT rounds that are basically incapable of killing infantry without a direct hit due to minimal fragmentation and a high explosive load comparable to an offensive hand grenade?Yeah, that sounds pretty good. The SADF seemed pretty happy with the Ratel 60's gun for lobbing HE from a light vehicle in support of infantry.
>>65048814because sovets doubled down on their retardation, literally>What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“.When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug.>The tests took place against two worn-out T-72 tanks and once and for all have shown the dominance of the 30mm gun. While neither of the guns was able to knock out any of the tanks completely(something the Zarnitsa supporters claimed to be ossible), the 30mm gun caused significant external damage by estroying optics, external fuel tanks and one small 30mm shell even jammed one of the turrets. With these results, GRAU was forced to concede defeat. 30mm Object 675 would finally be accepted in service later on as the BMP-2. As a last act of defiance however, GRAU representatives decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
>>65048732>even the M113 was generally better protected than BMPs wereNo it's not, they're essentially the same.>M113 - Armor - 5083 aluminum alloy 28–44 millimeters (1.1–1.7 in)[4]>BMP - Armor - Armor 6–33 mm (0.24–1.30 in) welded rolled steel
>>65048814>100mm with actual HE rounds and the ability to strike with accuracyVs>73mm with only HEAT (1960s) and threability to occasionally strike a 2 square meter target occasionally at 700mAh yes, very comparable. You got me copper
>>65048796>If they can even hit it I suppose.Well they're going to close in to a range where they will. You can count on the Soviets to do that, if anything.
>>65048826>60mm mortarEither way you slice it the mortar has more HE filler in a pure HE shell and frag in the frag shell. I can only imagine why they were satisfied with a larger casualty radius
>>65048673>main gun and ATGM capable of frontally penetrating contemporary enemy MBTsYou have to hit before you can penetrate.
>>65048774>What does the 60s bmp bring? A 73mm only loaded with HEAT rounds24 HEAT rounds (capable of taking out Cold War era tanks) and 16 HE/FRAG rounds for use against infantry along with the .30 machine gun, both in a fully protected turret. That's far better than a .50 in an unprotected pintle mount and still better than a .50 with a belatedly installed gunshield.
>>65048842>closing the distance with NATO tanks aggressively>in a BMPwhat's a worse fate, this or being a soviet submarine sailor?
>>65048869Hope you're not within 500 meters of one if that's what you're relying on.
>>65048872>and 16 HE/FRAG roundsthat don't fit into the autloader and are stored inside the hull, where the commander has to get them from to manually load. impressiev.meanwhile an M113 can just put a 40mm AGL with HEDP on top and pen BMP armor at any distance without once in a blue moon hit probability.
>>65048881>>65048872>zigger posting fan fiction art for his vatnik power fantasyOh i am laffin.
>>65048786BMP cannot even carry and deploy soldiers older than 9 years old effectively, let alone fight with them.
>>65048551>>65048596I read somewhere that they made the inside so cramped, unergonomic and uncomfortable so that the soldiers inside would be so angry and pissed off at being in there, that the battlefield outside with flying bullets and explosions would be seen as preferable to being inside the BMP, so they wouldn’t cower inside when it’s time to be dropped off.
>>65048890Conveniently that's the average height of the illiterate Soviet peasant meant to operate them.
>>65048889>retarded faggot can't even discuss historical weapons without bringing up the Current Thing
>>65048884>>65048889>running dog capitalist lackeys unable to provide a valid responseI graciously accept your surrender, továrišč.
>>65048898>historical weaponsthey were contemporary weapons with tons of propaganda like your shitty images being produced about them as of just 3 years ago.
>>65048872you couldn't hit yet alone penetrate shit, proof of you being a braidnead faggot zigger. The gun is hilarously bad that you need to go nearly point blankthere's no armor on it. it's literal civial car, but without windows and tracks instead of tires. Bet modern civilian cars have better quality metal structure than bmp1and even if there's no enemy fire, this fucking shit causes concussion to it's own troop. It behaves like a fucking ship durning serious storm. It was not an uncommon sight to see recruits strugglign to stand on their feet after leaving the hatch. It was nicknamed "pig". It was also hot, loud and crampy inside, meanign troops leaving this were already exhausted especially durning hot summerI would take any II war ifv-type vehicle over bmp1 and 2
>>65048903there's nothing to provide a valid response to in any of your posts, with each being more low effort and shitty than the last.
>>65048881>sees a Super Sherman>shits itself>outside 500m
>>65048898>>65048903>provide arguemnt for a well known factsoh boy, after entire war in urkaien we're back to pre-war delusionposting
>>65048921>muh ukraineIt's a 60-year-old vehicle, for fuck's sake. Why are you trying to use a modern war as some kind of gotcha for it?
>>65048909>II war ifv-type vehicle over bmp1 and 2You'll be glad to know no such thing exists, so you'll be going on foot. Good luck.
>>65048935>a modern war>Ukrainethe newest military shit in there is 40 years old, with majority of it being BMP's age.lay off the copium reserves for the remainder of the war, pidor.
>>65048943>the newest military shit in there is 40 years old,And now you've left reality entirely.
>>65048941>You'll be glad to know no such thing existsyeah, there doesn't exist a bigger piece of shit vehicle than the BMP family, i agree.
>>65048946>civilian commercial drones are my military revolution>ignore that most armored vehicles in Ukraine are M113s, Humvees, mt-lbs and BMPs.
