Why not the BMP-3?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- Despite the fact that the BMP-3 was a quite advanced vehicle for its time, and it still is a decent IFV today, there are still a notable amount of drawbacks, which answer the question of “Why not the BMP-3?” These drawbacks have led to criticism from military analysts and the crews who actually operate it. And in today’s video, I want to tell you more about these drawbacks.
So hello and welcome to the Bobi and Tanks UA-cam channel and enjoy this video.
Thank you for another good video. I think I missed a couple, so I promise to go back now and fix this issue 😊
Haha thank you for the support :)
That dismount procedure. I was mech infantry a long time ago and I always wondered how you got out of this thing gracefully.
The answer, you don't.
My favorite part about Soviet army is when they adopted gunner thermal imaging system, NATO already moved to CITV
*L O L*
Soviet?
Russian. Their first tank to feature thermal imaging was command version of T-80U which recieved them in '92. And because these thermals were both expensive, and kinda sucked, they didn't use many of them outside T-80UK and bunch of test vehicles. Propagation of thermal imaging only happened in early 2000s, after Russia aquired Caterine-C thermals from Thales, same as ones used in Polish PT-91 and Chech T-72M4CZ. They bought entire damn production line!
Yes, early T-90 did not have thermals, and its ability to detect tank-sized targets was rated at 1100m. US gen 1 thermals could detect tanks at 5 km, though accurate identification past 3km was hindered by still relatively low resolution.
Well Thermals are a American invention that's still securely guarded so no wonder Russia is behind in development.
Also NATO was running around with Battle Rifles up to the late 60s while Russians were using Assault Rifles since late 40s.
When they revealed the T-72 the collective West shat it's pants and rushed to develop the M1 Abrams and it took them 10 years of non stop production to match the already old T-72 that was getting replaced by T-80s.
@@ANukeWithLegs T-80 was not replacing T-72, it was meant to replace T-64. T-64 and T-80 were created for Guard units, intended for breakthrough operations. T-72 was designed as a simplier, more affordable equivalent for all other units in need of tanks, but not necessarily top-shelf stuff.
The BMP-3 is a light tank prototype rolled into an mass-produced IFV, hence the weird layout.
It looks like you don't have separate keys set up for your different weapons in War Thunder. That makes your firepower and ability to situationally use it, way less efficient. Consider going into your ground vehicle settings and binding a key to the different weapon types. Great vid btw, love your channel.
@@Basedpilledandtradmaxxed Thanks for the support. And I haven‘t really thought of keybinding them each, thanks for the advice!
7:20 "barrel not on par with western counterpart"... yeah, we know. They don't have something like a bmp3 XD
Great video
To add a bit, reportedly 2A72 has issues operating 3UBR8 and 3UBR10, which don't generate enough recoil to circle the cannon reliably. This neccesitates relying on 3UBR6, despite better types being technically available.
Thanks for adding this!
The interesting thing is that when these are exported, the foreign nations tend not to use them as IFVs. Instead as light tanks. The UAE used them for this purpose during their intervention in Yemen.
The Indonesian marines use them as amphibious light tanks. And as far as I’m aware, neither nation really uses them to carry troops.
As light tanks, they seem to preform remarkably well from what I’ve seen of the foreign users opinions. I can imagine the Indonesian marines find it extremely useful in the thick tropical jungles and rivers of their nation
The only nation I know uses it as an IFV is the South Koreans.
As far as ifvs go. All ifvs are vulnerable. None of them are standing up to big hits from autocannons or atgms. Way more ifvs have been lost in Ukraine than tanks. But they are necessary
Thanks for adding this. I guess it's because of the 100mm cannon + the 30mm autocannon, the BMP-3 has more firepower than other IFVs usually have. That might be a reason why they use it as light tanks.
And while researching, I read that the frontal armor of the BMP-3 is unusually good as well (for an IFV at least).
@@bobiwt Well yeah the BMP 3 is good. I mean I has its issues and very bizarre design decisions that I just don’t understand. Like the doors you mentioned. And the fact that it kinda has almost an unneeded amount of firepower? Like does an IFV really need a 30mm auto cannon. And a 100mm gun that can launch atgms? This seems a little overboard to me but I’m obviously no expert
@@Rokaize well Puma can take hits of Kornet ATGM to the face and move on.
And the design decision with the weird rear doors is due to the engine placement. this was neccesary to achieve equalised weight distribution and positive bouyancy for the amphibous capability.
Ths was also bought in a trade off for low armor protection.
A BMP-3 miight take a NATO 20mm to the face but vs modern NATO 30mm APFSDS i would not be so sure. They can penetrate between 110-130mm of armored steel on up to 1000m.
BMP-3´s front is rated save vs russian 30mm APDS, wich have a much lower penetrative capabilty.
@@Rokaize Bro, BMP-3 and the BTR-80 both have designs I cannon wrap my head around. We've seen the BMP-3. The BTR-80 is an APC and has the doors for the infantry to dismount on the SIDES instead of the rear. Quite obviously, the infantry gets shot from there most likely. Makes no sense tbh. If anyone can explain the wisdom behind it, that would be cool.
About the firepower, this is what I heard from another viewer who commented under another video of mine: The BMP-3's armament was basically a combination of the BMP-1 and the BMP-2. The BMP-1's 73mm cannon was... shit (there's many reasons for that). The bmp-2 was complained about by crews because it lacked the effective direct fire capabilities the 73mm 2a28 offered, specifically with HE Frag rounds.
So they created the BMP-3, combining both weapons and solving the issue. But then well, there are the other issues I talk about in the video.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Like I said, I’m not entirely sure the reasons for the door layout. What you explained makes sense. I tend not to criticize these vehicles because the designers usually have good reasons for decisions
As far as the puma. There’s no evidence it can withstand modern atgms from the front. That’s just not true. It can resist 14.5 and mines and stuff. But huge ATGM missiles? Not at all. No evidence for it whatsoever
Я честно не понимаю откуда автор берет данные о ненадежности БМП
И первое что хотелось бы увидеть, так это источники на "экспертов". Потому что брошенных в поле бредли и амк 10 с поломанной трансмиссией много, а вот бпм я не в идел
Great vid!
Thanks!
Indeed the Video was very enjoyable as well as historically educating.
Yet I didn't see much negative downsides with the BMP-3 in War Thunder
As its my Number 1 Best tank over the course of multiple years of me playing War Thunder.
Even take it up against Modern MBT's where its still devastating when left unchecked.
Really wish we had more BMP-3 models in game.
Haha well, realism in video games must have its limits. We want realism, but not so much that it becomes a headache.
And about the BMP-3 models: We have the 2S38 in the USSR tech tree. It's a premium. It's known as a variant of the BMP-3, likely because it was built upon its chassis.
@@bobiwt I know,we also have Khrizantema-S
We do have the BMP-3M yet to see
If you only look at the negatives of soviet/russian equipment, you will miss the positives. Yes the equipment is naff in construction, and sub optimal in capabilities. But observation you can get some really good things from them.
Such as the BMP-3 and BMD-4 turret. If you de-shitify the bad bits, and slap some ATGM launchers on the sides of the turret, and some enlarging, you have an IFV that can be a light field artillery and fortification buster where artillery might just be too long, or, it's just good to have the big gun on hand in an IFV.
EDIT: because i accidentally sent this before finishing here's the last bit meant to be here. Yes i know the point of this vid is looking at the negatives. But EVERYONE does that. Let's look at the positives instead of shitting on everything. However that gets clicks and keeping everyone coping and seething.
Interesting video, but 8:30
Read problems TOW missiles have in Ukraine, hence why famous 2x Bradley vs T-90M duel happened and only autocannons were used.
Shit happens
Most anti-tank missiles have minimal range of 150-300 meters. It is probably not seen as an issue because, bar for fringe situation, inside of minimal range of ATGMs is covered by infantry with their hand-held AT weapons.
@@kireta21 Ukrainians talk about TOW issues, not just the distance. IMHO, could be crappy batch
the fact that the soviets thought that the elevated engine deck dismount position was a good idea absolutely baffles me. if I could redesign the bmp-3 I'd definitely give it more of a western ifv style of a front mounted engine, and having a much larger and quicker to deploy troop compartment on the back. this would not only make the vehicle a bit smaller, it'd also make it much safer (cuz you no longer have to worry about the armored coffin that is the dismount position taking you to space once the engine under it blows up. as for the turret I'd make it more angular like the bmd4 turret, as well as make it larger to fit more advanced commander and gunner fire controll systems and what not. the barrel would be a bit thickened, and it's lower side armor would recieve side skirts for additional protection against small caliber HEAT rounds found on man portable AT weapons and light tanks.
although this is just sticking with the idea of the original turret design to not stray too far away from the real BMP-3.
but if I can also change the turret up a lot, I'd remove the 100mm gun completely, only keeping the 30mm autocannon, giving the 30mm cannon sabot rounds to better deal with more modern lightly armoured vehicles. and in place of the 100mm gun, 2 ATGMs would be mounted on the side of the turret (possibly another two on the other side of the turret), like the CV9040 bill and the Bradley series IFVs.
so, a BMP-2/3?
@@thatonesub yeah it'd sort of be that lmao (edit: didn't realize that at first)
@@democracy_enjoyer if i remeber correctly the engine im BMP 3 is on the back because it was built on chassis of experimental TANK not ifv ao they did what they could to make it into ifv , also i think 100mm is kind of practical since it gives BMP an ability to engage fortifications
You are basically describing a ZBD-04
@@akriegguardsman zbd is a ripoff of the bmp-3m, also it's not exactly just a bmp-3m, i also suggested an enlarged turret, although i forgot to say that the turret would have been taller so that it can have more than 0 gun depression
keep up with video making good info good editing good comentary
Thanks man, I appreciate it!
BMP-3: decent turret, absolutely terrible dismount compartment.
It's a BMD layout on HGH. That engine deck is straight up weird as hell.
At least the front hull can eat some 30mm APDS when the fuel tank is full.
In the best case
@@bobiwt let's just ignore (/s) the fact that autocannon APFSDS was adopted for a reason
keep up the good work, dont the chinese use the turreton one of their ifv's?
Thanks!
Yes, China uses a turret derived from the BMP-3 on one of their military vehicles. The ZBD-04 (also known as the Type 04) is a Chinese IFV which has a very similar turret to the BMP-3. It even has the 100mm gun, 30mm autocannon, and a 7.62mm machine gun, which the BMP-3 has as well.